Absolutely Frustrated

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

I recently got rejuvenated into cache'ing and one of the local reviewers has let the hot air out of my balloon. So... this is a RANT.... note: I'm not looking for sympathy and I'm not looking to get attacked. Just frustrated.

 

So, I posted here over 2 years ago about not having enough cache's in my area and had hidden one. I took a bit of a hiatus from caching but have returned and thought "hey, I should hide another one"... well, its getting to the point of me just tossing up my hands and throwing out a few explitives.

 

Having anxiety disorder, there are only a few places I can go to alone (well, with the dog.. just not another human) and these are places, OMG, that involve taking my dog out. I thought "hey, I'll make some specifically for dog owners" and "hey, I'll make them easy so people who keep their dogs on leashes don't have to worry about the leash destroying the trees in the woods"....

 

well - I'm just frustrated.

 

I have submitted 2 listings in the last 48 hours consecutively... the same park.

 

The first one a reviewer said "no, its too close to another cache. 500 feet is an arbitrary number if the caches are noticably different ie one at the top of the cliff and another at the bottom".... well, my cache said "sit down" and the other said "watch your footing and carry a walking stick".... 300 feet combined with those clues ... well, *I* thought it was obvious there was a difference, but no dice on the reviewers side.

 

Soooo I go back out and moved it. Now, the reviewer listed cache's in the same park... and this park is COVERED. Its not a very big park so 4 caches pretty much fills it. I got the cache 501 feet from one and 400 feet from another. Reviewer denies it again. This time, telling me what I already told him... its like he didn't bother reading my notes anyway. He saw it, did the coords and said "no" without actually reading anything other than the coordinates. I posted in the note the distance I was from the "under 500 foot" cache... I "knew" it and asked for him to look beyond it because of the size of the park and the GLARING differences written on each cache page (sitting versus hiking, being in a tree or in the woods versus "do not leave the trail at all").

 

To top it off, he told me I "had" to put in my home coords or zip so he would know how well I could maintain the cache. If I go there and I'm placing it, wouldn't I take care of it? Just because I live near it... that doesn't mean I will. There are people who live 30-40 miles from their caches and they maintain it... what does it matter? Am I required to live within a certain distance from a place in order to place there? I didn't remember reading that. Did I overlook it?

 

Yes, I understand he has the right to deny it based on the distance, but considering it was him that told me "its an arbitrary number if...." Yes, I am complaining because I am frustrated. Yes, people will probably just write back and say "well, its in the rules" but... for cripes sake. While I know what he did was "within reviewers right"... I have a feeling I know why we don't have as many cache's here as other places do. I for one will not be replacing this one I've been trying to hide. There is no point. We have small parks where animals are permitted. The parks are "all filled up" with caches and there are no room for others. If I can't go there with my dog or my kids, chances are I won't hide a cache there.

 

This lil double experience of rigid replies really has taken the "yay" out of my hiding new caches. I think I'll end up being one of those silent cachers who finds 1 or 2 a year and doesn't bother hiding them.

 

I really should not have checked my email before bed. BLAH!

 

/rant

[+ICHTHYS]

I am not a reviewer, but...

 

Normally caches must be at least 500 ft apart. The only time this may be broken is if there is a big difference between the caches. But this difference is not the fact that one is up a tree and one you sit for.

 

The difference would if the cache were 300 ft apart but a river kept them apart.

 

The issue is that they don't want too many caches concentrated into a small area. They want you to have to travel at least 500 feet in a straight line to get to the next cache.

 

But if a river divides them or one is at the top of a cliff and another is 250ft away but at the bottom so you can't go straight to it (at least without special equipment) then it would be ok.

 

Don't get too discouraged, it just sounds like that park may be about full.

 

Also, you need to have home coords so they know you will be close. 30-40 miles is close, you can get to the cache to work on it in a half hour or so. Some people do actually try to hide caches in places they live very far away from and couldn't reasonably do maintenance if needed.

 

Don't take it personally, these are rules applied to all hiders.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The particulars as you've laid them out sound like you want special exemption from the Guidelines.

 

Unless geocachers simply can't get from one cache to the other (i.e. a fence, cliff or creek lies between them) without traveling 528' or farther you're probably out of luck on the distance issue.

 

Perhaps because of your stated anxiety disorder you want to be able to hide caches in places that are comfortable to you.

 

Let me suggest that you contact the owners of some of the existing caches in the park, explain that this is a comfortable place for you to go and do cache maintenance, and ask if they would consider moving or even archiving their cache to make room for you to hide one.

 

My bet is that they will.

 

Glad that you are back from hiatus, have fun!

[+Sapience Trek]

I think the best thing you can do is make sure you load up your GPS with any caches nearby and then you'll know before you submit whether you have a proximity issue or not. Then you don't have to go through the frustration of writing up a cache, submitting it, and then getting it pushed back because of a distance problem.

 

Both your caches are 300 ft or less from other existing caches. It appears that the park you are trying to put your cache into is pretty much saturated.

