Cache Submission Guidelines

[+Haggis Hunter]

I expect that I may get a few opinions from other members? That is fine, after all that is what the forum is for. But I am looking for a definite answer from Groundspeak.

 

My question is - Are the guidelines as suggested and just guidelines to assist reviewers and cachers alike or are they rules?

 

I have seen posted by a reviewer that said, and I quote 'Parts of the Guidelines are in fact Rules' and yet whilst doing a quick search on this part of the forums I have found another reviewer say that the guidelines are flexible.

 

To me a guideline is just advice, and is fully flexible dependant on circumstances. A rule however is a rule and must not be broken.

 

If the first reviewer is correct and that parts of the guidelines are rules, can I request that they are updated to state which ones are and which ones aren't?

I have read through the guidelines today, and the only reference to the word 'rule' is on cache saturation. But this is just used as in a figure of speech and highlights that it is just a guideline.

 

There does appear to be confusion (dare I say it) with reviewers. So how can cache setters abide by the guidelines when we have reviewers with different opinions on what they are?

[+StarBrand]

I strongly suspect there is more to this story............however.....

 

My opinion - they are guidelines and do have a small amount of flexability. Some areas more than others.

 

If we all make certain that our hides fit easily within the guidelines then we never have to worry about so much as a flex. That is what I have always tried to do. Make certain my hides fit all the guidelines as though they are rules. I've made mistakes but have always been willing to make corrections.

 

I'm not a reviewer but I have a pretty good understanding of the guidelines. I don't try to push the envelope.

 

I do understand why some reviewers will take a slightly different stance than another - and that is the fact that they are guidelines and do have some room for interpretation.

[+Renegade Knight]

Rules or Guidelines are in the eye of the reviewer.

 

The better the reviewer understands the reason behind the guidelines and the more willing they are to make decisions based on their understanding the more flexability they will use in looking at caches for approval. Then they are guidelines.

 

The less understanding and the less willingness to implement that understanding the more they are rules.

[+Haggis Hunter]

I strongly suspect there is more to this story............however.....

There is more to the story, but I do not wish to name on here, especially when I just want a simple answer.

 

The rest of the story is in fact in open forum, and I do not have any caches that have been refused publication. In case that is what you are referring to?

 

There is confusion with what the guidelines are, and I would just like to see if that confusion can be cleared up.

 

For the record I to adhere to the guidelines and have in the past made mistakes and changed things to meet the guidelines.

[+Yamar]

Rules or Guidelines are in the eye of the reviewer.

 

Which is where most painful feelings come from by new cache placers: the guidelines read as if you can make a case, but in actuality the case is decided upon by the reviewers. Different reviewers have different levels of conformance strictness.

 

If you're placing a new cache: I'd advise sticking tightly to the guidelines as if they are rules and you'll be less likely to be surprised by a rejection. Then again, if you're just throwing a film can under a lamppost then you probably won't be too set back emotionally anyway.

[+Miragee]

We have a wonderful Reviewer here who definitely looks at the "Guidelines" as guidelines. There seems to be a lot of flexibility here.

 

That said, for a new cacher, placing their first caches, I would still suggest following the "Guidelines" very closely. That makes for less work by the Reviewer, which is a good thing.

[+Michael]

We have a wonderful Reviewer here who definitely looks at the "Guidelines" as guidelines. There seems to be a lot of flexibility here.

 

That said, for a new cacher, placing their first caches, I would still suggest following the "Guidelines" very closely. That makes for less work by the Reviewer, which is a good thing.

 

To answer the OP's question they are Guidelines. Some are more flexible than others. Until we gets the bugs out of the ReviewerBot 2.0 Code name G.A.R.S. We are using humans for the job. Every one of them is great and does a good job. They are all human and look at things differently. We use guidelines because more caches get published than if we had hard fast rules. As humans they sometimes make a mistake and all will admit to that. If you feel that your cache should have been published after the reviewer say no then write appeals @ Geocaching.com and give Groundspeak the information Be sure to include the GC# of the cache and all the needed information. We will look it over and if we agree with you the cache will be published. If we agree with the reviewer then it will not. Many times there is a middle ground that a change to the cache page will make every one happy. Its not a perfect system but its much better than making one rule fit everywhere in the world. The reviewers do they best they can and Groundspeak is very happy to have their assistance.

