Jump to content

Is it always this hard to get a geocache approved?


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Let me first say I realize the reviewers for our caches are volunteers. They do a great job and have been very timely with their work. They have also been very polite when they have not allowed my geocaches. However, I am finding that every geocache I try to place gets flagged even though I leave detail in the reviewer's notes. Is this common practice?

 

 

Some examples:

 

 

1) I couldn't get my Up in a Holler 1 cache http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bc-5db5d2007406 unarchived, even though I was the original owner, so I had to make a second one right on the spot of the old one. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b5-4021b38ebe23 I hated that the old 'finds' won't be connected to these newer ones, even though it is the same geocache.

 

 

2) Our town here is very small and with the distance restraints it doesn't allow for many caches to be placed here. I placed two micros in one day. I had to archive http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...22-c4b64437cfbc in order to keep my other one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...75-f19790e822c2 I have been to other cache areas that have 3 caches right on top of each other.

 

 

3) I had to try a couple of times to get this one listed: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...63-241bd861eb18 I originally stated it was next to a creek not on private property.

 

 

4) And the past couple of days I have been trying to get this one listed: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...05-4c3d807d33e7 It is on public land that my donations paid for. I was actually the vice president and president for the associational youth rallies that developed this land. Because there is an old railway up on a hill past a creek, I can't place a geocache on this land.

 

 

I try to place geocaches that I would personally like to find. I want to bring people to areas they would have never seen otherwise. But if it continues to be this difficult to get them placed I'll eventually lose interest.

 

 

What have your experiences been like? Is this normal?

Link to comment
4) And the past couple of days I have been trying to get this one listed:

 

We can't see this until it's been published.

 

What have your experiences been like? Is this normal?

 

I haven't had a problem that wasn't due to my lack of understanding guidelines.

Link to comment

Here is a local one that is about to be archived: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f1-96a7bd0042ea

 

 

I have visited this one and it is fine. I wrote this in a note on the cache page. However, in a few days we will have one less geocache to find here.

 

Seems like the owner could take care of that issue with one quick cache page edit.

 

 

edit: correction

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

I was tempted to just hang out and watch this thread go into a death spiral, but I had a couple thoughts that might be on point.

 

Reviewers try to make sure that each cache meets the guidelines. If they have questions about a cache, they should ask them. If it's too close to another cache, chances are you aren't going to get it published. This is doubly true if the other cache is yours and you placed them both on the same day.

 

If it looks like your cache is somehwere that might need explicit permission, they are going to question it.

 

Also, they are kind of like the IRS. If your previous caches raised flags, they are going to look a bit closer at your next ones.

Link to comment
Here is a local one that is about to be archived: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f1-96a7bd0042ea

 

I have visited this one and it is fine. I wrote this in a note on the cache page. However, in a few days we will have one less geocache to find here.

Seems like the owner could take care of that issue with one quick cache page edit.

 

edit: correction

According to the reviewer note, the cache owner only has to add a note to the page to save it. He's been on the site since the reviewer note was added, so I don't understand the issue.

 

A better idea would be if he replaced the leaking container before making the note, but whatever.

Link to comment

Here is a local one that is about to be archived: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f1-96a7bd0042ea

 

 

I have visited this one and it is fine. I wrote this in a note on the cache page. However, in a few days we will have one less geocache to find here.

 

If the owner wants to keep this cache on the active list seems like all he has to do is answer the reviewers questions.

 

As for getting caches published I don't have any trouble. I pay close attention to the guidelines and adhere to them. If your caches are too close together they won't meet the guidelines. If the tracks are too close they won't meet the guidelines. I've never found it difficult.

Link to comment
I was tempted to just hang out and watch this thread go into a death spiral, but I had a couple thoughts that might be on point.

 

I didn't want this to go into a death spiral. I have seen how easily that can happen here. Certain people on here just love to get into verbal fights. That is why I made sure to praise our reviewers for the hard work they do for free. I simply want to know if there are easier ways to get things approved or if we have had different experiences.

Link to comment

All of my caches have gone through the review process without a hitch. Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and try to resolve any potential guideline issues before placing the cache. If you think there might be an issue, email your reviewer to deal with the issues before submitting the cache.

 

Follow the guidelines and you won't have a problem. Try to sneak something by a reviewer and you'll probably run into problems. And if it gets by the reviewer, it will eventually come back to haunt you. Read the many many threads on this topic and you'll find this to be true.