 

As far as entering your home coordinates, most reviewers will request this because there have in the past been a large number of vacation caches placed. When these are not maintained, they become geo-litter and doesn't make us look very good to land managers. The reviewer really has no idea if you live 5 miles away or 500 unless you enter in your home coordinates or at least a zip code of the town you live in.

[Keystone]

It's interesting that you personalize this experience as being the work of a reviewer trying to kill your fun. To the contrary, we volunteer to review caches primarily because we like publishing as many of them as possible, and in working with people to fix issues with the ones that don't meet the guidelines. Remember that reviewers are geocachers too. I open every new cache page thinking "cool, a new cache," not "I wonder how I can stop this one." I looked at your pages and I saw standard form letters that explained the cache saturation guideline to you, not notes that said "I hate you and your little dog, too." We are happy to grant exceptions for caches 510 feet apart, or 300 feet apart but separated by a steep cliff or a raging river... but not at the distances presented in your situation.

 

So, my advice to you is as follows:

 

1. Calm down. You are not under attack or being picked on.

2. READ the listing guidelines. I mean really read them, don't just check the box.

3. Accept the fact that your chosen park is already full of caches -- it doesn't need more to get people to visit.

4. Find another spot, and hide a cache that complies with the listing guidelines.

 

If you do these things, your reviewer will be *delighted* to publish your new cache.

[+Kryten]

Stick at it, the distraction and purpose provided by a cache hunt can lead you further and further from those lovely comfort zones. Some, including me, have used it as a way to break free.

[+SixDogTeam]

 

As Humphrey Bogart used to say "Don't you know when you're being kidded?"

 

YOU'VE BEEN PUNKED!!!

 

The OP is probably rolling on the floor laughing about this. You guys, he's obviously NOT serious--he's just baiting you!!

 

And you fell for it!!! Give me a break!

 

Edited March 14, 2008 by SixDogTeam

[+quadcity007]

I can not believe what I'm hearing. Basically, everyone in this forum is knocking the poster for not adhering to a rule which is more a reference than anything else.

 

But, let's try and look at the larger picture here. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun sport/hobby/choose your word. Heck, most of the posters have pictures of themselves which illustrate the fact that geocaching is "down" time. It's not work, it's fun.

 

I see no problem with the poster placing his cache within 500 ft of another cache. The rule is grey - at best.

 

Chill out people.

 

[+Planet]

Sounds to me like the park is already saturated with caches. That's not your reveiwer's fault. Reviewers will send basic form letters for different situations (too close to another cache, too near an active railroad, that park has a geocaching policy etc...), so don't think they are singling you out. Surely there must be more open space around?

You might want to attend some local events and make some geocaching friends to go with you and your dog on hikes, if you don't want to go alone. I know I have a lot more friends now than before I started geocaching!

[+Kit Fox]

I can not believe what I'm hearing. Basically, everyone in this forum is knocking the poster for not adhering to a rule which is more a reference than anything else.

 

Perhaps you looked at other cachers trying to help him as "knocking him." I saw nothing but selfless cachers trying to help and encourage him.

 

But, let's try and look at the larger picture here. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun sport/hobby/choose your word.

 

The supposed to be fun "angle" doesn't apply when cachers can't be bothered with adhering to the guidelines.

 

I see no problem with the poster placing his cache within 500 ft of another cache. The rule is grey - at best.

 

Chill out people.

 

 

And your not a reviewer so it really doesn't matter how you see it. The supposed to be fun game is quite fun when you abide by the guidelines, not how you "feel."

[4wheelin_fool]

not notes that said "I hate you and your little dog, too." We are happy

Just keep repeating "There's no place like home","There's no place like home""There's no place like home"

[+ZSandmann]

There's no place like 30 23.000 90 15.000, there's no place like 30 23.000 90 15.000, there's no place like 30 23.000 90 15.000!

 

[+Rockin Roddy]

I can not believe what I'm hearing. Basically, everyone in this forum is knocking the poster for not adhering to a rule which is more a reference than anything else.

 

But, let's try and look at the larger picture here. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun sport/hobby/choose your word. Heck, most of the posters have pictures of themselves which illustrate the fact that geocaching is "down" time. It's not work, it's fun.

 

I see no problem with the poster placing his cache within 500 ft of another cache. The rule is grey - at best.

 

Chill out people.

 

 

Great advice...from someone who hasn't had the chance to understand WHY the rules are in place to start with! Maybe you should try to understand what the rules are for before telling all of us old salts why they should be overlooked??

[+Rockin Roddy]

My take on this is that the OP tried TWICE to place a cache only to be turned down for being too close to other caches. If the OP went out READY for the task, the OP wouldn't have this problem. ASKING for a "break" from the guidelines simply because the OP doesn't want to find a place without a cache doesn't cut it IMHO. If everyone thought this way, there'd surely be no need for guidelines as they wouldn't be adhered to anyway!

 

My advice...as has been said, load the other caches into your GPS and then find a place that's within the guidelines. If the park is overly saturated and doesn't need another cache, I'm SURE there are more parks or such places for a cache. Look around and do some google mapping...do your homework! I had the very same problem when I first started placing caches and now have a LOT of them (funny, couldn't find a spot at first....), don't give up and don't expect shortcuts to be given you.