[+Rattlebars]

The "guidelines" are very poorly written. They appear to be written by someone in the ninth grade who has a 2.5 grade point average. What follows is from an old thread I started in '05. You can read the entire thread (here).

 

Quite frankly, if they [Groundspeak] employed someone who could write above the sophomore in high school level AND if they dropped all the politically correct happy speak in the guidelines, they could easily SHORTEN them by more than 30% - EASY. One word means one thing in one part of the guidelines and something completely different in another... the guidelines look like what they very likely are - a collection of clauses that evolved over some time - sloppy and confusing. They need a concise and coldly logical re-write.

 

'nuff said?

[+Haggis Hunter]

Thank you Michael. You have answered my question.

[+erik88l-r]

The OP asked,

My question is - Are the guidelines as suggested and just guidelines to assist reviewers and cachers alike or are they rules?

 

Michael did a great job of explaining, but to elaborate slightly - you'll find the majority of the guidelines have the word "may" or "should" in them. Only a small number have the stronger "must" or even "are not permitted".

 

Obviously the second category is open to less interpretation and flexibility than the first, which are true guidelines. Having said that, even a guideline is meant to be adhered to, or it ceases to have any value in guiding people. They're not just suggestions on how the sport or game should be played, they've evolved over time to satisfy the needs of all involved in the game, and will continue to evolve.

 

~erik~

[+sTeamTraen]

The "guidelines" are very poorly written. They appear to be written by someone in the ninth grade who has a 2.5 grade point average.

 

It's quite normal for any document which is reworked regularly, to lose a little "punch" over time. I suspect the 2.5GPA is about the best you can expect from any group of people who spend 7-8 years, with almost nobody present for the whole of that time, working on a document which is, by definition, never finished.

 

Would the guidelines be easier to read if I, or you, or Jeremy, went into a room with no phone, closed the door, sat down and wrote a whole new set from scratch? Very likely. Would a bunch of stuff get forgotten and a whole new box of cans of worms get introduced? For sure. Does it matter if the guidelines would not pass muster as an amendment to the US Constitution? I would say "probably not".

Edited February 21, 2008 by sTeamTraen

[+Haggis Hunter]

The OP asked,

My question is - Are the guidelines as suggested and just guidelines to assist reviewers and cachers alike or are they rules?

 

Michael did a great job of explaining, but to elaborate slightly - you'll find the majority of the guidelines have the word "may" or "should" in them. Only a small number have the stronger "must" or even "are not permitted".

 

Obviously the second category is open to less interpretation and flexibility than the first, which are true guidelines. Having said that, even a guideline is meant to be adhered to, or it ceases to have any value in guiding people. They're not just suggestions on how the sport or game should be played, they've evolved over time to satisfy the needs of all involved in the game, and will continue to evolve.

 

~erik~

erik thank you for your explanation. I fully agree that even guidelines should be adhered to, but so are rules. Guidelines can be flexible where as rules shouldn't be. As I believe you have explained.

 

I am surprised to see that you have used the word 'should' as the more flexible guide. I have been told by a reviewer that Groundspeak have said that the word 'should' is to be treated as the word 'must' making any sentence with the word 'should' in it a rule. Is this true or not? If so, surely the guidelines must be re-written to change the wording?

[+erik88l-r]

I am surprised to see that you have used the word 'should' as the more flexible guide. I have been told by a reviewer that Groundspeak have said that the word 'should' is to be treated as the word 'must' making any sentence with the word 'should' in it a rule. Is this true or not? If so, surely the guidelines must be re-written to change the wording?

 

Keep in mind that geocaching, be it a game or a sport, is not a competitive one like cricket or football, and so there is no "rule book" as such that all must adhere to or be penalized. The guidelines evolve over time and are subject to some flexibility and interpretation. As Michael wrote, the cache reviewers are human and you will find some differences between them. There are also regional differences. In my area "should" is pronounced as "oughta". In Scotland it might be "thou shalt" or something stronger.

