Jump to content

Help with rejected cache


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I put in a bit of effort to place a new cache this afternoon - a new Motorway Mayhem cache.

 

It was rejected because it was nearer than 161yds (I measured 140m) from an existing cache that has been disabled since the beginning of January, with no evidence of trying to maintain.

 

I'd always assumed that the boundary was 100m so I guess that was my mistake.

 

However - is this 161yd rule a hard and fast rule or are exceptions allowed? The cache is completely different in that it's not a micro (as was the other), it has a completely different location and description.

 

If this rule is enforced and the original cache remains there and disabled I'll have to go out and remove it over the weekend as I'd already placed TBs and a FTF trophy as I've never had problems placing caches like this before.

 

I'm very disappointed that such a different hide is rejected because it's so close to another one that couldn't possibly be mixed with it. It also means that there's no chance of there being a Motorway Mayhem from this location while the disabled cache is still there.

Edited by Eclectic Penguin
Link to comment

I guess I'll be out and about tomorrow to remove this as it has a TB that needs to be moved along quite quickly already placed in it.

 

I guess the end of the M4 will be without a Motorway Mayhem then despite this being SO close to home for me to maintain.

 

Unless of course I move it further out about 20 metres onto the main M4/A48 roundabout periphery, increasing the difficulty by several notches brcause of the increased traffic danger and removing any hint of family friendlyness for the cache - that would work under the existing rules and would allow me to maintain it as a new cache submission for a new Motorway Mayhem... probably not.

 

First hiding location was perfect for someone walking from the motorway car park , wasn't a micro and would have plenty of space for swaps:(

Edited by Eclectic Penguin
Link to comment

I think the usual rule of thumb is 0.1 miles (528 feet), but it's then perhaps down to Reviewer discretion.

 

If you feel that the cache close to where you want to place yours is not being maintained then you perhaps need to log a "Needs Archived" note to the Reviewer so that the location can be freed up (if necessary) to make space for another cache.

Link to comment

Ok, I'll remove the unpublished cache box from the hide then, later on today along with the FTF trophy and sundry items (Saturday).

 

What a waste of effort to have a normal sized box with room for TBs, be replaced by a micro that has been nonexistent since January.

 

Oh well..

Edited by Eclectic Penguin
Link to comment

I understand your frustration! I recently visited a location in London where I had hoped to place a new cache, and took the precaution of having the nearest few caches in my gpsr as I sensed it might be a bit too close.

 

Indeed it was, so I looked around for a location slightly further away, but when I found what seemed the ideal place, the barrier I wanted to attach it to wasn't magnetic! So I am in think again mode just now.

 

Like you I had a particluar reason for placing there, (the route of my Torch Relay run), but it is just not to be at the moment at least. Ironically, as my chosen location is on a bridge, folk would have to walk much further than 0.1 m to get to it, but that's not how it is measured, and in fairness the other folks were there first and have well maintained caches.

 

In your case, I'd be inclined to either chase the other cacher or do as Russ suggests and get a reviewer to look at the other one.

Link to comment

I'm making assumptions here but if it's a standard MM cache then it's at a Motorway Service Area or similar. One cache there is enough and I can understand why yours was turned down.

 

However, if the other one is gone then report it as others have said and it will either be replaced or archived fixing the problem either way.

 

Is the owner of the other cache active?

Link to comment

In my experience :D UK reviewers are usually open to persuasion on such proximity "problems", especially when the new cache is only 60ft too close. Have you tried explaining why your location is unique and worthy of a cache? This approach is known to work quite often over here, probably much more likely than in "other parts of the world".

 

Mind you, if as Dino says it's just the other side of a motorway services car park then it might be difficult to persuade them.

 

Regarding the other, abandoned, cache I would certainly post a SBA and leave it to the reviewer to decide whether it really needs archiving immediately.

 

Edited to add: I see Deci has already posted a note asking the owner of the other cache whether it will be replaced. He's obviously on the case! Looking at the location I do wonder about the value of a second cache in what is essentially the same car park. Maybe one of the nearby lanes/footpaths might make a nice spot for a new "Back to Basics" cache. :D

Edited by The Hornet
Link to comment

I guess I'll wait to see what happens.

 

The existing cache wasn't well thought out in my opinion - a micro, placed in a small nook beneath a lamp post right in front of the lorry/bus park where all the vehicles point directly towards the cache location - and being a lorry park, many of the vehicles are occupied by their drivers for much of the time. It's also visible from the main restaurant - it took me several attempts to find it for these reasons.

 

Having said that, it was placed before mine so I'll withdraw mine this afternoon and see what happens.

 

Personally I feel a MM cache should at least have some room for swaps but that's my personal opinion. There are plenty of other locations in this area for caches and I hope to place another one soon - though unfortunately not within parking distance of Pont Abraham services - the public footpath that appears to run from the location on OS maps actually doesn't exist in real life.

Link to comment

I recently had a problem of a similar nature. On restoration of one of my favourite archived caches it turned out that one of the way points was within the smallest allowed distance to a final part of a mystery cache. However after consultation with the reviewer the cache was allowed to stand as mine offered a completely different point of interest. If I were you I would drop the reviewer who turned it down a short note explaining the problem. Im my experience they have been extremely helpfull and more interested in finding ways around your problems than spoiling your fun.