Edited by ReadyOrNot
Link to comment
If the tracks are too close they won't meet the guidelines. I've never found it difficult.

 

However this is placed on property the railroad doesn't own. My cousin used to live in a house this close to the railroad. It shook the house something awful when I train came through. By this line of thinking .. he could be carted off to jail for simply having ammo boxes on his back porch on land he owned. I understand the railroad owning land to both sides of the track .. I am talking about the land they don't own.

 

Heck, come to think about it .. there are houses this close to the railroad in question. On the road into this cache there are houses right next to the track. Some of these houses are pretty run down with a lot of garbage outside. I've seen several paint cans out there but not any ammo boxes yet. Could these people be carted off to jail as well?

 

 

I'm sorry but this doesn't compute with this country boy. When I went to school kids could drive trucks with shotguns in their window and leave their truck unlocked in the school parking lot. I remember sitting in class and watching someone walk down the street with a shotgun and not get stopped.

Edited by themeecer
Link to comment
If the tracks are too close they won't meet the guidelines. I've never found it difficult.

 

However this is placed on property the railroad doesn't own. My cousin used to live in a house this close to the railroad. It shook the house something awful when I train came through. By this line of thinking .. he could be carted off to jail for simply having ammo boxes on his back porch on land he owned. I understand the railroad owning land to both sides of the track .. I am talking about the land they don't own.

 

I would know before-hand that this might cause an issue during the review process. I would have let the reviewer know before placing the cache that the railroad was no longer in use and the land was public. If you don't let the reviewer know this info before-hand, how would you expect them to know it?

Link to comment
If the tracks are too close they won't meet the guidelines. I've never found it difficult.

 

However this is placed on property the railroad doesn't own. My cousin used to live in a house this close to the railroad. It shook the house something awful when I train came through. By this line of thinking .. he could be carted off to jail for simply having ammo boxes on his back porch on land he owned. I understand the railroad owning land to both sides of the track .. I am talking about the land they don't own.

 

Although the guideline exists because of trespassing concerns it is still written as a proximity rule. I believe a barrier between your cache and the track will get you a favorable response. Is there a fence? I've seen caches within a couple of feet of the tracks in parks with a fence on the rail side. I've never placed a cache that close to the tracks so it hasn't been an issue for me.

Link to comment
If the tracks are too close they won't meet the guidelines. I've never found it difficult.

 

However this is placed on property the railroad doesn't own. My cousin used to live in a house this close to the railroad. It shook the house something awful when I train came through. By this line of thinking .. he could be carted off to jail for simply having ammo boxes on his back porch on land he owned. I understand the railroad owning land to both sides of the track .. I am talking about the land they don't own.

First off all, GC never said ammo cans were illegal to possess within x# of feet of railroads.

 

GC does have a guideline that says they will not approve a caches that are...

hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m)...
. This is their guideline. I'm sure it has much more to do with legal liability the any law.

If a cache fails to meet this guideline then the reviewer's hands have been tied by the cache owner and they therefore can not approve the cache. Don't submit the cache if you know that it can't be approved.

Link to comment

Although the guideline exists because of trespassing concerns it is still written as a proximity rule. I believe a barrier between your cache and the track will get you a favorable response. Is there a fence? I've seen caches within a couple of feet of the tracks in parks with a fence on the rail side. I've never placed a cache that close to the tracks so it hasn't been an issue for me.

Yes it usually will. I know of a cache that is inches away from railroad property, but there a very tall fence in between.

Link to comment
If the tracks are too close they won't meet the guidelines. I've never found it difficult.

 

However this is placed on property the railroad doesn't own. My cousin used to live in a house this close to the railroad. It shook the house something awful when I train came through. By this line of thinking .. he could be carted off to jail for simply having ammo boxes on his back porch on land he owned. I understand the railroad owning land to both sides of the track .. I am talking about the land they don't own.

First off all, GC never said ammo cans were illegal to possess within x# of feet of railroads.

 

GC does have a guideline that says they will not approve a caches that are...

hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m)...
. This is their guideline. I'm sure it has much more to do with legal liability the any law.

If a cache fails to meet this guideline then the reviewer's hands have been tied by the cache owner and they therefore can not approve the cache. Don't submit the cache if you know that it can't be approved.

