Disabled my CACHE !?

[+diverrk]

I submited a cache that my kids had hidden with me. It is definetley within the guidelines of placing the cache far enough from others. I used gpsvisualizer.com to enter coordinates to determine distances. My cache was properly placed far enough from two other caches in a park nearby. This is my cache GC1AP31

this is the one in question GC111JT.

 

My kids are driving me nuts to get this resolved and would like to leave the cahce where it is. Can anyone here help with this issue. I have emailed Pofe@GeocachingAdmin.com twice with no reply.

 

I recieved this message:

Log Date: 4/14/2008

Hi,

I'm reviewing your new cache for listing on geocaching.com. I'm afraid it appears to be less than 100 feet away from another geocache, a stage of GC111JT Clue - The Cache. When you submitted this cache, you checked off that you read and understood the guidelines for hiding a cache http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx but you may have missed the section titled "Cache Saturation" http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#sat

 

 

I have temporarily disabled your cache to allow you to relocate it away from the other cache. Once you have moved the cache and changed the coordinates, you may enable the cache again by checking the box on the edit cache page that says "Yes, this cache is currently active (Approvers will not see this listing unless box is checked)". That will show me your cache is ready to be reviewed again

[+Miragee]

Welcome to the Forums!

 

When you are placing a cache, you have to have all the other caches in the area loaded into your GPSr to make sure there are no other caches nearby.

 

If you have not found all the Puzzle caches or Multi caches in the area, you run the risk of having this sort of thing happen.

 

If an area is otherwise fairly "crowded" and you find a spot just perfect for a cache, you might want to email you local Reviewer ahead of time to make sure there isn't a Puzzle cache, or Multi waypoint, nearby . . .

 

Sorry this happened to you . . . it happened to me one time, and the other cache that was too close was actually one of my own I had forgotten about . . .

[+gof1]

It sounds like you have run afoul of one of the stages of a multi-cache. The coords posted for a multi are only the first set. There you will find the coords for the next stage and so on until you find the final leg containing the log. Your cache needs to be more than .10 mile from any and all stages.

[+BlueDeuce]

I have to suspect there is not a quick and easy click button option for the reviewers to verify the final coords for every mystery and multi cache, offset from the submitted cache.

[+mtn-man]

If you notice, the cache in question that you are too close to is a puzzle cache. You are too close to part of that cache. The guidelines apply to all physical stages of multicaches and puzzle caches.

 

You need to go find that cache so you know where it is, then you can move your cache accordingly.

[+OReviewer]

You have received a response. As the cache in question is not a traditional cache, it may appear to be further than it is. Go do the cache in question and then you'll know where to move your cache to.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I have temporarily disabled your cache to allow you to relocate it away from the other cache. Once you have moved the cache and changed the coordinates, you may enable the cache again by checking the box on the edit cache page that says "Yes, this cache is currently active (Approvers will not see this listing unless box is checked)". That will show me your cache is ready to be reviewed again[/i][/b]

 

Cache saturation is something "reviewers know when they see" and we cachers don't. You flat out have to ask what the heck the reivewer is talking about and what cache they want and how far they want it moved.

 

As for having to "do the other cache" that's bogus. The reviewer can tell you "move it 300' east.

[+Mopar]

I have emailed Pofe@GeocachingAdmin.com twice with no reply.

 

I recieved this message:

Log Date: 4/14/2008

It's been one whole day since the the reviewer contacted you according to what you posted. Since then you've already emailed him twice. He told you what the problem is, and he told you how to fix it. What more of a reply do you expect?

Edited April 16, 2008 by Mopar

[+Renegade Knight]

...What more of a reply do you expect?

 

A reply she can actually use would be helpful.

 

Since the cache appears to be a puzzle with fake coords it's hard to move it away when you don't even know what direction away is. Some people don't do puzzle caches. That's ok. The reviewer can help without giving away the puzzle. Especially since the reviewer is fully aware of the issue and brought it up.

[+mtn-man]

As for having to "do the other cache" that's bogus. The reviewer can tell you "move it 300' east.

No, not really. It is a sneaky way to pin down where a puzzle cache is. We are not allowed to give much more than rough estimates as to how far away you are from a cache. If I tell the cacher to move a cache 310 feet to the east, they can go look 310 feet to the west and get a quick find without solving the required puzzle.

