Excessively strict on publishing caches

[+Adium]

I have a couple hides now and it seems like every time I hide another cache it takes about a week to get it published because the person who reviews them kicks them back.

 

Out of my own cache's, one had a picture of a sign to a miniture golf course where the cache was hidden, he considered it solicitation. Another he published, then the next day came back and archived it cause he thought the groundkeepers at the cemetery were very strict (didn't contact me to ask if I had permission, just archived it after it was already published and before it was found). And one he took a week to get back with me cause I had a link in the cache details and that page had ads on it, which is solictation. The page was required to enter in the puzzle answer and get the coordinates. I hid one cache behind my house and put a travel bug magnet on my car, which stays in that cache. When people find the cache at my house they find the travel bug in the driveway. I meantioned the company where I bought the TB on the TB page and he wouldn't publish the cache because I meantioned the TB which mentioned the company, which sponsors Groundspeak anyway and that is solicitation. (The company was Cache Advance, which I mainly mentioned cause I thought the name was kinda cleaver) About 50% of my hides (32 published, 9 waiting) have been kicked back and I have had to review them.

 

I am curious is this normal? Are they suppose to be this sensitive and strict when it comes to publishing a cache? Because I am noticing a trend in this area now, where everyone is going underground, talking primarily through e-mail before they make a post to the cache page cause they found a posted sign or the cache is in a location that could pose alarming to authorities. Now I am seeing some post coordinates 200-300 feet off on purpose, then giving a good description of where the cache is hidden because they otherwise would be in violation of the 528ft rule. This is the one that really gets me going since I use PQ's and don't read the cache details unless I can't find the cache quick enough.

 

Its not just one or two cachers that are doing this either. It's the entire city in which I live in.

 

Personally I feel like its in a situation now where people are acting like two wrongs do make a right. The reviewer is being so strict that everyone here has no choice but to violate what he says we can and can't do. Then on the other hand since everyone is going against what the reviewer says some are taking it to the extreme and now, no one cares.

 

Does anyone else see this from where they are caching? I'm in Central New York.

[+sbell111]

First, I have no direct knowledge of your situation because my only real experiences with Syracuse revolve around going to the state fair every year as a kid. That being said, I would argue that the pushback that you are getting from your reviewer is appropriate. If there is an issue with your cache, it's appropriate for him to hold off on listing or, in the case of questions regarding newly listed caches, archive the cache until the questions can be answered.

 

I also think that if you and your fellow cachers continue to thumb your noses at the guidelines that the reviewers will scrutinize your caches even more. It's a much better idea to work hard to make sure that your caches meet the guidelines prior to submitting them and being prepared to defend them against any questions. As the reviewers learn that you take the guidelines seriously, they might not look at them as closely. I like to think of this as the IRS rule.

Edited June 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+Totem Clan]

I agree with sbell on this one. The reviewers are there for a reason. Learn the guidelines and use them well and the reviewers will be your best friends.

 

As of last night my hide count stands at 30 and 31 through 34 should be out in the next two weeks. Of all those there have only been 3 cases where the caches didn't get published right away.

The first was my third or fourth cache. I rated it a 1 terrain and the reviewer simply asked me if it was handicap accessible. I changed it to a 1.5 and it was published within an hour of the original submission time.

The second was a few weeks ago right after the solicitation guidelines changed. I was asked to remove one line for the cache page. I did so and it was published.

The third time was this week. Within minutes of submitting the cache the reviewer informed me that it was on State Park land. I thought it was on the City Park land and had gotten premission from the wrong people. One phone call later I had premission. Three days later I had the permit in hand. (My fault for the delay. It's been a busy week.) The cache was published within an hour of my arriving back home with the permit. (On a side note. I now have premission to hide caches anywhere in the park. The ranger had some great hide stops in mind and we are planning a CITO for this fall. I would have never gone to talk to that ranger if not for the reviewer. Thanks Surfer Joe.)

 

The point is, the reviewer are an asset for you to use to facilitate cache placement, not a barrier to cache placement. Get to know your reviewers and the guidelines and you'll be amazed at how easy and quick it becomes to place a cache.