 

Thanks, I was thinking it was 150 feet but wasn't positive without looking it up. I believe I have read that it was do to trespassing concerns, not terror concerns. Although those concerns are also valid.

Link to comment
Although the guideline exists because of trespassing concerns it is still written as a proximity rule. I believe a barrier between your cache and the track will get you a favorable response. Is there a fence? I've seen caches within a couple of feet of the tracks in parks with a fence on the rail side. I've never placed a cache that close to the tracks so it hasn't been an issue for me.
The only times I have had issues getting caches approved was due to circumstances that needed explaining. After a few diplomatic and civil conversations back and forth things settled out and either they were approved or the clear reasons were given why they were not being approved (which has been very rare). Had some run-ins with RR tracks and seen some approved when it was shown that there was a barrier between the cache and the tracks. Other then that, move it the proper distance away and no issue.

 

As far as caches close together, I searched for a small cache a week ago along side a small stream while between stages of a multi. Came up empty so moved on to the second to last stage of the multi. When I got the coords for the final I found it was within 50-feet of ground zero of the one I was just seeking. I understand it was grandfathered in from back in the days before being required to enter all coords for a multi, but it was a little startling to be searching in basically the exact same spot for two different caches.

Link to comment

I've only been questioned twice about a cache placement. The first was near a commercial establishment with permission. It was my first cache and the reviewer wanted to make sure it wasn't inside. The second time I had a leg to a multi too close to the leg of another multi. I had entered the existing waypoint in wrong. Funny part was that the existing cache was also mine. DOH!

Link to comment

Let me first say I realize the reviewers for our caches are volunteers. They do a great job and have been very timely with their work. They have also been very polite when they have not allowed my geocaches. However, I am finding that every geocache I try to place gets flagged even though I leave detail in the reviewer's notes. Is this common practice?

 

Some examples:

 

1) I couldn't get my Up in a Holler 1 cache http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bc-5db5d2007406 unarchived, even though I was the original owner, so I had to make a second one right on the spot of the old one. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b5-4021b38ebe23 I hated that the old 'finds' won't be connected to these newer ones, even though it is the same geocache.

 

2) Our town here is very small and with the distance restraints it doesn't allow for many caches to be placed here. I placed two micros in one day. I had to archive http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...22-c4b64437cfbc in order to keep my other one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...75-f19790e822c2 I have been to other cache areas that have 3 caches right on top of each other.

 

3) I had to try a couple of times to get this one listed: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...63-241bd861eb18 I originally stated it was next to a creek not on private property.

 

4) And the past couple of days I have been trying to get this one listed: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...05-4c3d807d33e7 It is on public land that my donations paid for. I was actually the vice president and president for the associational youth rallies that developed this land. Because there is an old railway up on a hill past a creek, I can't place a geocache on this land.

 

I try to place geocaches that I would personally like to find. I want to bring people to areas they would have never seen otherwise. But if it continues to be this difficult to get them placed I'll eventually lose interest.

 

What have your experiences been like? Is this normal?

Ahem... I am offering my opinion and experience here only because you have asked for it, but I am warning you that you will not like what I have to say! Here goes:

 

First, you should be aware, if you are not already, that the vast majority of the links which you have provided for cache listing pages are useless to us, because the caches have not yet been published, and thus cannot be viewed.

 

Next, in several cases, you fail entirely to tell us the exact reasons cited by the reviewer(s) in refusing to publish your placements, and instead you usually simply offer vague and unsettling statements along the lines that you tried to get the cache in question listed, and that the reviewer nixed it. You have failed entirely to tell us what issues were raised and how you addressed them or if you even tried to address them.

 

Moving on, to ask your question about my experiences, no, although Sue and I have successfully placed about 35 caches, many of them extreme terrain caches or insanely difficult high-terrain caches, and in fact, despite the fact that I have placed such extreme caches in four states (two on the east coast, and two in the upper Rockies), the summary fact is that we have successfully placed (and seen published) 35 caches in five states across the USA, with our cache placements reviewed by a total of eight different reviewers across the country, and have never had one submitted cache listing refused by any of the eight reviewers; I should qualify that statement by iterating that for a very few of the really extreme caches, I needed to tweak the listing page or the rules for prospective finders before the reviewer would publish the cache, and in one case, I needed to prove to the reviewer that a railroad line shown on his/her map as intersecting the cache site was in fact an abandoned and obsolete railway that had long ago been removed and paved over, but that was all accomplished easily and in quick order.