 

I wonder though...if you have this problem with going places, how do you cache? Could it be that SDT is correct that this is a troll post??

[+NikkiPoooo]

I think the OP's point was that he thinks there should be an exemption from the distance rule because he wants to place a cache specifically for people who can't leave the trail. Imagine having limited mobility but having great parks nearby with trails you could still use, and then finding that all caches placed in those parks are off the trails and not accessible to you and that there's no chance of anyone ever placing accessible caches because those parks are saturated and the reviewers won't make an exception.

[Keystone]

I think the OP's point was that he thinks there should be an exemption from the distance rule because he wants to place a cache specifically for people who can't leave the trail. Imagine having limited mobility but having great parks nearby with trails you could still use, and then finding that all caches placed in those parks are off the trails and not accessible to you and that there's no chance of anyone ever placing accessible caches because those parks are saturated and the reviewers won't make an exception.

If that was his point, it wasn't very well articulated, so sorry if I missed it.

 

Following this logic, may I also list ammo box caches that are 400 feet into the woods, but are blocked by a micro in the parking lot? Some days I wish I could, but it's first come, first served. It astounds me how many people find a nice park and then hide a cache that doesn't take you past the asphalt.

[+NikkiPoooo]

If that was his point, it wasn't very well articulated, so sorry if I missed it.

 

He didn't say that he was placing for handicapped people, but he did say "I thought 'hey, I'll make some specifically for dog owners' and 'hey, I'll make them easy so people who keep their dogs on leashes don't have to worry about the leash destroying the trees in the woods'" and that can be shortened to "people who can't leave the trail"

 

Following this logic, may I also list ammo box caches that are 400 feet into the woods, but are blocked by a micro in the parking lot? Some days I wish I could, but it's first come, first served. It astounds me how many people find a nice park and then hide a cache that doesn't take you past the asphalt.

 

I'm still a noob, so forgive me if I'm wrong but I thought that point behind not placing caches near each other was because we don't want people looking for one cache in X location and finding a completely different cache that was placed 75 feet away instead.

 

If that's the case then shouldn't it be a dead giveaway that the level 3 terrain cache someone is looking for isn't going to be in a parking lot, and conversely if someone is looking for a level 1 terrain cache that says "sit down" in the description they wouldn't bother bushwacking 200 feet into the woods adjacent to the lot?

 

I'm not saying that it should always be allowable, but if an accessible park is saturated with inaccessible caches then someone looking to place an accessible cache should be given a little leeway, especially if the description clearly states that the cache is accessible. It's pretty unfair to restrict those who can't go off trail to LPCs and parking lots when there are accessible parks and trails available to them just because someone who can go off the trail got there first.

[+StarBrand]

I'm sorry but I am having a hard time being very sympathetic here to the OP cause. The guidelines were created to protect the activity itself. They are not written in stone and have evolved a bit but they still need to be followed. While many of the guidelines are quite flexible, there has to be a good reason beyond "because my idea is better than cacher x's hide" or just "because I want the flexability".

 

Make sure your hides fit easily into the guidelines and you will have no problems with review. Just that simple. Read that page, understand it - follow it.

[+JohnnyVegas]

I can not believe what I'm hearing. Basically, everyone in this forum is knocking the poster for not adhering to a rule which is more a reference than anything else.

 

But, let's try and look at the larger picture here. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun sport/hobby/choose your word. Heck, most of the posters have pictures of themselves which illustrate the fact that geocaching is "down" time. It's not work, it's fun.

 

I see no problem with the poster placing his cache within 500 ft of another cache. The rule is grey - at best.

 

Chill out people.

 

Quadsity-When you have been a member long enough you will understand the caches that have less than 1/10 of a mile between them just do not get published, unless there is some like a river between them.

There are lots of guidlines re cache placment.

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

Some of you got it, some of you didn't. I'm not a troll. I'm not "punking" anyone. I read my email and I was frustrated.

 

I'm a female (not a he) that suffers from borderline agoraphobia and severe anxiety disorder. I use caching to keep me from locking myself away in the house... Some people understand the problem and others don't - its fine. For me to randomly "go find" a new place isn't as easy as you would think. It can take me up to 2 hours just to get into the car and drive to Walmart. Every outing is more than an adventures. Its an ordeal. So... I wanted to start somewhere that I felt comfortable.

 

The problem I find is the places I AM comfortable with going are saturated with caches that are clearly marked as "having to go for a hike" or "look in a tree"... The premise of what I am/was trying to do was make it so a person can go out there and enjoy the day but not have to deviate from the trail. I find it hard to believe that I am the only person who has problems going off trail be it for children, a dog on a leash, physical handicap, mental disability, etc. I was hoping to allow these restricted cachers a place to go beyond the parking lot but not to a point where its going to be frustrating that you spent your time and gas driving out to a place and it end up that you are standing on the outside looking in(to the woods). Its not that I think my cache is better than the others out there. I found a few of them and they are nice caches.... but unless I"m having a good day or do not have my pooch with me... there is no way I could have gotten to them.