[+Adium]

I have read the guidelines and try to follow them. But holding my cache in queue for an entire week, then telling me I can't publish it cause the page I use to solve a puzzle is considered solicitation seems kind of strict. Yes it has ads, but so does every other web page on the internet, there is even one at the very top of this page.

 

Where is this in the guidelines?

 

Then off the subject of solicitation, I had a reviewer publish my cache, then 24 hours later the same reviewer took a second look and archived it because he "thought" I didn't have permission. He had no clue if I did or didn't, no e-mail, no nothing. Just change of mind and archived.

 

Again, where is this anywhere in the guidelines? No one even had a chance to find that cache before he archived it. Just goodbye!

 

I am not the only one that is seeing this. And its getting rather excessive. Instead of complaining, its an easy fix. Ignore the reviewer, and leave out details. I can't count the number of caches I have recovered "UNDER" a posted sign. I know of one in a rock quarry that has cops patrol it regularly giving out $500 trespassing tickets ever since a mountain biker died after being air lifted out.

 

I have stopped using the term "Geocache" and the logos that are put out by Groundspeak. Simply because if they don't publish it on Geocaching.com they will on terracaching or navicache. I made this remark at a meet-up and everyone laughed at me (I'm the newbie). They said they all learned that quickly and do the same.

 

I agree, we need rules and guidelines. But more so in the lines of safety. Does it really matter that I mentioned a round of golf at the mini-golf course is $5 a round?

 

People start ignoring one rule, soon they will ignore them all.

 

(Air Assault!!)

Edited June 5, 2008 by Adium

[Clan Riffster]

Something one of our reviewers told me a while back seems particularly relevant here:

Almost every guideline in place today, exists because a cacher did something that violated common sense.

I'm wondering if the Syracuse reviewer isn't already aware of your, (collective you), local propensity for ignoring/dodging the guidelines, and is applying greater scrutiny as a result?

[+Adium]

Something one of our reviewers told me a while back seems particularly relevant here:

Almost every guideline in place today, exists because a cacher did something that violated common sense.

I'm wondering if the Syracuse reviewer isn't already aware of your, (collective you), local propensity for ignoring/dodging the guidelines, and is applying greater scrutiny as a result?

 

If that is true, then as a new cacher myself he makes it seem a lot more reasonable to follow the crowd.

[+infiniteMPG]

Reviewers are volunteers and IMHO if anyone has a lot of complaints about the process then they need to step up to the plate and try the job for a while. I'd hate to deal with what they have to deal with and tip my hat to each and every one of them. I don't think I've got the tolerance for it myself.

 

And just as in all of life, if you treat the people with respect and diplomacy then your chances of getting that back are high. If you treat them with animosity and distrust then chances are your path will be tough. With border line hides you need to expect to have it questioned or even denied, and it's best to just roll with the flow and move on. Make the reviewer's life easier and they'll make your's easier, too. Give them a hard time and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out the result.

[Clan Riffster]

If that is true, then as a new cacher myself he makes it seem a lot more reasonable to follow the crowd.

Perhaps. I don't know the "crowd". Maybe they are nothing more than a vocal minority? If a group of people start advocating breaking the law, (or guidelines in this case), and I recognize that, if I follow their lead, it could have a significant impact on my recreation, then I would rather set myself up as an example of how it's supposed to be done, rather than continuing the rule breaking cycle. You are describing a scenario in which the majority has opted for lawlessness. Following that crowd has consequences.

[+Adium]

Reviewers are volunteers and IMHO if anyone has a lot of complaints about the process then they need to step up to the plate and try the job for a while. I'd hate to deal with what they have to deal with and tip my hat to each and every one of them. I don't think I've got the tolerance for it myself.

 

And just as in all of life, if you treat the people with respect and diplomacy then your chances of getting that back are high. If you treat them with animosity and distrust then chances are your path will be tough. With border line hides you need to expect to have it questioned or even denied, and it's best to just roll with the flow and move on. Make the reviewer's life easier and they'll make your's easier, too. Give them a hard time and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out the result.

 

I hear that a lot. So much that they are afraid to complain to the reviewer and instead just continue giving him that respect and IGNORE him.

 

I am not disrespecting anyone, I am simply saying that everyone here ignores him when they don't like something that he did. They change to to make him happy out of respect then turn around and lie for their own benifit. No one is complaining, thats part of the issue.