 

Overall, judging from the overall tone of your note and your admitted self-imposed limitations (i.e., the fact that you state that you will only place geocaches in your own (admittedly small) town and nowhere else), and based upon the sheer number of complaints which you have cited, this all suggests to me that you may have a bit of a sense of entitlement and have a concomitant habit of always harping on the negative instead of appreciating the things you do like. I hate to get all "spiritual" and metaphysical on you, but you did ask for my opinion, so here goes: it has been my personal observation in life that when someone has as many complaints as do you, and sounds as helpless and victimized as do you, and sounds as unhappy as do you, there is usually a lot more to the story, and there is usually a rather major attitude problem, namely, a sense of entitlement along with a lack of gratitude and appreciation, and also inability to let go of things and move on with grace and ease.

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment
I was tempted to just hang out and watch this thread go into a death spiral, but I had a couple thoughts that might be on point.

 

I didn't want this to go into a death spiral. I have seen how easily that can happen here. Certain people on here just love to get into verbal fights. That is why I made sure to praise our reviewers for the hard work they do for free. I simply want to know if there are easier ways to get things approved or if we have had different experiences.

Homemade chocolate chip cookies might possibly be helpful.

Link to comment

Overall, judging from the overall tone of your note and your admitted self-imposed limitations (i.e., the fact that you state that you will only place geocaches in your own (admittedly small) town and nowhere else), and based upon the sheer number of complaints which you have cited, this all suggests to me that you may have a bit of a sense of entitlement and have a concomitant habit of always harping on the negative instead of appreciating the things you do like. I hate to get all "spiritual" and metaphysical on you, but it has been my personal observation in life that when someone has as many complaints as do you, and sounds as helpless and victimized as do you, and sounds as unhappy as do you, there is usually a lot more to the story, and there is usually a rather major attitude problem, namely, sense of entitlement along with lack of gratitude and appreciation, and also inability to let go of things and move on with grace and ease.

 

 

Oh good grief .. and so it begins. You totally skipped the part where I said I appreciate the work our reviewers do and I praised them for being polite. I place geocaches in my small town because I want to bring people here. I want them to see some of the areas I have come to appreciate. I want new cachers here to have caches to go to and not have to travel a long way. If I was entitlement minded I wouldn't be going through the hassle of buying cans, cleaning and painting them, buying swag, finding an area and placing a cache. I want to place quality caches that people will find enjoyable and will have stories to tell about.

Link to comment

Oh good grief .. and so it begins. You totally skipped the part where I said I appreciate the work our reviewers do and I praised them for being polite. I place geocaches in my small town because I want to bring people here. I want them to see some of the areas I have come to appreciate. I want new cachers here to have caches to go to and not have to travel a long way. If I was entitlement minded I wouldn't be going through the hassle of buying cans, cleaning and painting them, buying swag, finding an area and placing a cache. I want to place quality caches that people will find enjoyable and will have stories to tell about.

 

So read the guidelines and follow them.... What was the question again?

Link to comment

The only issue I've ever had was my reviewer thought a cache should be a Mystery instead of a Multi (today, the definition of a multi specifically includes what my cache was, so I was right ;))

 

1) Eh, it's been two years since the original went away. Let it be new. One of my caches is pretty much the same as one I archived a few years ago. The worst that happens is someone has two uncontested smileys for essentially the same cache.

 

2) I'm not a fan of cache saturation, so no sympathy from me there :unsure:. But, if you have a very compelling reason for both caches to exist, I imagine you could get an exception. If not, well, that's the guideline. I don't know where you saw three on top of each other or why it was allowed, but it probably shouldn't be or more and more people will want to do it.

 

3) Are you saying you stated something that was ignored? Not clear on this one.

 

4) With a creek in between and the land specifically being a park (I'm guessing that, from the info you gave), you ought to be able to get an exception. But I'm not at all surprised it was flagged.

 

I haven't submitted a cache in about a year, but as I recall, there's a Note to Reviewer feature. Are you using those? It would be a lot better I think than just having special info in the description.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

Homemade chocolate chip cookies might possibly be helpful.

 

Good idea .. I'll place them in my next cache next to the fireworks and controlled substances. :unsure:

How is the reviewer supposed to get them there?

