Jump to content

Placing a Cache rules are flawed.


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I recently tried to publish a cache and as always I checked that all nearby caches were over the 0.1 mile rule,in fact the nearest according to GC.com was 0.4 miles so all is well.But not quite.It seems that there is a multi cache with it's final spot less than 0.1 miles away.So this is where I must disagree with the rules.Surely this would be ok if I knew that the multi cache was too close.But the only way I can find this out is to actually find it 1st.So this is where the rules are flawed surely. 1.I may not want to find a multi-for whatever reason. 2.The said multi is disabled,so I am unable to try to find it. 3.There is no guarantee that I would find it anyway. ;)

Link to comment

I recently tried to publish a cache and as always I checked that all nearby caches were over the 0.1 mile rule,in fact the nearest according to GC.com was 0.4 miles so all is well.But not quite.It seems that there is a multi cache with it's final spot less than 0.1 miles away.So this is where I must disagree with the rules.Surely this would be ok if I knew that the multi cache was too close.But the only way I can find this out is to actually find it 1st.So this is where the rules are flawed surely. 1.I may not want to find a multi-for whatever reason. 2.The said multi is disabled,so I am unable to try to find it. 3.There is no guarantee that I would find it anyway. ;)

 

As I understand it the 0.1 rule is there to prevent peeps getting confused as to which cache they are finding. I consider it a good rule, the reviewer has notified you of the problem with your cache placement so there is no need to find the multi anyway.

Link to comment

 

As I understand it the 0.1 rule is there to prevent peeps getting confused as to which cache they are finding. I consider it a good rule, the reviewer has notified you of the problem with your cache placement so there is no need to find the multi anyway.

 

So, even using a GPS with sub 10metre accuracy, people manage to be upto 170 yards off course and confuse caches? ;)

Maybe they should take up a far less challenging obsession.....? :D

Link to comment

I consider it a good rule, the reviewer has notified you of the problem with your cache placement so there is no need to find the multi anyway.

The problem is that your cache may rely on being in a particular location, either because that's the point of taking people there (e.g. to see an interesting tree, or well or something), or because you have permission to place it there and nowhere else.

It's no use then saying that you'll just have to move it: the cache may no longer be viable and it becomes a waste of time. Unfortunate if it took a lot of negotiating and writing up.

 

I guess you'd be able to get the reviewer to grant an exception - but these are only generally given in cases where there's little chance of confusion (the opposite bank of a large river for instance). I'm sure that the reviewer would check for you if you suggested an alternative location.

 

But perhaps when you're planning a cache that relies on being placed exactly at a particular site, it would be wise to contact a reviewer before investing too much time in the project.

Link to comment

I do agree with the rule it is the fact that only AFTER I have spent the time to locate a good hiding spot that I find this out.I don't see a way around it.It's just another downside of living in a built up city I guess.

 

Yes just bad luck. Look at it this way, you are lucky to live in a place with so many caches nearby.

 

So, even using a GPS with sub 10metre accuracy, people manage to be upto 170 yards off course and confuse caches? ;)

Maybe they should take up a far less challenging obsession.....? :D

 

So far I have found caches that were 0.36 miles, 0.1 miles, 340ft and 280ft off the posted co-ordinates....

 

Philip

Link to comment

pah! you should try living near Dorking kevin! Land of the impossible puzzle - you try picking some coords when there might be a final nearby, and you can't solve the puzzle at all!

 

Seriously, its not somehting anyone can really prevent! Around here, we got used to asking out excellent ex-reviewers if a set of coords was clear to place a cache - if not, we could get an idea of which direction we might want to head in...

 

If its disabled, is it likely to remain this way?

 

In short, tough! ;)

 

Dave

Link to comment

pah! you should try living near Dorking kevin! Land of the impossible puzzle -

 

Actually, this provides a method of solving some of these caches round Dorking that say stuff like "solve this simple puzzle: ALKES$(HRD**&^FAQ3498FHE"

 

You just have to keep submitting caches, see which ones get declined on proximity, (a bit like "battleships") and you will eventually have a circle containing disallowed caches, with the final for the puzzle bang in the centre.

 

Deci may not like you for it tho'. ;)

Link to comment

You just have to keep submitting caches, see which ones get declined on proximity, (a bit like "battleships") and you will eventually have a circle containing disallowed caches, with the final for the puzzle bang in the centre.

That method occurred to me a while ago when I was getting a bit desperate to solve a particular puzzle...

 

;)

 

(I should add that I didn't resort to it!).