[+starscream2]

I am personally glad the reviewers are strict when they look through caches. I as a cache finder I do NOT want to get yelled for being on private property, do NOT want a $500 ticket for tresspassing, do NOT want caches pages to be ads for local businesses, etc. The more questions they can ask to prevent this stuff the better.

 

I do agree just hearing your description without seeing the full details they were a bit harsh with the solicitation angle. I don't get the impression you were try to advertise anything, and I think the reviewer has some freedom in what they consider solicitation. But again this is completely based on what you wrote, maybe if I saw their point of view I would change my mind.

 

I have seen other posts like this and the advice has always been when you submit your caches for publishing document everything and detail it for the reviewer as much as possible. Pictures, details, proof of permission, etc. The more stuff proving the hide is valid, the better chance it will be published quickly. If I was a reviewer any cache that came through without any information would be srutinized and questioned heavily. It is on the hider to prove the location is valid.

 

As for others ignoring or skirting guidelines. That is a sure way just to cause the reviewer to try to crack down more, while the same time giving geocaching to get a bad name. People complain about the geocache cops out there... well try following the guidelines and using common sense. You see it in the forums every week, someone complaing that their "great" location got archived even though it was in obvious guideline violation. I don't know what the deal is. There are plenty of good spots that meet all guidelines, but whether is a numbers game to get more hides or what, but people have to keep trying to hide in spots that are not valid and then get upset when it gets revoked.

[+sbell111]

Something one of our reviewers told me a while back seems particularly relevant here:

Almost every guideline in place today, exists because a cacher did something that violated common sense.

I'm wondering if the Syracuse reviewer isn't already aware of your, (collective you), local propensity for ignoring/dodging the guidelines, and is applying greater scrutiny as a result?

If that is true, then as a new cacher myself he makes it seem a lot more reasonable to follow the crowd.

Actually, as a new cacher, you should expect your cache submissions to be scruitanized. How is the reviewer supposed to know that you are taking the guidelines seriously if you don't have a track record? Similarly, if there is typically a problem with your submissions, the reviewer is going to learn that he has to look at your submissions closer.

Reviewers are volunteers and IMHO if anyone has a lot of complaints about the process then they need to step up to the plate and try the job for a while. I'd hate to deal with what they have to deal with and tip my hat to each and every one of them. I don't think I've got the tolerance for it myself.

 

And just as in all of life, if you treat the people with respect and diplomacy then your chances of getting that back are high. If you treat them with animosity and distrust then chances are your path will be tough. With border line hides you need to expect to have it questioned or even denied, and it's best to just roll with the flow and move on. Make the reviewer's life easier and they'll make your's easier, too. Give them a hard time and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out the result.

I hear that a lot. So much that they are afraid to complain to the reviewer and instead just continue giving him that respect and IGNORE him.

 

I am not disrespecting anyone, I am simply saying that everyone here ignores him when they don't like something that he did. They change to to make him happy out of respect then turn around and lie for their own benifit. No one is complaining, thats part of the issue.

Ummm, ignoring your reviewer and lying to him is not showing him respect and will only come back to bite you. These are the type of actions that cause people to be banned from the site.

[+sbell111]

... I do agree just hearing your description without seeing the full details they were a bit harsh with the solicitation angle. I don't get the impression you were try to advertise anything, and I think the reviewer has some freedom in what they consider solicitation. But again this is completely based on what you wrote, maybe if I saw their point of view I would change my mind.

Actually, I don't think that the reviewers have been given any wiggle room regarding solicitation. For this reason it surprised me to read that there was a delay in denying that cache listing. Normally, they would simply deny the listing and refer you to TPTB. I suspect that what happened is that the reviewer noted that the company in question was cache advance and, trying to give the noob extra service, paused to consult with TPTB and/or other reviewers before taking action.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Reviewers are volunteers and IMHO if anyone has a lot of complaints about the process then they need to step up to the plate and try the job for a while. I'd hate to deal with what they have to deal with and tip my hat to each and every one of them. I don't think I've got the tolerance for it myself.