 

If those of you who said I blamed the reviewer would have read, I said the reviewer had every right to turn it down based on the guidelines. The frustrating part is that I was told it was "arbitrary" but then he makes it very clear his example isn't an example - its a specific situation. Seriously, its flat here. No cliffs. Definitely no cliffs in the park I was trying to hide in. Why bring up an example that does not apply? Why bother telling someone that its an arbitrary number and exceptions are sometimes made if the terrain is different? If you don't tell people that exceptions are made, then perhaps exceptions would not be requested.

 

To prove what I was told, this is the FIRST contact this reviewer made with me on the first cache placement. I had not spoke with him previously or seen any notes from him. He VOLUNTEERED this information to me:

 

"As is noted in the guidelines, we 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."

 

and

 

"Please note that exceptions to the proximity guideline can be made if the nature of terrain between the two caches makes their close proximity reasonable (for example, one cache at the base of a cliff and another at the top of it). "

 

I assumed that terrain refers to the ground you walk on or touch. Considering we are asked to gauge the "terrain" of our cache's when placing, I thought this is what Groundspeak was referring to as well. Sooooo... marking my caches clearly as "immediately on the trail, do not leave the trail" and someone else marking theirs as grab a walking stick, watch your footing, and look out for poison ivy..... I made the assumption that these were obviously different terrains which would be for my request to make exception to the arbitrary number.... I understand that 2 caches in the woods both listed as 3 terrain and both saying "hiking required" or "get a walking stick" and are 200 feet apart can be confused.

 

So, while I don't blame the reviewer for doing his job, I do suggest that in the future that reviewers are not offering up information that is not pertinent to the cache.

 

I am not sure why I feel as if I need to explain myself to everyone. I read my email and I felt frustrated at not having any luck in getting my cache's approved. But, I will say that I'm not a troll. I'm a real person and this is a real message. I'm not trying to fool anyone. Shame a person can't post without being accused of something underhanded or malicious.

 

OH.. and for those of you who insinuate that I do not read ... that I just click the boxes and ignore the rules: I had hunted what I thought was all the cache's in the park. The one that I was too close to was not one I had found before the reviewer pointed it out. I accept that as my mistake and chalk it up to me not knowing how to fully search the site. I put in the zip code and chose "show me close caches" but unfortunately, this one was not in the grouping but a few down. Once I clicked 2 that were not in the area, I took the search as being complete for that area. I'll accept suggestions on how to better search the geocaching.com site but I don't appreciate being told I'm a mindless bot who could care less about rules.

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

Quadsity-When you have been a member long enough you will understand the caches that have less than 1/10 of a mile between them just do not get published, unless there is some like a river between them.

There are lots of guidlines re cache placment.

 

If the examples are so specific as to what makes going less than .1 mile acceptable, why do they not just list them rather than telling people "well, its an arbitrary number based on terrain" ? And personally, if two people place cache's on either side of a river, it can still be confused if neither cache makes mention as to "what side" of the river the cache is on. Of course, this excludes REALLY wide rivers because if you are that far off, then you need to buy a new GPS

[+Quiggle]

I see no problem with the poster placing his cache within 500 ft of another cache. The rule is grey - at best.

Without the facts, you don't have the ability to form a solid opinion. 500 feet is a gross understatement unless you're counting the distance each cache is from another and adding that number together. The caches are too close, plain and simple. If they were closer to 500 feet (each!) from any other cache, you might have grounds for an exception.

 

If the park is full, the park is full. No need to shoehorn additional caches in there under the guideline requirement; the fact that it's a small park isn't valid enough reason for more caches, I'd be willing to say it's a valid reason for less.

 

P.S. To the OP: if you think it's frustrating as a hider, it's frustrating as a reviewer as well. We'd rather publish caches that meet the guidelines than have to say NO. When the guidelines are followed, it makes everyone's life a lot easier, and happier based on the tone of this thread.

Edited March 14, 2008 by Quiggle

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

Quiggle, I presume you are a reviewer then - do you tell people who have placed too close to another that the guideline of .1 miles is an arbitrary number and exceptions are made? Just curious if this is part of the cookie cutter answer... if it is, perhaps it should be re-thought.

[+ReadyOrNot]

Quiggle, I presume you are a reviewer then - do you tell people who have placed too close to another that the guideline of .1 miles is an arbitrary number and exceptions are made? Just curious if this is part of the cookie cutter answer... if it is, perhaps it should be re-thought.

 

The guideline says .1 mile. Its my understanding that exceptions can be made, but rarely ever are. There would need to be a really good reason, in my opinion, for an exception to be made to the guideline.

 

Why should you be allowed an exception to the rule?

[+Too Tall John]

I put in the zip code and chose "show me close caches" but unfortunately, this one was not in the grouping but a few down. Once I clicked 2 that were not in the area, I took the search as being complete for that area. I'll accept suggestions on how to better search the geocaching.com site...

What I would suggest is entering coordinates where you'd like to place a cache on the "Searching for Caches" page. The 2nd dropdown menu offers coordinates as a search option. Perform your search, all caches will be listed with a distance from the coords you entered. Anything closer than .1 miles is too close.