 

~erik~

[+sTeamTraen]

I am surprised to see that you have used the word 'should' as the more flexible guide. I have been told by a reviewer that Groundspeak have said that the word 'should' is to be treated as the word 'must' making any sentence with the word 'should' in it a rule. Is this true or not? If so, surely the guidelines must be re-written to change the wording?

 

My interpretation is that "should" can be read as, roughly, "must, unless the reviewer exercises his/her discretion". If you put "must" then you effectively reduce the reviewers to robots. As a very wise man (Oscar Wilde, I believe) said, "Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men". Reviewers are pretty wise people, on the whole. (This is not an opinion about non-reviewers.)

 

I think a lot of people expect too much of the guidelines. They have not been put together by a panel of Nobel prize winners, analysing every possible situation in advance. Generally, they reflect Groundspeak's view of what is important in the game, with a few nods to security (enclose that in as many "air quotes" as you like) and property rights. And I'm pretty sure that one of the criteria for selecting site volunteers is a certain degree of convergence between their view of the game and Groundspeak's, which should make implementing the guidelines less intellectually stressful.

[+FireRef]

My biggest problem with this concept of guidelines/rules is that it leaves the people in charge the flexibility to interpret them however they want to. Assuming that they will be fair and equitable, this would be fine. Assuming they have some kind of agenda, or personal reasons for the decisions they make, this is a major problem.

 

The most reasonable assumption is that the truth falls somewhere in between - hopefully more toward the former. And the problem with this is that you never know when the rules will be changed to fit some specific person's agenda, for whatever reasons - political, personal, or any other ones not considered fair and equatable.

 

Having worked in a situation where this kind of application of "flexible" rules was rather infuriating, I completely understand the OP's irritation at a lack of clear, simple rules that are followed/enforced consistently, fairly, and regularly.

 

You can't play a game without rules. You can't enforce those rules inconsistently, or you irritate the players. This is speaking as a ref. Flexible rules lead to confusion, irritation, anger, etc. And you can't just pick and choose which rules to decide to follow or not follow. Saying some are more "important" or less "flexible" just leads to more problems. If a little bump is let go in basketball, why not just say "I can have as many points as I want... the rules say I have to put the ball in the basket, but I say I just get 3000 points."

 

Guidelines leave too much flexibility in interpretation, which leads to irritation, and with very little means of recourse (TPTB back the reviewers 99% of the time... rarely do they override... they say they do more often, but that never comes up - only the ones where they are denied and people complain to the masses). If this is how its supposed to be, make it that way. Do it right. If people don't like it they will complain, and if they're right, change the rule. But don't bend it every time you "feel like it", but not bend it for everyone the same way all the time.

Edited February 21, 2008 by FireRef

[+sTeamTraen]

And the problem with this is that you never know when the rules will be changed to fit some specific person's agenda, for whatever reasons - political, personal, or any other ones not considered fair and equatable.

Do you have any examples of a reviewer "changing the rules" in this way? After 7+ years and 600,000+ caches published, there ought to be some well-documented examples of blatantly capricious reviewer behaviour. But I'm still waiting to see any.

 

You can't play a game without rules. You can't enforce those rules inconsistently, or you irritate the players. This is speaking as a ref.

When you make a call in a game, and some of the players don't agree with it, do you stop the game for half an hour and poll everyone in the crowd? Or do you invite the players to accept that your decision is made in good faith, even if they are questioning your parentage, your susceptibility to bribery, and your optician's competence?

 

(TPTB back the reviewers 99% of the time... rarely do they override... they say they do more often, but that never comes up - only the ones where they are denied and people complain to the masses).

Again, do you have any evidence for that 99% claim? Preferably better evidence than this guy?

[+FireRef]

And the problem with this is that you never know when the rules will be changed to fit some specific person's agenda, for whatever reasons - political, personal, or any other ones not considered fair and equatable.

Do you have any examples of a reviewer "changing the rules" in this way? After 7+ years and 600,000+ caches published, there ought to be some well-documented examples of blatantly capricious reviewer behaviour. But I'm still waiting to see any.