 

And just as in all of life, if you treat the people with respect and diplomacy then your chances of getting that back are high. If you treat them with animosity and distrust then chances are your path will be tough. With border line hides you need to expect to have it questioned or even denied, and it's best to just roll with the flow and move on. Make the reviewer's life easier and they'll make your's easier, too. Give them a hard time and it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out the result.

 

I hear that a lot. So much that they are afraid to complain to the reviewer and instead just continue giving him that respect and IGNORE him.

 

I am not disrespecting anyone, I am simply saying that everyone here ignores him when they don't like something that he did. They change to to make him happy out of respect then turn around and lie for their own benifit. No one is complaining, thats part of the issue.

What you must understand, once your reviewer know that like to ignore the guidlines the reviewer can put your caches on a watch list, from that point on all logs and any changes are sent to him/her.

You may want to read the guidlines again.

[+infiniteMPG]

I hear that a lot. So much that they are afraid to complain to the reviewer and instead just continue giving him that respect and IGNORE him.

You can challenge a reviewer's opinion all you want but be sure that you have your ducks in a row and do it diplomatically. And keep in mind this is a recreational activity run by volunteers and not some goverment agency so when it's all said and done, the reviewer has the final word. You don't have a Supreme Reviewer Court you can move your case up to if you don't like the result. Some reviewers are tougher then others and unfortunately you don't get to pick who your reviewer is. But kind of like also not being able to pick the cop that cruises your route to work, if you get on their wrong side you'll be dealing with the consequences until you move or stop driving.

 

I am not disrespecting anyone, I am simply saying that everyone here ignores him when they don't like something that he did. They change to to make him happy out of respect then turn around and lie for their own benifit. No one is complaining, thats part of the issue.

They might not change out of respect, they might change out of the fact that there's not a whole lot of options available if you don't like their decision. And if I was a reviewer and I caught wind of people lying about the listed coords I'd probably archive every one they owned until they proved they were hidden at the listed coords.

 

There is almost 60 million square miles of land on Earth making room for about 6 billion caches (not counting water based caches) so I think there's room to respect the the 1/10th mile guideline

[+briansnat]

I am curious is this normal?

 

It can be for folks who don't read and follow the guidelines.

 

Does anyone else see this from where they are caching? I'm in Central New York

 

Nope. I've placed over 230 caches and only had one questioned. It was published when I answered to the reviewer's satisfaction.

 

All you need to do is read the guidelines and follow them and you'll rarely encounter problems.

 

If you are placing a cache that you think might be questionable run it by your reviewer first.

 

If there are things about your cache that the reviewer might flag, address them ahead of time in a note to reviewer. If you have permission, mention that.

 

Before you submit your cache click on some of the map links. You'll see what the reviewer sees. If it shows your cache to be on a military base, but it was sold to the town and turned into a park, mention that in a note to reviewer. If the maps show your cache to be along RR tracks, but they were converted to a biking trail, that should be noted. If you want him to waive the .1 mile guideline because there is a cliff or river between the caches, that should be mentioned. Include pertinent photos and/or if you can find news articles that prove your case, include a link.

 

The more info you provide the reviewer the less legwork he has to do and the quicker your cache will be published.

 

By the way, the best way to have your caches take longer to get published is to develop a reputation for skirting the rules and dishonesty. Your caches will certainly undergo more scrutiny if you do.

 

Work with your reviewer, not against him. He's a geocacher too and he wants to publish your cache - as long as it conforms to the guidelines.

[+infiniteMPG]

I am personally glad the reviewers are strict when they look through caches. I as a cache finder I do NOT want to get yelled for being on private property, do NOT want a $500 ticket for tresspassing, do NOT want caches pages to be ads for local businesses, etc. The more questions they can ask to prevent this stuff the better.

$500 tresspassing ticket? Wow, MN is tough. Here in Florida if you're tresspassing, unless you are displaying actions that appear to be committing (or about to commit) a crime then all they can do is ask you to leave. If you refuse they haul you in but there's no tresspassing ticket they hand out. But I agree, the guidelines are there for a reason, not because they sounded neat. And we have had land management groups (county parks & rec, etc) start cracking down on geocaching activities because of people placing hides where they shouldn't be and people seeking them being where they shouldn't be. So the guidelines are there to protect the future of geocaching, too.