 

Placing them in the cache only works if you hide the cache on the reviewers desk. Otherwise I'd recommend sending the cookies to the reviewer and place the cache as normal.

Link to comment
1) Eh, it's been two years since the original went away. Let it be new. One of my caches is pretty much the same as one I archived a few years ago. The worst that happens is someone has two uncontested smileys for essentially the same cache.

 

I understand that, I just don't understand what the problem is preventing them from un-archiving the original .. since I was the one who placed it. I was simply away from the geocaching world for a while.

 

2) I'm not a fan of cache saturation, so no sympathy from me there :unsure: . But, if you have a very compelling reason for both caches to exist, I imagine you could get an exception. If not, well, that's the guideline. I don't know where you saw three on top of each other or why it was allowed, but it probably shouldn't be or more and more people will want to do it.

 

Well, we are nowhere near saturated. There are 5 geocaches in the city limits of Somerset and one of them is about to be archived. As much as I detest micros I wanted to bring people to some special areas in downtown Somerset. These two caches were one honoring our POW soldiers and the second one honoring one of our native sons.

I haven't submitted a cache in about a year, but as I recall, there's a Note to Reviewer feature. Are you using those? It would be a lot better I think than just having special info in the description.

 

Yes I am, with every cache.

Link to comment

I've only ever had 1 cache with an issue and that got resolved easily.

 

Best advice I can give is to read and then re-read the guidelines. Make absolutley certain that your cache falls very easily into ALL of the guidelines and it should be no problem to get approved. Anytime you can look at a hide and then start to wonder if it breaks some sentence in the guidelines - then you should think twice about hiding it.

Link to comment

1) It's possible that the refusal to re-list the original had something to do with the fact that the reviewer had to archive the original because of lack of cache maintenance. I understand that you were away from the game for a while, I'm just saying that could be part of the reason.

 

2) As listed, these violated a basic saturation guideline, so were flagged. BUT, since they shared a common theme, ("These two caches were one honoring our POW soldiers and the second one honoring one of our native sons."), have you considered making them a 2-part multi? You can place a container at both locations and give honor to everyone.

 

3) You never really said what the reviewer's problem was with this one...

 

4) As listed, this cache violates a basic safety guideline and was right to be flagged. You called it an "old railroad"... does that mean it's no longer active? If you can prove this (picture or description of rusted rails, overgrown right-of-way, or paved over crossings), then you should have no problem getting an exception. If it's still active, then prove that there is no danger of anyone searching for the cache going onto RR property (picture or description of a fence, hard-to-cross creek, steep hillside, etc.).

 

Of the four caches you listed, two violated basic guidelines and one had a huge black mark against it because it was originally archived due to lack of owner (you) maintenance. This is not a case of being picked on, this is just a list of caches where the reviewer appears to have been doing a good job.

 

Others have mentioned the fact that people in authority tend to look harder at people who have offended in the past (this is true for the IRS, police officers, building inspectors, and volunteer reviewers). If you're careful to strictly adhere to the guidelines when listing several caches in a row then you'll probably drop off the "past offender" radar.

 

As for the cache you mentioned that's about to be archived, all the owner has to do is either post a "Owner Maintenance" log or manually remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon. Lots of people simply don't know they have to do this. If you want the cache to stay, then I'd suggest emailing the owner and telling him/her about this.

Link to comment

He's just someone that doesn't think the guidelines should apply to him, that's about all we can really tell... ;)

 

Actually I am wondering why the guidelines aren't applying universally to all the caches I encounter. Also the word 'guideline' seems rather vague .. almost like 'suggestion.' From what I have encountered with other caches is that at times they are simply suggestions. I know without the ability to physically check all caches the reviewer's hands are somewhat tied, but I wanted to know if others have had these experiences as well. Also I wouldn't want these other caches to be removed either.

 

 

Overall, judging from the overall tone of your overall reply, this all suggests to us that you don't hate to get all "spiritual" and metaphysical on this guy, but in fact relish it. I has been our personal observation in life that when someone makes these sorts of personal attacks, there is usually a lot more to the story, and there is usually a rather major problem of undisclosed origin. :unsure:

 

But thanks anyway for the pseudo-clinical and unwarranted analysis of his character. :)

:D
Link to comment

Homemade chocolate chip cookies might possibly be helpful.