 

You can't play a game without rules. You can't enforce those rules inconsistently, or you irritate the players. This is speaking as a ref.

When you make a call in a game, and some of the players don't agree with it, do you stop the game for half an hour and poll everyone in the crowd? Or do you invite the players to accept that your decision is made in good faith, even if they are questioning your parentage, your susceptibility to bribery, and your optician's competence?

 

(TPTB back the reviewers 99% of the time... rarely do they override... they say they do more often, but that never comes up - only the ones where they are denied and people complain to the masses).

Again, do you have any evidence for that 99% claim? Preferably better evidence than this guy?

 

I do not stop a game and poll the players, crowd, or anyone else. I know the rules, and I enforce/administer them. There are defined rules. They are enforced. When refs choose to not enforce the rules as written (and interpreted by the people in charge), they lessen the game. As in reviewers "loosely" interpreting rules.

 

As for TPTB backing the reviewers, how many people do you see complaining about what they consider poor judgement calls by reviewers/moderators? How many people do you see complaining, and then saying "Hey - they changed their minds!"? Pretty heavily tilted to the left. And saying that people don't complain when they get their way isn't valid - lots of times people are willing to mention that they received a change of decision on issues they feel important enough to bring up. You'll notice that RARELY happens here. We just have to live with the decisions. (or change to another game.. which is the people who happen to like the rules talking - no reason not to improve the game even if a number of people feel that way.)

 

And... as I mentioned in the other thread on a similar topic... why does everyone's argument who is for the status quo say "If you don't like it, leave..."? If everyone who didn't like specific things left, there wouldn't be a game. However, if people make suggestions, and they are considered (instead of being ignored because one person says "This is how we play it"), and change the game for the better, that makes it better for everyone.

Edited February 22, 2008 by FireRef

[+TrailGators]

Rules or Guidelines are in the eye of the reviewer.

 

The better the reviewer understands the reason behind the guidelines and the more willing they are to make decisions based on their understanding the more flexability they will use in looking at caches for approval. Then they are guidelines.

 

The less understanding and the less willingness to implement that understanding the more they are rules.

That's a good way to put it. I was just going to add that the guidelines are supposed to reflect common sense that thoughtful cachers would follow without guidelines.

[+sTeamTraen]

I do not stop a game and poll the players, crowd, or anyone else. I know the rules, and I enforce/administer them. There are defined rules. They are enforced. When refs choose to not enforce the rules as written (and interpreted by the people in charge), they lessen the game. As in reviewers "loosely" interpreting rules.

Given that you (perfectly reasonably) can't take the time to explain every decision in excruciating detail, how can a player who disagrees with a call tell the difference between "FireRef didn't see the play quite the way I did" and "FireRef is interpreting the rules loosely"? They're just two ways to describe the same situation, but if it's an important game and the player has put their heart into it, they will naturally tend to think it's the second of these.

 

And... as I mentioned in the other thread on a similar topic... why does everyone's argument who is for the status quo say "If you don't like it, leave..."?

I don't know. I don't remember saying that. I just asked if you had any evidence to back up your claims.

[+FireRef]

I do not stop a game and poll the players, crowd, or anyone else. I know the rules, and I enforce/administer them. There are defined rules. They are enforced. When refs choose to not enforce the rules as written (and interpreted by the people in charge), they lessen the game. As in reviewers "loosely" interpreting rules.

Given that you (perfectly reasonably) can't take the time to explain every decision in excruciating detail, how can a player who disagrees with a call tell the difference between "FireRef didn't see the play quite the way I did" and "FireRef is interpreting the rules loosely"? They're just two ways to describe the same situation, but if it's an important game and the player has put their heart into it, they will naturally tend to think it's the second of these.

 

And... as I mentioned in the other thread on a similar topic... why does everyone's argument who is for the status quo say "If you don't like it, leave..."?

I don't know. I don't remember saying that. I just asked if you had any evidence to back up your claims.