[+Adium]

I am the one that is getting scrutinized. I am following the guidelines, or doing everything in my power to follow them. Except I feel like I am the only one, and I am getting punished for it!

[+Sapience Trek]

But holding my cache in queue for an entire week

 

2.5 days is not a week, at least not where I'm from.

[+nikcap]

I have read the guidelines and try to follow them. But holding my cache in queue for an entire week, then telling me I can't publish it cause the page I use to solve a puzzle is considered solicitation seems kind of strict. Yes it has ads, but so does every other web page on the internet, there is even one at the very top of this page.

 

Where is this in the guidelines?

 

This should cover it.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#solicit

 

It's open to interpretation.

 

Then off the subject of solicitation, I had a reviewer publish my cache, then 24 hours later the same reviewer took a second look and archived it because he "thought" I didn't have permission. He had no clue if I did or didn't, no e-mail, no nothing. Just change of mind and archived.

 

Again, where is this anywhere in the guidelines? No one even had a chance to find that cache before he archived it. Just goodbye!

 

Perhaps the cache shouldn't have been published in the first place. The good news is this is easily fixed by assuring the reviewer that you have permission. Then everyone can find your cache.

 

I am not the only one that is seeing this. And its getting rather excessive. Instead of complaining, its an easy fix. Ignore the reviewer, and leave out details. I can't count the number of caches I have recovered "UNDER" a posted sign. I know of one in a rock quarry that has cops patrol it regularly giving out $500 trespassing tickets ever since a mountain biker died after being air lifted out.

 

Did you request the cache to be archived, or notify the reviewer.

Showing responsibility will go a long way and help you with getting your caches published.

What happens to the cacher that gets fined for visiting the cache?

You know someone is going to try and get Groundspeak on to the ticket of people to sue. Right or wrong or even legitimate, Geocaching.com doesn't need that kind of grief.

 

I have stopped using the term "Geocache" and the logos that are put out by Groundspeak. Simply because if they don't publish it on Geocaching.com they will on terracaching or navicache. I made this remark at a meet-up and everyone laughed at me (I'm the newbie). They said they all learned that quickly and do the same.

 

That's probably a good idea.

 

I agree, we need rules and guidelines. But more so in the lines of safety. Does it really matter that I mentioned a round of golf at the mini-golf course is $5 a round?

 

People start ignoring one rule, soon they will ignore them all.

 

You hit the nail on the head.

Does it really matter if you don't mention that a round of golf at the mini-golf course is $5 a round?

 

Groundspeak has done a pretty good job at keeping integrity in a game that could easily get out of hand.

The game is enjoyable and accessible to more people then it excluded.

 

I completely understand their concern about providing links to pages with ads or questionable material. Many Interweb surfers don't completely get it, and think that everything that all of the "tubes" connected to a cache page is property of Geocaching.

 

Work it out with your reviewer. He/She probably caches in your area and wants caches placed there to find on his/her player account.

[+StarBrand]

It is the reviewer's job to interpret and enforce the guidelines to the best of thier ability. HQ provides a number of the interpretations and the rest of the reviewer community helps when there is a question. Sounds like he doing just what he is supposed to. You may not agree or like it but then you can appeal. In the end, several folks will look at it and come to a conclusion.

 

Ignoring the guidelines and doing your own thing is not the solution. Find a way to work with the reviewer and within the guidlines - thousands of us do and we get caches published all the time.

[+Adium]

$500 tresspassing ticket? Wow, MN is tough.

 

I'm in New York. And they give out the $500 tickets cause everyone ignores the posted signs..., well actually they do this.

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2268/250014...0f0305c.jpg?v=0

[+sbell111]

I hear that a lot. So much that they are afraid to complain to the reviewer and instead just continue giving him that respect and IGNORE him.

You can challenge a reviewer's opinion all you want but be sure that you have your ducks in a row and do it diplomatically. And keep in mind this is a recreational activity run by volunteers and not some goverment agency so when it's all said and done, the reviewer has the final word. You don't have a Supreme Reviewer Court you can move your case up to if you don't like the result.

appeals@geocaching.com (from the guidelines)

[+Kit Fox]

Something one of our reviewers told me a while back seems particularly relevant here:

Almost every guideline in place today, exists because a cacher did something that violated common sense.