 

You can do this in the field by loading in all caches from the area into your GPSr and wandering until you are at least .1 miles from all caches.

 

Good luck!

If the examples are so specific as to what makes going less than .1 mile acceptable, why do they not just list them rather than telling people "well, its an arbitrary number based on terrain" ?

The number is arbitrary, yes, but it is the guideline. They needed to pick a number, .1 miles (528 feet) is that number. It has nothing to do with terrain. Exceptions, however, will be made based on extreme terrain between caches. That is, if because of terrain you are unable to go directly between two caches, an exception will be made. If you can go straight line between two caches without having to climb barbed wire or risk being swept downstream or falling off a cliff this exception is not likely to be made.

 

I hope you can find a place to hide a cache. If you'd like help, contact me, I'll do what I can. I like playing with maps...

[+Renegade Knight]

...500 feet is an arbitrary number if the caches are noticably different ie one at the top of the cliff and another at the bottom".... ...

 

That's the classic example of when the 528' can be relaxed. The cache was approvable.

[+StarBrand]

Funny that you cannot recognize language directly from the guidelines as being such.

 

The reviewer simply quoted exactly the text found in the guidelines that you say you have read. That is the only example worthy of being quoted.

 

Sigh - too close is too close. The reviewer did his/her job.

[+Zolgar]

Quiggle, I presume you are a reviewer then - do you tell people who have placed too close to another that the guideline of .1 miles is an arbitrary number and exceptions are made? Just curious if this is part of the cookie cutter answer... if it is, perhaps it should be re-thought.

 

The guideline says .1 mile. Its my understanding that exceptions can be made, but rarely ever are. There would need to be a really good reason, in my opinion, for an exception to be made to the guideline.

 

Why should you be allowed an exception to the rule?

 

Her point on that statement is that the reviewer said to her that the .1 mile is an arbitrary number and that exceptions can be made.

 

Her interpretation of that statement is a logical one, honestly. Incorrect, perhaps. But logical when viewed from her angle.

 

>.> And for the OP:

what you need to do is get yourself a friend who will grab you by the ear and drag you in to some new weird place. Like I do to my friend Roo.

[+Quiggle]

Quiggle, I presume you are a reviewer then - do you tell people who have placed too close to another that the guideline of .1 miles is an arbitrary number and exceptions are made? Just curious if this is part of the cookie cutter answer... if it is, perhaps it should be re-thought.

Because of the amount of submissions we receive, we do use some templates for many things. Exceptions are made, but I don't know of any exceptions that are made at the distances I saw on your cache pages. Those are too close, regardless of whether or not one is on the trail and the other isn't.

 

...500 feet is an arbitrary number if the caches are noticably different ie one at the top of the cliff and another at the bottom".... ...

 

That's the classic example of when the 528' can be relaxed. The cache was approvable.

What cache?

[+Renegade Knight]

...

What cache?

From the OP

I have submitted 2 listings in the last 48 hours consecutively... the same park

I'm assuming it's the first of the 2 since the rejection of the first described in my quote resulted in it being moved and submitted again. I don't have reviewer access to look at the OP's pending caches to say more than that. Edited March 14, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

Quiggle, I presume you are a reviewer then - do you tell people who have placed too close to another that the guideline of .1 miles is an arbitrary number and exceptions are made? Just curious if this is part of the cookie cutter answer... if it is, perhaps it should be re-thought.

 

The guideline says .1 mile. Its my understanding that exceptions can be made, but rarely ever are. There would need to be a really good reason, in my opinion, for an exception to be made to the guideline.

 

Why should you be allowed an exception to the rule?

 

The guidelines given in the forums by the reviewer for when exceptions can and are made often these two examples:

 

One on top of a cliff and one on the bottom and one on one side of a river and one on the other. The reason as I understand it is that while the distance isn't 528' as the crow flies, the reality is you have a good hike to get from one spot to the other.

 

If the 528' and cliff are the only issue with the cache, it was approvable.

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

AGAIN - I think some of you are MISSING THE POINT

 

I know of the rule. I did not know of the cache the reviewer told me about because I am not 100% familiar with searching the cache website. THAT I take responsiblity for. Which, thank you for the suggestions on how to better search before placing.

 

HOWEVER the reviewer told me exceptions are made and spoke of terrain. My definition of terrain is not "large objects that make it impossible to get from one cache to another" The defiition of terrain refers to the surface of the land. I probably would not even be having this problem had I knew of the first cache mine was placed too close to. The reviewer offered up the information without me asking. It is not like I placed it close knowing it was too close and begged for exemption.

 

Finally, if few exceptions are made, why would a reviewer tell me about exceptions? Why not just say "sorry, .1 miles" and leave it at that? THIS IS WHAT FRUSTRATES ME. If its a rule, its a rule. If the reviewer is willing to bend on a few feet, so be it - but don't tell the person hiding that its not really a "rule", its an arbitrary number and lead them to believe that they can have caches closer if you can prove the terrain is different. Do not volunteer information that is not necessary. If its close, finish reviewing the cache and find out if there is a huge cliff between the two. If there is, approve it - if there isn't, deny with premise of the distance rule and let it stand at that.