 

The only evidence I have is common sense. TPTB doesn't keep stats (or at the very least doesn't release them) on how many appeals have come through, and how many decisions have been upheld or reversed. It would be a very interesting read - either it supports me, or it doesn't (in which case, I would drop the issue). Saying it rarely happens, or happens all the time, isn't stats - it's a guess from the reviewers who have said it.

 

As for calls, I don't interpret the rules loosely - rules are rules. I call what I see, as the rules state. Some people don't like this style of officiating, but I have the backing of the rules, so I feel it is the right one. Again, how could you justify "Well, I just didn't want to call that - you're right... the rule says "X", but I just didn't feel like calling it that way"? I would rather justify "That's what the rule says".

[Keystone]

As for calls, I don't interpret the rules loosely - rules are rules. I call what I see, as the rules state. Some people don't like this style of officiating, but I have the backing of the rules, so I feel it is the right one.

Tonight I'll be listing a cache that a bunch of people are going to enjoy finding this weekend. It's on a trail running along the south bank of a scenic creek. Problem is, a cache that's part of a large group for "time release" on the day of an event needs to be submitted at least 10 days in advance. This one was submitted six days in advance. Worse yet, there is a cache just 508 feet away, on the other side of the wide, swift-running stream. The saturation guideline says 528 feet is the minimum spacing.

 

I'll be publishing this cache because it's the right thing to do, even though I've turned down other caches that are 520 feet apart. I grant exceptions like this every day of the week. You don't hear about these in the forums. In fact, I am not aware of ANY guideline to which there has not been an exception made... it's just that some guidelines have more discretion built into them, like the cache saturation guideline.

 

But if I were FireRef, I would be compelled to deny this nice cache along the creek trail, because it was submitted late and it's too close to the other cache. THAT would likely prompt a forum thread and/or an appeal to Groundspeak that the Ref was being too strict. If it happened over and over again, Groundspeak would likely decide to have another reviewer for this area, and I'd be a Fired Ref.

 

This is geocaching, folks. It's not baseball or golf with their thick rulebooks. Now go hide some caches and the reviewers will be happy to work with you to get them published within the parameters of the listing guidelines.

[+sTeamTraen]

Some people don't like this style of officiating

I feel we are getting closer to the heart of the matter. Your style of officiating is surely right for your sport (which is it, BTW?). But the scope for imagination of a thousand or more active cachers in a review territory, who can submit anything from a nano cache to a mega-event, is a substantially more complex problem than what 10/12/18/22 players can get up to on a court/rink/park/field.

[+FireRef]

The problem that I see with this is, although I am sure a large number of people feel that those exceptions are reasonable under the circumstances, by the specific rules (or guidelines) they are not allowed. Instead of allowing exceptions, why not rewrite the rules to cover those things. Then the rules support your decisions. I am sure there have been caches which have been denied because they were within that 10 day window, and because of the 528 feet rule. Those people have a legitimate gripe for having been denied, when these exceptions have been made.

 

Rules have to apply to everyone. Otherwise there's no point in having them.

[+sTeamTraen]

Rules have to apply to everyone. Otherwise there's no point in having them.

 

Rules are fine if you're the government, or some other de facto monopoly authority, like an on-field referee. Indeed, as a referee, you are expected to apply rules on the field.

 

But, unless you have another role in your sport, your job as a referee basically involves turning up, talking to the captains, refereeing the game, writing up the match report, and going home. (I apologise for the inevitable oversimplification here.) You probably don't have to schedule the tournament, book the stadium, obtain sponsorship, check tickets, prevent people from holding up signs advertising the wrong brand of cola, make sure there's enough hot water for the players to have a shower afterwards, or clean the restrooms. But Groundspeak expects its volunteers to cover the geocaching equivalent of all of those.

 

I would bet that for most of those issues apart from the actual refereeing of the game, most sports' governing bodies - which, like Groundspeak, are typically commercially-run operations who are competing with others for your leisure time and dollars, and thus have to keep things "fun" for the majority - most of whom get to "enjoy" rules from 9-5 every day - have guidelines, not rules.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I think the way it works is that they are guidlines, but they are used as rules

[+FireRef]

I think the way it works is that they are guidlines, but they are used as rules

 

But they're not used as rules - they're used as guidelines, which are so flexible that there are a number of circumstances where people get burned because one person's interpretation of how flexible things should be differs from another.