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

I'm a bit confused as this may also call into question reasonable distance from home for maintenance purposes. When I set some caches recently I was aware roughly of the locations of all the containers ()whether go-to or multi) as I have found nearly everything in a ten mile radius. It was easy to make guesses when I was too close - something I would not know further afield.

 

I don't want to start a new debate but it might be a rule of thumb ?

Link to comment

Does this new cache offer something different from the existing cache? I do get a bit fed up with caches being planted so close to some of mine for seemingly the exact same reason eg I planted one there so people could see a church and some time later a new cache appears right next to it to 'show people the church'. You say it's a built up area so i'm guessing maybe there are two interesting things to see in the same 0.1 of a mile. In this case I would feel for you as people are missing out on something but if it's just a case of another cache for no good reason then maybe not...

Link to comment

You just have to keep submitting caches, see which ones get declined on proximity, (a bit like "battleships") and you will eventually have a circle containing disallowed caches, with the final for the puzzle bang in the centre.

 

This is actually a more common issue than you might think. The reviewers are wise to it. Generally the response is, on the third attempt or so, to publish the "battleship shot" cache, even if it is less than 161m from the mystery final. That not only lets the placer know that we are aware of what's going on; it also very often hides the mystery final definitively, because now there's a 161 metre circle round the "battleship shot" cache which very often - especially if the reviewer is smart - covers the mystery final as well.

Link to comment

This nearly happened to my brother in law recently who was about to place a cache in one of his favorite walking/mountain biking spots. As he described the general location to me I realised that it was in the exact same place as the bonus cache for a series of mountainside caches around the area - the location of which could only be determined by visiting the other caches.

 

At the end of the day, if we want mystery or bonus caches like this to work, we have to sometimes accept that the reviewers know better. In this case it would have been foolishness to place another cache so close to such a remote cache. I guess it's a little different with urban caches - but I've tended to avoid these personally.

Link to comment

If I wish to place a cache where there are multis nearby that I have not done and which my conceivably be too close, I do the multis first to make sure. The rule is there for some very good reasons, so I don't fuss if it's enforced.

 

If you don't wish to do the multi (or cannot), you can always email the cache owner and politely request the final co-ords so you can avoid getting too close. As long as you promise not to log a find on the multi, I think most people would be accommodating, it's worth a try.

 

As to the other point that came up, that a trad hidden in amongst the virtual stages of a multi will ruin the multi... well, it's just tough, I am afraid. I have noticed that caches seem to attract caches. None of us 'own' a particular territory and we just have to live with this sort of thing happening.

Link to comment

As to the other point that came up, that a trad hidden in amongst the virtual stages of a multi will ruin the multi... well, it's just tough, I am afraid. I have noticed that caches seem to attract caches. None of us 'own' a particular territory and we just have to live with this sort of thing happening.

Not quite. A virtual stage of a multi is unprotected from encroaching physical caches nearby if it is coded in the Additional Waypoints section as a "Reference Point" or "Question to Answer." But if you code the virtual stage as "Stage of a Multicache," then it is protected just as if a container had been placed at that spot. The intent of this fine distinction in the guidelines is to protect people against having their multicache's "secret surprise" spot spoiled by another nearby cache. So, if your virtual stage is just a utility pole with numbers on it to plug into a math equation to get to the next stage, call it a "Question to Answer." If it is a surprising random find in the middle of the woods, protect it as a "Stage of a Multicache."

 

I hope that this information is helpful.

Link to comment

A virtual stage of a multi is unprotected from encroaching physical caches nearby if it is coded in the Additional Waypoints section as a "Reference Point" or "Question to Answer." But if you code the virtual stage as "Stage of a Multicache," then it is protected just as if a container had been placed at that spot.

<snip>

I hope that this information is helpful.

 

Oooh, yes very. I thought that it was only if it was a physical stage of a multi cache, and did not affect virtual multi stages. I guess by coding it thus, it helps the reviewers who don't than have to minutely read and analyse the cache page.

Link to comment

Ok, so I got bitten on the a** by this today too!! spent a good couple of hours resurecting one of my archived caches along a disused railway line, wrote a new cache page up for it and posted the waymarks. Apparently one is within 0.1 of the end of another multi which I know for certain shows off a completely different point of interest, this is proof for me that situations do arise due to this rule that potentially stamp out a good cache or two. I have emailed the mod who told me the score and let him know the situation and am hoping for the usual helpfull ideas to get it up and running, will be a crying shame if I can't make it work! but yeah, summing up, I SEE YOUR POINT NOW ;)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...