 

This is a case where this has happened before, so we now have to be general about it because of one or two sneaky people out there. It is only fair to the owner of the multicache/puzzle to boot.

[Keystone]

I had to deliver the same bad news (conflicting puzzle) two times today. One of the hiders got upset, then quickly realized it wasn't my fault, and wrote to apologize. My note back to him might be useful to the OP of this thread:

 

Thank you for following up with a second, calmer note. I know that cache hiding issues can be frustrating, so I understand. Groundspeak gives us kevlar flak jackets so it doesn't bother me. I know it's not my fault that someone else chose this same cool area to hide their cache. Put yourself in their shoes... would you like it if someone else hid a cache really close to one of yours?

 

What happened to you is an inherent risk in any area where there's puzzle caches and/or multicaches nearby. My advice is to find all puzzles and multicaches within a 2 mile radius of the area where you want to hide a cache. That's because most (but not all) multicaches start and end within a two mile area, and the posted "bogus" coordinates for puzzles should be within 2 miles of the actual location per the guidelines. This isn't foolproof, due to old puzzles predating that guideline, or long multicaches that stretch across a city, but it would have worked for you.

 

Another thing you can do is scout a general area for a cache hide and then ask me via e-mail whether there would be any conflicts in that area. I can then plug in the coordinates you give me, and answer back that you are clear for a .25 mile radius around that point.

 

Yes, what you should do now is simply select a different spot and then edit your cache page. Then leave a "note to reviewer" when you are ready for me to look at your submission again.

 

Regards,

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

[+Michael]

If you are unsure about an area that you have not done all the caches in or if you just want to be double sure you can write your reviewer and ask them if your intended location is clear. The reviewers are happy to help. If for some reason you do not want to write your reviewer you can write me and I can look it up. Its obviously better to write the reviewer but I am happy to help also.

 

Its a workable solution.

 

This offer is not just to the OP. The reviewers will help anyone in this way and so will I. You can always contact me through my profile.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Michael

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I have emailed Pofe@GeocachingAdmin.com twice with no reply.

 

I recieved this message:

Log Date: 4/14/2008

It's been one whole day since the the reviewer contacted you according to what you posted. Since then you've already emailed him twice. He told you what the problem is, and he told you how to fix it. What more of a reply do you expect?

 

Groundspeak Forum Guidelines ...

In general we will leave it to you the community, to police yourselves. Treat others with respect. Remember that this is a public venue read by many people spanning all walks of life...

 

Why are so many people so rude in these forums, (especially to new players)? Rude is disrespectful, and against the forum guidelines.

Edited April 16, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

...What more of a reply do you expect?

 

A reply she can actually use would be helpful.

 

A reply that actually explains the error she made, and how to correct it. Simply refering someone back to read a rule they were not able to get right the first time does not make the rule any more clear.

[+oldsoldier]

Same thing happened to me when I went to place my first cache. I was within 100' (actually, likely within 20') of another puzzle cache, and had no idea. When I asked the reviewer, they told me the name of the cache I was close to. I didnt realize HOW close until I read & figured out the clues. So, it just goes to show, you never really know.

Their job is to ensure we comply with the rules. If they said you didnt, you can, of course, get clarification. But, once its explained, the result is pretty obvious; move your cache.

[Keystone]

...What more of a reply do you expect?

 

A reply she can actually use would be helpful.

 

A reply that actually explains the error she made, and how to correct it. Simply refering someone back to read a rule they were not able to get right the first time does not make the rule any more clear.

You are assuming that the OP accurately quotes ALL of the information conveyed by the reviewer. However, in text not quoted, the reviewer spelled out the guideline, explaining that caches need to be at least 528 feet apart.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

...What more of a reply do you expect?

 

A reply she can actually use would be helpful.

 

A reply that actually explains the error she made, and how to correct it. Simply refering someone back to read a rule they were not able to get right the first time does not make the rule any more clear.

You are assuming that the OP accurately quotes ALL of the information conveyed by the reviewer. However, in text not quoted, the reviewer spelled out the guideline, explaining that caches need to be at least 528 feet apart.