 

Good idea .. I'll place them in my next cache next to the fireworks and controlled substances. :unsure:

How is the reviewer supposed to get them there?

 

Placing them in the cache only works if you hide the cache on the reviewers desk. Otherwise I'd recommend sending the cookies to the reviewer and place the cache as normal.

Homebrew seems to lube the gears well. ;)

Link to comment

 

Thanks, I was thinking it was 150 feet but wasn't positive without looking it up. I believe I have read that it was do to trespassing concerns, not terror concerns. Although those concerns are also valid.

 

The first cache I submitted for review was rejected due to the RR proximity guideline. In this case, there was a main road parallel to the tracks, then one turned into a driveway, across the tracks, and into a small town park at the edge of a lake. There is a small parking lot close to the tracks, a large gazebo, a large grassy area and lots of large rocks at the waters edge. I placed the cache in the gazebo, which turned out to be 140' from the tracks. One of these days I'll resubmit it with a placement closer to the water. I took some waypoints and there are several good hiding spots about 170' away and this spot is just too scenic not to have a cache.

 

When the reviewer rejected the submission he sent along a url for a cache which was placed too close to some RR tracks in which the owner of the cache got into some very deep doo-doo when authorities found it and prosecuted him.

Link to comment

 

 

2) Our town here is very small and with the distance restraints it doesn't allow for many caches to be placed here.

 

I don't get this part. What's to prevent you from placing caches outside the town boundries? I live in a relatively small town as well. There are about 140 caches within 10 miles of the center of town, and very few are actually near the center. Most are in outlying areas that are far more interesting.

Link to comment

He's just someone that doesn't think the guidelines should apply to him, that's about all we can really tell... :unsure:

 

Actually I am wondering why the guidelines aren't applying universally to all the caches I encounter. Also the word 'guideline' seems rather vague .. almost like 'suggestion.' From what I have encountered with other caches is that at times they are simply suggestions. I know without the ability to physically check all caches the reviewer's hands are somewhat tied, but I wanted to know if others have had these experiences as well. Also I wouldn't want these other caches to be removed either.

 

 

Can't use other caches to site a precedence. First off they may be grandfathered from before a particular guideline was established. Second, and more important here in the forums, a vague reference to an undisclosed similar situation is no example. Can't prove or disprove the hypothetical.

Link to comment

1) The cache had been archived after a non-response from you, a couple years ago. To me, this warrants a new cache placement.

 

2) It sounds like you are saying that you placed the two caches too close to each other. If the caches are less than .1 miles from each other, then one of them shouldn't be listed. You haven't said how many feet apart they were from each other.

 

3) You're a bit vague on this one. But if a Reviewer suspects that a cache is on private property, then they may make a note with some questions. That's normal, as they cannot visit the site themselves and find out. A quick note back to them with the answers to their questions is usually all that's needed. I don't see anything wrong here.

 

4) The guideline about RR tracks is about trespassing. Some people have mentioned safety, but it's really about property issues. I don't see that you have answered people's questions about if there's a fence or some sort of physical border between the tracks and the park. If there is, you could tell the Reviewer about that. But otherwise, you could probably go to the county and get property lines (sometimes these things are online). If these show that the park is owned by the city (for instance), and that your cache is on the park side, you might get an exception. Not knowing all the issues though, I can't really say. It's just a suggestion. Generic statements to the Reviewer about who owns what doesn't really help them out with reviewing the situation.

 

I'm glad that you're trying to place quality caches for your community. I think that you've just come up with some things more often then some do. Most of it is just communicating with the Reviewer. It's great that you're posting Reviewer notes with info for them, but if it's not the info that they need, then they'll ask questions. That's normal. There's no need to worry about that. :unsure:

Link to comment
Thanks, I was thinking it was 150 feet but wasn't positive without looking it up. I believe I have read that it was do to trespassing concerns, not terror concerns. Although those concerns are also valid.

The first cache I submitted for review was rejected due to the RR proximity guideline.[...] I placed the cache in the gazebo, which turned out to be 140' from the tracks.

 

When the reviewer rejected the submission he sent along a url for a cache which was placed too close to some RR tracks in which the owner of the cache got into some very deep doo-doo when authorities found it and prosecuted him.