Link to comment

As Matrix pointed out, the problem was resolved in this case with the other cache being archived - I contacted the reviewer and it was active within 10 minutes.

 

I wonder if Matrix will be FTF on this one... :D

 

Luckily for others :D Katie was otherwise occupied so there was no dash for the cache FTF today :D

Link to comment

I have to sidle in from the wings and apologise profusely for my little rant about how I didn't think the previous hide wasn't well thought out in the light of how things turned out today...

 

Sorry.

 

Not a good hide on my part I'm afraid and my first real geocaching gaff - I knew about the rubbish that surrounded the location and I was going to do a CITO tomorrow to clear out the bottles and other bits of trash. I figured the little grotto was a great place for a hide otherwise. However, with a blocked nose at present due to cold like symptoms (probably early hay fever) I didn't detect the other problem.

 

It seems the cache location is also popular with the truckers who use the adjacent truck park. Not in a pleasant geocaching way - rather than a relieving the bladder way.

 

Thankfully I can move the tub only a few metres to "relieve" this problem - but I'll take some disinfectant with me tomorrow to wipe the box before replacing.

 

I feel a bit foolish to be honest - I remember commenting to a friend not so long ago that the back end (truck park) of motorway service stations often smelt of pee - I guess truckers can't be bothered to walk to the 24 hour public conveniences 100m away in the services.

 

Many thanks to Decangi for being lightning swift with explaining initially the rules and then dealing with publication issues. I know now that a moderator is a rare breed indeed who has to have many more skills than checking to see if a cache is viable - you also have to have excellent people skills to be a Geocaching moderator.

Link to comment

Did anybody else notice this

 

Groundspeak consideres its volunteer reviewers "The Best of the Best". I am glad you got to see it in action.

 

with a tag line of

 

"They will never forget you 'til somebody new comes along"

 

Community Relations Specialist

Groundspeak, Inc.

 

:P

 

 

I think I need to go and lie down for a bit..........................................

Link to comment

Glad to see this issue was resolved without having to appeal to the reviewer. Eliminating the problem is always preferable to asking for an exception to a guideline in my opinion.

 

Although I have no personal knowledge of the specifics in the OP's case I do have some limited knowledge of the general guideline in question you may (or may not) find interesting.

 

To the best of my knowledge the guideline in question is applied universally with each reviewer having some lattitude in enforcement and interpretation.

 

Something I have found through experience about the proximity guideline (528 ft or .10 mile) is this:

 

Proximity is measured in a straight line. Under most circumstances the reviewer will not have personal knowledge of the location and any extenuating situations.

 

Under certain circumstances an exception to the proximity guideline may be granted if the route from the new cache to the existing cache is longer than 528 ft. This might include circumstances like:

 

1. The two caches in question are separated by a river, train track, or limited access highway that would require the cacher to walk a greater distance via a bridge (or other similar object like a tunnel) to gain access to the other cache.

 

2. The two caches in question are separated by a building (like a mall in the States) or not easily crossable terrain (like a canyon, swamp, bog) that would require the cacher to walk a greater distance on a trail or route to gain access to the other cache.

 

These exceptions may be held invalid if there is a issue with the land owner involving cache saturation in the area.

 

You may be asked to document your request for an exception with pictures and/or Google earth shots of the area in question and a detailed explaination (including the walking/driving route distance).

 

As always, these are my personal observations and your milage may vary depending on your circumstances.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI USA

Link to comment

Glad to see this issue was resolved without having to appeal to the reviewer. Eliminating the problem is always preferable to asking for an exception to a guideline in my opinion.

 

Although I have no personal knowledge of the specifics in the OP's case I do have some limited knowledge of the general guideline in question you may (or may not) find interesting.

 

To the best of my knowledge the guideline in question is applied universally with each reviewer having some lattitude in enforcement and interpretation.

 

Something I have found through experience about the proximity guideline (528 ft or .10 mile) is this:

 

Proximity is measured in a straight line. Under most circumstances the reviewer will not have personal knowledge of the location and any extenuating situations.

 

Under certain circumstances an exception to the proximity guideline may be granted if the route from the new cache to the existing cache is longer than 528 ft. This might include circumstances like:

 

1. The two caches in question are separated by a river, train track, or limited access highway that would require the cacher to walk a greater distance via a bridge (or other similar object like a tunnel) to gain access to the other cache.

 

2. The two caches in question are separated by a building (like a mall in the States) or not easily crossable terrain (like a canyon, swamp, bog) that would require the cacher to walk a greater distance on a trail or route to gain access to the other cache.

 

These exceptions may be held invalid if there is a issue with the land owner involving cache saturation in the area.

 

You may be asked to document your request for an exception with pictures and/or Google earth shots of the area in question and a detailed explaination (including the walking/driving route distance).

 

As always, these are my personal observations and your milage may vary depending on your circumstances.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI USA

 

I had the same issue with one of my caches. Strictly it broke the proximity rule with the final hide position of a nearby offset cache being within 0.1 miles. In actual fact there was no direct connection - there was a field and no footpath or other direct route between and they were nearly half a mile apart by road

 

The reviewer exercised discretion and permitted it when I explained the facts

 

Both are still going strong :D

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...