OK, Got it. Thanks for the clear up. If thereviewer made clear to the hider the part about stages of a multi, then they gave just the answer I would hope for. Now if we could just get rid of that pesky rule about being 528 from EVERY stage. That's no fun for a new player when they're trying to hide their first(seen the same issue in here before), although I'm sure there's a good reason for it, as that was added fairly recently(well, more recently than I was added anyway) Edited April 16, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[Keystone]

You are mistaken. When reviewing cache submissions, I've been checking against stages of multicaches since sometime in late 2003. There have only been two "recent" changes. The first was the automation of this process through the "Additional Waypoints" feature. This time-saver was added in January 2007. The second was to RELAX the saturation guideline so that it doesn't apply to virtual waypoints that are coded as "question to answer" or "reference point," and so that it doesn't apply to earthcaches, virtual caches or webcam caches. That was done in February 2007.

[+USCcouple]

Hi,

 

This happen to us once as well. We've hidden a few, but still not found everything in our area, so it was bound to happen. It makes me think though, I am sure the reviewers can just do a simple search and see all of the caches and all of the stages of other caches in one search (maybe its not that easy though). What I was wondering is would it be possible to make an addition to the Geocaching.com website where someone that is going to place a cache can do a search in a small area where they would like to place a cache and see if the area is really open or not. There would obviously be things to contend with, such as if people could do this checking as much as they want, then they would be able to possibly triangulate the coordinates of a cache. Perhaps there could be limitations as to how many searches anyone can ever do in one specific area or something to that effect. I can see ways of making it cheat proof, but still being a very useful tool for people hiding caches.

 

Just a thought,

Kevan

[Keystone]

USCcouple, your idea has been suggested many times before, but the website has not implemented it due to the security concerns you identified.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

You are mistaken.

I must be. I thought I remembered the rule being different when I first started. Maybe whatever situation that made me think that was a fluke or special exception. It is frustrating for a new cacher that hasn't found all the stages though. There's no mistake about that.

[+ThePetersTrio]

Huh....so reading this thread means that one of the cache placements I've been seriously working on is probably not going to be allowed due to the rules. So let me ask this question as there is an unusual circumstance with this.

 

I would like to place a 1st stage of a multi very near the 1st stage of this multi (GC12ZHY). The unusual circumstance is that the post coordinates for the 1st stage are not posted as it's a puzzle cache and - as you can see from the cache page - in order to find the 1st stage you need to spot the traffic sign.

 

The place I want to place my 1st stage is not on the same street - so it wouldn't give the nearby puzzle cache away - but as the crow flies, I think it's going to be too close.

 

So that means no dice, right?

[+StarBrand]

Huh....so reading this thread means that one of the cache placements I've been seriously working on is probably not going to be allowed due to the rules. So let me ask this question as there is an unusual circumstance with this.

 

I would like to place a 1st stage of a multi very near the 1st stage of this multi (GC12ZHY). The unusual circumstance is that the post coordinates for the 1st stage are not posted as it's a puzzle cache and - as you can see from the cache page - in order to find the 1st stage you need to spot the traffic sign.

 

The place I want to place my 1st stage is not on the same street - so it wouldn't give the nearby puzzle cache away - but as the crow flies, I think it's going to be too close.

 

So that means no dice, right?

Sorry - might get an exception if it is around 500 feet but much closer and it is just too close. Physical stages must meet the .1 guideline no matter the type of cache.

[+mtn-man]

Now if we could just get rid of that pesky rule about being 528 from EVERY stage. That's no fun for a new player when they're trying to hide their first(seen the same issue in here before), although I'm sure there's a good reason for it <snip>

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...4b-31370020bdd8

 

Check out that log. A new cache hidden right on top of an old cache, and that wasn't even a multi. It might not seem so bad until your hidden cache is the one impacted.

[+Renegade Knight]

As for having to "do the other cache" that's bogus. The reviewer can tell you "move it 300' east.

No, not really. It is a sneaky way to pin down where a puzzle cache is. We are not allowed to give much more than rough estimates as to how far away you are from a cache. If I tell the cacher to move a cache 310 feet to the east, they can go look 310 feet to the west and get a quick find without solving the required puzzle.

 

This is a case where this has happened before, so we now have to be general about it because of one or two sneaky people out there. It is only fair to the owner of the multicache/puzzle to boot.

 

I'm getting a bigger picture that a lot of the changes are a lessening of the flexability volunteer reviewers used to have. It's clear that you can't make the determination of this person being sneaky or merely wanting to get a cache listed and have to remand it for consideration by a higher court. I never pictured being a reviewer as easy. Now it looks less so.