[+Quiggle]

I'm assuming it's the first of the 2 since the rejection of the first described in my quote resulted in it being moved and submitted again. I don't have reviewer access to look at the OP's pending caches to say more than that.

I've underlined the problem with your statement that the cache was "approvable" since you don't have any facts. Without the facts, everything is an assumption.

 

I'll agree that 500 feet is borderline "approvable", assuming GPS error and signal quality, etc., but what if a cache is 100 feet? 200 feet? 300 feet? 400 feet?

[+ReadyOrNot]

I know of the rule. I did not know of the cache the reviewer told me about because I am not 100% familiar with searching the cache website. THAT I take responsiblity for. Which, thank you for the suggestions on how to better search before placing.

Thanks for that clarification. It might be helpful to have the website warn at submission if another cache is within 528 feet. Maybe:

 

"A cache is within 528 feet of the cache you are submitting. Guidelines say blah blah blah. Submitting this cache may result in the request being rejected. Are you sure you want to submit this cache?"

 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the final location of a puzzle cache can also cause a cache submission to be rejected and there's no way of a person knowing that except going through the review process or checking with a reviewer before placing the cache.

[+Reviewer Jones]

If the 528' and cliff are the only issue with the cache, it was approvable.

 

It may surprise you to learn that Illinois is amazingly devoid of cliffs.

 

Hi, Carbon. I was your reviewer on your two submissions. I have to say I really hated having to send you back to work on them, especially the second time. But while exceptions are made, very rarely are they made for caches as close as the ones you had submitted.

 

And yes, what you got back the first time was a template. I review caches in places where there actually are cliffs (even some in Illinois) so I have to be prepared for that eventuality too.

 

The fact is, it's not a rule, it's a guideline. It gets bent all the time (lucky guideline). But bending it to 500 feet is far different from bending it to 315 feet like your second submission or 208 feet as with your first submission. In fact, a quick survey of caches in that area will show you there's not a lot of bend room left.

 

The great thing is you've got a lot of wonderful cachers in that area. It was suggested earlier that you contact one of them about archiving one of their older caches in favor of your new one. I can't speak for them, but having known a few of them I know they'd like to find a new cache or two.

 

Happy Caching!

[+Quiggle]

HOWEVER the reviewer told me exceptions are made and spoke of terrain. My definition of terrain is not "large objects that make it impossible to get from one cache to another" The defiition of terrain refers to the surface of the land. I probably would not even be having this problem had I knew of the first cache mine was placed too close to. The reviewer offered up the information without me asking. It is not like I placed it close knowing it was too close and begged for exemption.

Your frustration is understood. I'd use this as a learning experience, as it seems as though you have learned from the various posts here. A slight hill and a bend in the trail don't make the terrain enough to justify having the caches closer than 528', nor does having one cache on the trail and the other off. It seems you understand this now, so hopefully you can find a spot to rehide at least one of your caches to make it something the reviewer can publish.

 

Finally, if few exceptions are made, why would a reviewer tell me about exceptions? Why not just say "sorry, .1 miles" and leave it at that? THIS IS WHAT FRUSTRATES ME. If its a rule, its a rule. If the reviewer is willing to bend on a few feet, so be it - but don't tell the person hiding that its not really a "rule", its an arbitrary number and lead them to believe that they can have caches closer if you can prove the terrain is different. Do not volunteer information that is not necessary. If its close, finish reviewing the cache and find out if there is a huge cliff between the two. If there is, approve it - if there isn't, deny with premise of the distance rule and let it stand at that.

Exceptions are made, depending on the situation. This is why the system doesn't automatically just kick it back if it's 527'. I've made exceptions for 500 feet, and even one for 250 feet because the situation called for it. In your situations, you need to get them farther apart as they're way too close. Since the park is full, there may be a spot for you to hide one of them, and take the other home for another day and another park.

[+tozainamboku]

Most people don't seem to understand the rationale for the saturation rule. They think this rule is to prevent confusion or someone finding the wrong cache if two caches were placed close to one another. This is part of the reason but as the the guidelines state "the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area". Geocaching.com has decide to limit the number of caches in any one area for several reasons. One is to deal with land managers who might have allowed geocaching in there park until they discover that there are 50 caches in their 100 acre park. Geocaching.com can show these land managers that there an upper limit to the number of caches and the reviewer will enforce even tighter restrictions if the land managers require it. Another issue to to make geocachers put a bit more thought into placing geocaches. If there were no limit, geocachers could place a 35mm film can in every lamppost in the mall parking lot. Go to the mall, find 100 caches. With the saturation rule, your likely not to get more than 1 or 2 caches except for a very large mall. At a larger mall, reviewers could in fact disallow additional caches, particular placed by a cacher that has already placed some caches there, using the "power trail" clause: "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."