 

By allowing some flexibility with some people and some situations, others don't get the same consideration because it's different people or different circumstances or whatever other excuse people have.

 

I don't get to go 40 in a 25mph zone because I am a special person - i have to go the same speed as everyone else - or if I don't, I risk getting in trouble. If the rules allowed anyone to go any speed, than we would have chaos. By allowing police to decide whether or not to ticket someone for speeding, we are allowing people exeptions that the law doesn't allow. By allowing people to place caches in violation of the rules (guidelines), we are allowing exceptions that the rules don't allow.

 

You can't play a game without rules. Making exceptions lessens the game - change the rules if needed, but don't keep granting exceptions.

[Jeremy]

By allowing police to decide whether or not to ticket someone for speeding, we are allowing people exeptions that the law doesn't allow.

 

Have you never received a warning before?

[Alan White]

By allowing police to decide whether or not to ticket someone for speeding, we are allowing people exeptions that the law doesn't allow.

I don't know about the police in Erie, PA but here in the UK we do allow the police to decide whether to ticket someone for speeding. The police are, for offences like that, empowered and expected to exercise their experience and discretion and decide whether your speeding requires education, a ticket, or a court appearance. The fact of the breach of the law isn't (usually) in question: the result of it is.

[+Kealia]

I am sure there have been caches which have been denied because they were within that 10 day window, and because of the 528 feet rule. Those people have a legitimate gripe for having been denied, when these exceptions have been made.

 

Rules have to apply to everyone. Otherwise there's no point in having them.

 

Actually, no. If they had a legitimate gripe about the denial and things needed to be changed, the guidelines would be changed - you don't make exceptions for everybody or they are not exceptions.

 

ex·cep·tion

–noun

1. the act of excepting or the fact of being excepted

2. something excepted; an instance or case not conforming to the general rule

 

Every rule has an exception. You can't write a rule and not have a ouotlying case that would be an exception.

 

This RASH has enough clarity around the guidelines. I don't see a need for anything more.

[+FireRef]

By allowing police to decide whether or not to ticket someone for speeding, we are allowing people exeptions that the law doesn't allow.

 

Have you never received a warning before?

 

Yes, once - and I would have had no problem paying the ticket if I had been given one, because I broke the law. Honestly (and i'm probably in the minority on this one), i feel the officer didn't do his job by deciding to let me have just a warning. I didn't ask for a warning or give excuses - I was honest - I was speeding, and I knew it. He chose to break the "law" by not punishing me.

 

Selective enforcement is an excuse to allow police to not enforce laws as written - not a good policy, as they can let friends off, etc. And if there is a reason to have an exception, as far as I'm concerned, there's good enough reason to change the law.

[Jeremy]

It sounds like a difference in philosophy then. In that case there really isn't much to chat about. You would rather the site be inflexible while we consider local "experts," in our case reviewers, to help make judgement calls about caches. There's even a way to appeal the decision up the chain if a cache placement doesn't meet the guidelines and the reviewer denies it.

[+FireRef]

If the review process for caches works as well as the review process for moderators and the decisions they make, then I don't see it as very valuable. Having had an issue where I was told I would receive contact by a member of your administration above Michael, because I disagreed with his decision, I never did. Jenn said she would be in contact to discuss it, and never was - she was always "too busy" when I called, and never returned my calls.

 

Hopefully the appeals process for cache placements runs much smoother.

[+Kealia]

So what's the real beef here?

 

You've gone from tlaking about guidelines on this site, to rules of basketballs, to laws enforceable by LEO, and then back to a moderator-escalated issue that you feel was never resolved.

 

Is this sour grapes or is there one specific point here?

 

And I agree with Jeremey (and yourself) that you are likely in the minority to want the guidelines to become rules that are not flexible.

[+ReadyOrNot]

So what's the real beef here?