 

As for the site they could allow a lot more flexing of the 528' rule to allow for this kind of thing. Why should a stage in a multi or a puzzle block another cache when that owner can't see where the cache is? 528' is an artifical number. The only real thing that needs to be accomplished is that seekrs find the cache they are looking for and not the wrong one. That's a distance somewhat less than 528'.

[+Renegade Knight]

...What more of a reply do you expect?

 

A reply she can actually use would be helpful.

 

A reply that actually explains the error she made, and how to correct it. Simply refering someone back to read a rule they were not able to get right the first time does not make the rule any more clear.

You are assuming that the OP accurately quotes ALL of the information conveyed by the reviewer. However, in text not quoted, the reviewer spelled out the guideline, explaining that caches need to be at least 528 feet apart.

My bad. I thought 528' was a given, but what direction and how far to achieve it wasn't. The problem here isn't 528'. It's the lack of info to achieve it. Heck if I find a multi or a puzzle I still can't see the stages or actual location later to keep from having the same issue. After a while the caches all blend. Still mtn-man give a good explanation that zeros in on the real problem.

[+diverrk]

I have emailed Pofe@GeocachingAdmin.com twice with no reply.

 

I recieved this message:

Log Date: 4/14/2008

It's been one whole day since the the reviewer contacted you according to what you posted. Since then you've already emailed him twice. He told you what the problem is, and he told you how to fix it. What more of a reply do you expect?

 

For your information MOPAR it is an automated response and not at all informational.

 

Thanks to all who replied . I now understand that i need to look into any multi or puzzle caches more closely.

 

PS MY NAME IS RICH !

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Now if we could just get rid of that pesky rule about being 528 from EVERY stage. That's no fun for a new player when they're trying to hide their first(seen the same issue in here before), although I'm sure there's a good reason for it <snip>

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...4b-31370020bdd8

 

Check out that log. A new cache hidden right on top of an old cache, and that wasn't even a multi. It might not seem so bad until your hidden cache is the one impacted.

That's what I thought the reason would be. You could also have people placing Ccahes intentionally near stages of someone elses milti, as hints to others, That's not cool either.

Edited April 16, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ah, Rich,

Actually, your reviewer is being very generous with you! Many would just tell you that you are too close. (See Keystone's well-known example...)

You could: A) Relocate your cache 628 feet away. That should clear the final of the mystery cache. Locate the three travel bugs that give the coordinates for the final (One seems to be in Byrne State Forest. Only 40 or 50 miles... Get it before New Jersey closes the forest!) C) Search within 100 feet of your hide, and find the mystery cache. Then you would know its coordinates, and you can rehide yours accordingly. I would guess that your reviewer is being kindly (as that reviewer always is) and suggesting that you rehide 628 or more feet away. I would suggest that you take the reviewer up on this helpful hint, and relocate the cache.

or D) Send me the coords of your cache, and I'll hunt down the final of the mystery cache for you. (Just teasing.)

[+Quiggle]

For your information MOPAR it is an automated response and not at all informational.

Actually, the note left on your page is NOT an automated response. Someone (Pofe) had to post the reviewer note manually. The only automated part about it is you getting the e-mail of the reviewer note left on your cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

For your information MOPAR it is an automated response and not at all informational.

Actually, the note left on your page is NOT an automated response. Someone (Pofe) had to post the reviewer note manually. The only automated part about it is you getting the e-mail of the reviewer note left on your cache.

True. It's probably cut and paste with a slight customization. Still not helpful enough to allow the owner to fix the problem though.

 

The problem stems from how this sites listing system works. It's not the reviewers fault, it's not the cache owners fault. More could be done to help the owner tweak their cache. For example (and building on mtm-man's delimea) allow reviewer the freedom of judgment to determin if the person is a real owner or a sneaky puzzle solver.

[+Quiggle]

The problem stems from how this sites listing system works. It's not the reviewers fault, it's not the cache owners fault. More could be done to help the owner tweak their cache. For example (and building on mtm-man's delimea) allow reviewer the freedom of judgment to determin if the person is a real owner or a sneaky puzzle solver.

There's no problem with the listing system at all, I think you're reading too much into mtn-man's post.