 

So when do reviewers allow caches to be place closer than 528 ft to another cache? The most common exception is that 528 is fuzzy. They may allow 520 ft. or even 500 ft. based on the fact that the GPS is only accurate to about 30 ft. Of course they could just ask if you could move the cache 30 ft further north or whatever direction would take it away from the the existing cache. Another a exception is when there is no easy way to get from cache A to cache B directly. You'd have to hike significantly more than .1 mile to get from one cache to other or have to go back to your car, drive several miles to another trailhead and then go to the other cache. They probably wouldn't allow you to place a cache near another just because there is a fence between them with no hole to crawl through. It has to be a significant barrier.

 

I have had experience with some reviewers who will consider an exception along the lines the OP is asking for. That is they may relax the 528 ft. requirement if the two caches provide a significantly different cache experience. I have seen 5 star terrain caches allowed less than 528 ft from an existing 3 star terrain cache. The argument being that a 5 star terrain cache requires special equipment so it would be seen as a significantly different experience from the existing hike. I have also seen the example that Keystone gave above of a cache in a parking area and then a short distance up the trail (less than 528 ft.) is the first waypoint for a multi-cache that takes you on a significant hike. It seems that most reviewers don't allow these exceptions, perhaps because they fear allowing exceptions based on the reviewer deciding a new cache is a different enough experience to make an exception opens up the door for lots of complaints of why one cache was denied and another was allowed. It is also not clear that the OPs cache would be seen as significantly different by most cachers - although for the OP it may make all the difference as to whether she would look for this cache.

 

It sounds like the OPs complaint is that there are not enough caches hidden in areas in her comfort zone. Caches are either in areas with too many muggles around or are too far off the trail and to cause a problem when she is with her dog. Her problem is that there are no places in the park where she could hide a cache in her comfort zone that wouldn't violate the saturation guideline. She will need to look in another park or perhaps ask someone to move a cache that is blocking hers.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Whatever you decide to do don't take this personal... it's applied to all of us.

 

I have a really kewl multicache hidden and in the cache review queue - on hold by the Reviewer until I go fix a distance issue.

 

Like you I knew there was a distance issue but submitted it hoping it would slide by... it didn't; it's not the Reviewer's fault, he does his job no matter who you are or how long you've been in the game, so I will go fix it!

 

Buy a Premium Membership if you haven't already.

Download a Pocket Query of the 500 caches closest to you.

Open that Pocket Query on your computer using Street Atlas or some other mapping program, maybe Google Earth, and look for unpopulated areas (areas with no caches) around you.

 

I think that you will be surprised how many places that you'd be comfortable going to have no caches.

[Ferreter5]

Carbon_n_kids,

 

The caches you wanted to hide were closer to other caches than usually allowed by the guidelines (528 feet). Exceptions to this can be made for locations where terrain between the caches would keep one physically separated from another (e.g. a deep ravine, river, cliff, etc.). I think the reviewer just didn't communicate this clearly to you in their response that noted the 528-foot rule. As suggested by others, in the future load up your GPS with the coordinates of caches near where you're thinking of hiding a new cache as that will help you determine how close the nearby

 

If you don't like going certain types of places, think about the types of place you do like to go to. Ask around with family, friends, local hiking clubs, local geocaching clubs, etc to get some suggestions on similar areas. If you don't want to go check them out yourself, take someone with you. Then you will be able to determine if its a place you'd feel comfortable coming back to by yourself.

 

A suggestion for finding caches in an area...

 

(1) Go to the listing for a cache near where you're going to go.

(2) On that cache's listing page part way down near the map graphic there is a link called "Geocaching.com Google Map", click it.

 

You'll get a map with the caches in that area plotted on the map. You can scroll around the map, zoom in and out, and click on the caches to get information about them.

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

I definitely will not ask the other cachers to move their caches just for me. I may be special but not that kind of special *winks* I enjoyed finding the other caches that I could. I recognize this is not a matter of "boo hoo poor me" because I still do not believe I'm the only person who caches who has certain restrictions.

 

ON THE FLIP SIDE: Thank you RJ for letting me know that what you said to me was the standard answer. The first reply seemed like it was typed out and not something that is, for lack of a better word, cookie cutter.

 

My suggestion to those who manage the reviewers replies is to remove that. Leave the "deviation of the rule" up to the reviewers. Then when it comes back to the hider of the cache, its either approved or disapproved because of the distance rule. There really is no need for someone like me to know there are exceptions. I live in Illinois and as RJ said, Illinois isn't known for its cliffs To someone like me, the terrain in Illinois is surprisingly different than if you use the term terrain in yellowstone national park

 

Ya know, ReadyorNot hit on something. It would definitely be nice to have some functionality built into the application that says "your cache may be too close to another cache that has already been approved" - THEN it would save on trying to have something approved that won't be and save the reviewers time of having to look up distances on their own. Even have a checkbox that states "if you feel this is a mistake or you feel your cache is on a significant different terrain (ie separated by a raging river or mountainous cliffs) than the other, check this box" which would override the error message and allow the person to submit their cache. Good idea. Would be helpful functionality.

 

And yes, I do understand that I can better search the site and do this BEFORE submission, but it still would be nice funcationality.