One thing I'm surprised no one has mentioned yet with regard to railroads... similar to overhead power lines, natural or constructed barriers or not, they also tend to have an "easement" on both sides of their tracks that may extend well in to what someone else may consider "property" (either public or private). Likewise, people tend to have a general perception on what "too close" to those same active structures may be before they consider you to be "around" it (purely from an observer's "personal space" point of view).

 

Like with most important structures, infrastructure and facilities (included but not limited to power plants, government buildings, bridges, schools and railways), observant muggles may tend to be a bit more paranoid when they notice someone milling about or otherwise loitering or looking suspicious in those types of areas... and consequently, are much more likely to get the authorities involved in this post 9/11 world... and we've probably all seen enough news stories of the bomb squads that have been called in to clear out harmless geocaches and similar, lately.

 

So, what I am trying to say: these guidelines exist for a reason -- to protect people (and this hobby) from themselves and not simply to annoy/inconvenience you. The more bad press that brought about for this hobby that we all enjoy (don't we?), the tougher I figure it may be to participate with it as time goes on (similarly, the more frustrated many people (like yourself) that may become with it and "give up"). Yeah, it sucks... and it may cause you more "work" up front to get something approved. But sit back, take a breath / drink a beer / whatever... as others have said, there has to be some rather simple reason that you are seemingly (temporarily?) having problems with approvals -- I don't think you're anyone's kick-dog, though.

 

As I've also been known to point out in situations like this... if you really think it's "all about denying you," the next time you are in the store, remember to pick up a tube of Preparation H and read the side of it. Notice it says: "Do Not Ingest!" You know why? Because at some point some idiot did... that should be food for thought (kinda like the warnings on blow dryers, toasters, etc that say "do not use in the shower").

 

BTW... as others have also pointed out... I think all that you need to do to keep that cache from getting archived is that the owner (yourself?) just needs to be "kick" the thing out of "needs maintenance" and then all should be good.

Edited by russellvt
Link to comment

As some others have mentioned, the only time I've had trouble with my listings is when I screwed something up. The reviewers were universally helpful in getting me back on track. Communication is key in resolving conflicts. State your case to the reviewer in question, in an E-mail, and ask them what would it take to get your listings published. You were kinda vague with your descriptions, so I can't be sure, but the only one I see from my perspective, that probably won't be fixable, is the one in close proximity to the other.

 

With more details, we might be able to offer better advice, but I think you need to be having these conversations with your reviewer, not with us, at this point. Typically, these forums are kind of a last resort place to air your grievances, and I don't think you're at the last resort stage yet.

 

Good luck!

 

-Sean

Link to comment

Hi, and thanks for your questions. It's always fine to ask whether others are having similar experiences. Consistency among reviewers is always a challenge, and with many of the guidelines, we are given a fair amount of discretion.

 

Since I can see the unpublished caches, as well as the deleted pre-publication notes on the published caches, I thought I'd respond with additional information and observations.

 

1) I couldn't get my Up in a Holler 1 cache http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...bc-5db5d2007406 unarchived, even though I was the original owner, so I had to make a second one right on the spot of the old one. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...b5-4021b38ebe23 I hated that the old 'finds' won't be connected to these newer ones, even though it is the same geocache.

Groundspeak has asked us not to unarchive caches that have been archived for a long time. A couple of months is OK; a couple of years, not so much so.

 

2) Our town here is very small and with the distance restraints it doesn't allow for many caches to be placed here. I placed two micros in one day. I had to archive http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...22-c4b64437cfbc in order to keep my other one: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...75-f19790e822c2 I have been to other cache areas that have 3 caches right on top of each other.

The caches were submitted 206 feet apart. Even in very cache dense areas, we strive to stay close to the 528 foot minimum. Reviewers do have a lot of discretion; I published one today in a cemetery that was 480 feet from a cache in a neighboring park. But, I haven't seen any exceptions granted at a distance of 200 feet. If it happens, it's either grandfathered from a long time ago, or the owner moved a cache after publication, or the reviewer missed it, or the caches qualify for an exception based on a physical barrier like a cliff or river. I didn't see a basis for an exception here.

 

As an alternative, consider featuring one of the two spots as a virtual waypoint in a multicache. Virtual stages of multis are exempt from the 528 foot guideline. Have the cacher collect information from signs, etc., at that spot, which help determine the coords for a physical cache hidden a safe distance away.

3) I had to try a couple of times to get this one listed: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...63-241bd861eb18 I originally stated it was next to a creek not on private property.