 

I get these situations fairly often. If someone sends me coords and says they want to hide a cache there but there are a bunch of puzzle caches in the area, I'll let them know if the coords are good. If they're not, I won't tell them which cache or how far, but will find a spot on Google Earth and say "hide somewhere near here". A month or so ago I had someone hide one 200 feet away, I said they were "less than 528 feet" but didn't tell them in which direction. I gave them a direction to head and told them to go at least 528 feet to separate themselves. The direction wasn't in the opposite direction of the cache, but it was in a direction that would clear him of infringing on it. They may already know it's in the park, but not where. I'll be vague enough that they still won't know where the cache is but will know where they can hide theirs without issue.

 

What's the dilemma?

[Skippermark]

Pofe is our reviewer here in CT, and I've emailed a couple times about cache locations and have always gotten a response in a couple days. It's exciting to place your first cache, and you want everything to be right, but reviewers are volunteers and not at their computers 24/7. Even though we're anxious to get a response, sometimes we have to wait a bit. But, on the bright side, that gives us time to go out and find more caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

The problem stems from how this sites listing system works. It's not the reviewers fault, it's not the cache owners fault. More could be done to help the owner tweak their cache. For example (and building on mtm-man's delimea) allow reviewer the freedom of judgment to determin if the person is a real owner or a sneaky puzzle solver.

There's no problem with the listing system at all...

...I'll let them know if the coords are good. If they're not, I won't tell them which cache or how far, but will find a spot on Google Earth and say "hide somewhere near here"....What's the dilemma?

 

Thanks for pointing out a simple solution to the problem of a cache owner not knowing where the cache is. By the simple fact that you solve it using google earth, while not giving away the locations of the puzzle/multi cache locations shows what the problem is and that is has a solution. The solution being something the cache owner can use.

 

Since you don't "see the problem" I'll spell it out.

Cache owners can't see the coords of certain caches they need to stay away from. That leads them to on occasion put a cache too close to another cache. That's a problem in that you can't approve the cache and the owner can't avoid the situation. It's created by how this site lists and approves caches.

 

Now you could require that owners can only place caches within their radius of found caches be that 2 miles or 2 blocks. That would have owners know the locations of puzzle caches. Like all solutions it creates it's own problems. Chiefly vacation caches would become much more of an issue.

 

You could solve it by saying "Move your cache 22' on a bearing of....XXX' But that helps pinpiont an unfound cache which would lead to short circuting another ownewrs hard work. You can call this a secondary problem created by the first problem.

 

This site could minimze the problem by reducing the 528' rule in these cases so the problem happens less often.

 

This site could eliminate the problem by not allowing caches that are not at the listed coordinates. That would be unpopular since people do like puzzles and multis, which of course is a problem of another kind. Look no further than the occasional bring back virtuals thread to see the issue.

 

Some problems are built into the system and you work around them. Most solutions create their own problmes. Sometimes the best you get is to choose the problem you want to live with.

 

Your solution creates a fuzzy blob of an area they can use that doesn't short circuit another cache, doesn't require owners to solve puzzles they may hate and take away from their enjoyment of caching, and does give direct useful advice. The problem here is that the fuzzy blob you pick may not mesh with the owners intent for having placed that cache. If you are smart, and you seem to be, you may even pick upon that intent and compensate when you pick your fuzzy blob of an area.

 

So while you see no problem, it's ironic that you at least solve both the orginal problem and a secondary one while still giving useful advice.

[+Quiggle]

Some problems are built into the system and you work around them.

I wouldn't call them problems, but you're right about working around them, whatever the proper term should be. As a reviewer I want to see caches listed within the guidelines, and am happy to help achieve that goal. As a cache hider you should want to see the same thing. It's up to both of us to arrive at that same point. In some cases a cache doesn't get listed, but in many cases it does. At the end of the day life still goes on and geocaching is still a game.

[+K0BKL]

Whew! I am glad that I no longer hide caches.

I no longer have active caches.

Lots of problems solved this way.

[OpinioNate]

Whew! I am glad that I no longer hide caches.

I no longer have active caches.

Lots of problems solved this way.

I, for one, am certainly glad this is not the prevailing sentiment!

[+WookieTravs]

Hey, diverrk, I would look at this as part of the game (and part of the fun) of geocaching. Make rehiding the cache a fun event with your children - they will dig it. Maybe you can even convince them to do the nearby puzzle cache with you so you can identify the problem?

 

I can only imagine that the reviewers are swamped here in the NE now that the good weather is here! I am certain you will hear back from Pofe soon.

 

Happy caching and good luck with getting this resolved!