 

People are continuing to read into my frustrations even though I'm pretty sure I made it 100% clear on what I took responsibility for and what frustrated me. Its not the other caches. Its not the "muggle factor", its not me thinking I need special treatment - it was how the distance issue was presented to me (nothing I asked about) and then how easy it is for someone to mis-interpret that message (which I did). Those of you who live in areas where there are cliffs and raging waters may see it as it was presented, but the information was presented to a person who lives in a very flat city.

[+edscott]

...500 feet is an arbitrary number if the caches are noticably different ie one at the top of the cliff and another at the bottom".... ...

 

That's the classic example of when the 528' can be relaxed. The cache was approvable.

 

Yes.. two caches, one at the top and one at the bottom of a cliff, can be at the same coordinates and also be 528 feet apart. I had one along a river and put one on an island in the river about 500 feet away. Had to pick one to save and one to archive. It's OK with me... I'd be OK with 1320 ft (.25 Miles) between caches

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

To TheAlabamaRambler - I really would not have taken it personally had it just not been presented to me as an option. The first hide was 100% unintentional on the distance problem. I did not know of the other cache (again, poor searching on my part). THEN the distance exception was freely presented to me (which now I know is standard procedure). The second hide was because of my mis-interpretation of the information that was presented to me. If I could buy a premium membership, I would; however, I have recently found myself unemployed and between searching for a job and stressing over bills, there is no money left over for a member (even if you say "its just 5 dollars, 5 dollars is dinner *shrugs*)

 

To Ferreter 5: Thank you for the tip on the googlemap thing. I will check that out shortly.

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

as a side note to all of this... I am pretty darn sure I wouldn't cache anywhere near a cliff.... *goosebumps* scary stuff!

[+Quiggle]

My suggestion to those who manage the reviewers replies is to remove that. Leave the "deviation of the rule" up to the reviewers.

We each use our own templates, nobody manages it for us.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm assuming it's the first of the 2 since the rejection of the first described in my quote resulted in it being moved and submitted again. I don't have reviewer access to look at the OP's pending caches to say more than that.

I've underlined the problem with your statement that the cache was "approvable" since you don't have any facts. Without the facts, everything is an assumption.

 

I'll agree that 500 feet is borderline "approvable", assuming GPS error and signal quality, etc., but what if a cache is 100 feet? 200 feet? 300 feet? 400 feet?

 

I've striken the part that was wrong with your post.

 

What I have to go on is what the cache owner said. While I can't see the caches in the queue, reviewer have the same thing to go on in that cache submssion. What the owner said.

 

Reviewers make the call on the guidelines that's their job. However we cachers read what reviewers post and use that when planning caches. Until this thread I never knew that the river and cliff exception to the cache distance rule was actually based on cache distance anyway. My bad.

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

We each use our own templates, nobody manages it for us.

 

There is no one at Groundspeak that helps ensure that the review process is consistant for everyone across all countries? Such as provided a checklist that is used?

Edited March 14, 2008 by Carbon_n_kids

[+ThirstyMick]

You can use google maps http://www.geocaching.com/seek/gmnearest.aspx to find geocaches, it should help you find all the caches in a park, rather than closest to a location.

 

I'm sure you're reviewer just posed the "if" statement in his standard response because he really didn't know if there was a river flowing between the caches. The satellite images are helpful, but sometimes trees or other things can obscure what's actually on the ground.

 

I know it's disappointing to put in all the work and then get turned down, but your reviewer is there to help you get the cache published, not to prevent it As you place more it'll get easier to know what is going to fly and what won't. Good luck. Don't give up just yet

[+ThirstyMick]

We each use our own templates, nobody manages it for us.

 

There is no one at Groundspeak that helps ensure that the review process is consistant for everyone across all countries? Such as provided a checklist that is used?

 

Every reviewer refers to the same guidelines, and I believe, they have their own forum for discussion. Because of the nature of the activity, many of the guidelines are subjective and apply differently to just about every cache out there. Different reviewers put things in their own words but by and large I'm pretty sure the review process is pretty consistant.

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

Thank you, ThirstyMick - I appreciate it. The reviewer hasn't done anything outside what he has supposed to and even with my ranting has remained professional and friendly. Just maybe in the future, leave the if statement off for us flat-land dwellers

 

I do think I found another park where I think I'll be ok with the whole distance thing and lucky me - it is one I am able to take my dog too (yes, I know its annoying to keep hearing about me and my dog, but he really lowers my anxiety level 10-fold). Hopefully I'll be able to go out and get the rejected cache from the other place and move it before someone slides in with a new one of their own in the new place

[Guyute1210]

I can not believe what I'm hearing. Basically, everyone in this forum is knocking the poster for not adhering to a rule which is more a reference than anything else.

 

But, let's try and look at the larger picture here. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun sport/hobby/choose your word. Heck, most of the posters have pictures of themselves which illustrate the fact that geocaching is "down" time. It's not work, it's fun.

 

I see no problem with the poster placing his cache within 500 ft of another cache. The rule is grey - at best.

 

Chill out people.

 

 

Sounds to me like you need to go find more caches and be a member longer than 12 days to get why the rule is in place. Personally I think the 0.1 mile rule should be 0.5 miles...