 

You've gone from tlaking about guidelines on this site, to rules of basketballs, to laws enforceable by LEO, and then back to a moderator-escalated issue that you feel was never resolved.

 

Is this sour grapes or is there one specific point here?

 

And I agree with Jeremey (and yourself) that you are likely in the minority to want the guidelines to become rules that are not flexible.

 

A guidelines basically becomes a rule when enforced. But it is a rule that only applied to the instance in which it is applied.

[+FireRef]

So what's the real beef here?

 

You've gone from tlaking about guidelines on this site, to rules of basketballs, to laws enforceable by LEO, and then back to a moderator-escalated issue that you feel was never resolved.

 

Is this sour grapes or is there one specific point here?

 

And I agree with Jeremey (and yourself) that you are likely in the minority to want the guidelines to become rules that are not flexible.

 

Consistency.

That would be the one point.

[+Lil Devil]

I think they *are* consistently applied as "guidelines"

 

You really don't want them consistently applied as "rules"

[+tozainamboku]

They look like guidelines to me. Take Cache Saturation for example

 

Cache Saturation

 

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a “Power Trail”), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache.

 

The cache saturation guideline applies to all physical stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, as well as any other stages entered as “stages of a multicache.” The guideline does NOT apply to event caches, earthcaches, grandfathered virtual and webcam caches, stages of multicaches or puzzle caches entered as “question to answer” or “reference point,” or to any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache. Within a single multicache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between waypoints.

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site

Pretty explicit that the .10 miles is a rule of thumb.

 

This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline

Doesn't hurt to repeat this.

 

the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

It looks like the reviewers are being asked to make a judgment as to when there are too many caches in an area and when a nearby cache might cause confusion when searching for another cache. There are probably many factors: land managers expressing concerns about the impact of too many caches in their park, accuracy of GPS and how it may be affected by terrain, type of cache hides, terrain features that make caches that are close as the crow flies be further away when you're actually on the ground.

 

don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can.

Looks like the reviewers can deny cache that are more that 528 feet apart if they feel the area is being saturated.

 

It might be nice to know all the factors a reviewer looks at to determine if an area is saturated or if the cache might cause confusion when someone is searching for another. I suspect that there is no official list as it may vary depending on the area.

[+JohnnyVegas]

By allowing police to decide whether or not to ticket someone for speeding, we are allowing people exeptions that the law doesn't allow.

I don't know about the police in Erie, PA but here in the UK we do allow the police to decide whether to ticket someone for speeding. The police are, for offences like that, empowered and expected to exercise their experience and discretion and decide whether your speeding requires education, a ticket, or a court appearance. The fact of the breach of the law isn't (usually) in question: the result of it is.

But in the UK a person is guilty untill proven innocent. Here in the US we are presumed innocent untill found guilty. So in the UK when you are stoped you are guilty so you have to get a ticket.

[Keystone]

So what's the real beef here?

 

You've gone from tlaking about guidelines on this site, to rules of basketballs, to laws enforceable by LEO, and then back to a moderator-escalated issue that you feel was never resolved.

 

Is this sour grapes or is there one specific point here?

 

And I agree with Jeremey (and yourself) that you are likely in the minority to want the guidelines to become rules that are not flexible.

I think the one specific point here is, "don't get your forum posting rights suspended, have that decision upheld by a Groundspeak employee, and then insist on a further upper level appeal during a week when all the senior level Groundspeak employees are visiting with geocachers in Europe."

[Alan White]

But in the UK a person is guilty untill proven innocent.

Here is not the place but I really do have to correct that. Despite the best efforts of successive recent governments the principle of innocent until proven guilty still applies in the UK. If stopped for speeding you always have the option of going to court rather than accepting the punishment at the roadside.

[+Prime Suspect]

But in the UK a person is guilty untill proven innocent.

Here is not the place but I really do have to correct that. Despite the best efforts of successive recent governments the principle of innocent until proven guilty still applies in the UK. If stopped for speeding you always have the option of going to court rather than accepting the punishment at the roadside.

You're confusing the Presumption of Guilt with the Right to a Trial. You can be presumed to be guilty, but still have the right to a trial.