You submitted the cache May 4th; the reviewer asked two questions on May 5th; you replied the same day and the cache was published by the end of the day on May 5th. What's the problem? Both of the reviewer's observations were valid questions. The cache was close to private property, and caches with a one-star terrain rating ought to be wheelchair accessible.

 

4) And the past couple of days I have been trying to get this one listed: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...05-4c3d807d33e7 It is on public land that my donations paid for. I was actually the vice president and president for the associational youth rallies that developed this land. Because there is an old railway up on a hill past a creek, I can't place a geocache on this land.

The cache coordinates look to be about 40 feet from the tracks. Our minimum is 150 feet unless the hider can demonstrate a basis to overcome that presumption. Either move your cache 100 feet, or show that the cache isn't on the right of way and is physically separated from the right of way so folks don't trespass there. Permission from the park is a good way to demonstrate this.

 

I try to place geocaches that I would personally like to find. I want to bring people to areas they would have never seen otherwise. But if it continues to be this difficult to get them placed I'll eventually lose interest.

The vast majority of geocaches are published on the first review with no back and forth. They meet the guidelines. We LOVE publishing caches that meet the guidelines. And when they don't, we are happy to work with the owners to get them compliant. I encourage you to keep hiding caches, but with an eye on the guidelines.

Link to comment

Let's see, I have only put one down and had a problem. I guess it was too close to another. The other is not even published yet and is for a geocaching event mid-June.

 

I just moved it down the street a little and the next time I checked it, it was published.

 

I think the thing you need to do is check to make sure there are not any close by before you post it for review and make sure that it is in line with all of the other rules.

Link to comment

I've only placed 9, but they have all been published without a hitch so far.

 

But then I have always made sure they are well away from any other caches, and nowhere even remotely near railroad tracks or private property.

 

As long as you stay well within the guidelines, you shouldn't have any problems.

Link to comment

1) Archived aches can be brought back if they meet current guidelines and you are the owner. If you literally had the cache where the old one was and the new listing was approved then the old cache could have also been unarchived. If you had an account name change between the old and new...that's another thing.

 

2) Proximity rules don't change much. This is a guidelines. There are exceptions but they are the exceptions and most caches fall short of exception material. You only alternate is alternate listing sites.

 

3) Reviewers read maps. If the map said it's on private property they would clarifity. It's to be expected in a case like this where it's close. Maps are only so accurate, mistakes happen. The double check was no skin off your back.

 

4) The cache can be approved if it's not on the RR Right Of Way. This site uses distance from the ROW that trys to err on the safe side. The guideline distance and the actual Right of way may not be the same. Assuming the cache meets other guidelines and it's not on the RR ROW it should be approvable.

 

I can only comment on what you have posted about. There may be other circumstances to these caches that also impact the listing decision.

 

To answer your other question. Yes, I bump into problems. Sometimes placing a good cache, and the guidelines conflict.

 

On one cache I had help maintaining the cache by an elderly couple who lived near by. I chose to respect their privacy by not divulging their names on my cache page. The cache was not listed.

 

On another cache 528' was a parking lot. 300' was a rock face, that you could climb near the river. That's where I placed the cache. The cache was not listed.

 

Another cache split the difference between a roadside cache and one behind the dog pound. 100' from one (but up a cliff) and 400' from the other. I found another rock face you could climb up via a crick and once up on a shelf you would be hidden from people in the park and the road. I put the cache in that spot. I didn't even try to list it here.

 

Another cache was when we had locationless. I reversed the rules and had you pick a location first. It broke the guidelines but met the spirit and intent of locationless and caching. They approved it. I had a reviewer on that one who understood that the guidelines have a spirit and intent and caches can meet it but break one or more guidelines because rules seldom perfectly capture what they are trying to accomplish.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

I had a moderately hard time getting permission to place a cache in a NY state park. There were 3 caches in the park (more than a mile away from where I wanted to place), but when I put mine up for review, NY state parks had since created the need for a permit for all caches placed in state parks :grin:

 

My biggest problem was finding the appropriate park ranger for the area I wanted to place a cache and being able to physically get him the signed forms, since he was only available weekdays 9am-5pm and most of that time was's not in the office but out rangering (how dare he! :huh: )

 

I've finally got the permit and stickers for my cache today :(

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...