I'm wondering if the Syracuse reviewer isn't already aware of your, (collective you), local propensity for ignoring/dodging the guidelines, and is applying greater scrutiny as a result?

 

This sure sounds like a case of a cacher "making a bad name for themselves."

 

I am curious is this normal?

 

It can be for folks who don't read and follow the guidelines.

 

Does anyone else see this from where they are caching? I'm in Central New York

 

Nope. I've placed over 230 caches and only had one questioned. It was published when I answered to the reviewer's satisfaction.

 

All you need to do is read the guidelines and follow them and you'll rarely encounter problems.

 

If you are placing a cache that you think might be questionable run it by your reviewer first.

 

If there are things about your cache that the reviewer might flag, address them ahead of time in a note to reviewer. If you have permission, mention that.

 

Before you submit your cache click on some of the map links. You'll see what the reviewer sees. If it shows your cache to be on a military base, but it was sold to the town and turned into a park, mention that in a note to reviewer. If the maps show your cache to be along RR tracks, but they were converted to a biking trail, that should be noted. If you want him to waive the .1 mile guideline because there is a cliff or river between the caches, that should be mentioned. Include pertinent photos and/or if you can find news articles that prove your case, include a link.

 

The more info you provide the reviewer the less legwork he has to do and the quicker your cache will be published.

 

By the way, the best way to have your caches take longer to get published is to develop a reputation for skirting the rules and dishonesty. Your caches will certainly undergo more scrutiny if you do.

 

Work with your reviewer, not against him. He's a geocacher too and he wants to publish your cache - as long as it conforms to the guidelines.

 

I've placed 115 caches and have had only one instance of a reviewer holding up a cache being published, until I proved to him that the cache was not too close to an active railroad track.

 

My secret is to follow the guidelines, and always be honest and straightforward in my reviewer notes.

[+FireRef]

Part of the problem with this issue is that the reviewers are given a decent amount of latitude in what they accept and what they don't. And then TPTB reserve the right to do whatever they want whenever they want, even if it is in clear violation of the guidelines (other than the guideline that says the can do this). So consistency, although hoped for by many of us, is likely not to happen.

 

That being said, breaking the rules intentionally is not good. I recently looked for a cache and found that although listed as a traditional, it is actually a multi and they even state this on the cache page. That was rather irritating, and I had considered complaining - haven't decided yet. The reviewers in our area sometimes complain about things when posting caches (and with all the new, random rules which restrict what we can say on the page, I don't even know if I want to go through the process at this point), but generally get back to people within a day or two with a yea or nay. But intentionally breaking the rules (sorry... guidelines as people keep pointing out to me) is always a bad idea. Work for change (unless you get told to stop complaining... then work even harder!), but breaking rules just gets you in trouble.

 

I agree - too strict. Too many restrictions.

[+Adium]

OK, this is getting carried away and everyone is thinking that its mainly about the reviewer, when its not.

 

It is a combination of harsh rules and people not following them. Some rules are good, too many is a diplomacy and sooner or later people revolt. Here in Syracuse people are revolting. Here are specific example. Keep in mine I only have a little over 100 finds, and can't remember the specifics to each cache. here is what I can remember though.

 

GC1CM3F - Violation of the 528 ft rule. He had it hidden under the bridge, he asked the people who owned GCZJMZ if he could move there cache, they said no (actually he flagged a maintainance flag on it for his request) so he said he moved the cache down stream. Funny, the hint says the cache is under the bridge, which is over 200 feet away.

 

GC12B8D - Middle of a rock quarry with posted signs every 10 feet. Because a kid was killed there its off limits and they do issue the tickets. I meantioned I was prior Army to the cop and we got talking and he let me go, I got lucky!

 

GC4C89 - Not only is it in a Bird Sanctuary, but the name of it is "A Bird's Sanctuary". On top of all that the cache is at the very base of a tree that has a posted sign on it.

 

GCNHW9 - Reviewer archived while the owner was in the hospital. After 3 years and 50 finds of being active one person said they saw a posted sign and archived it. I went to the site and that guy who saw the posted sign was about 500 feet off course.

 

I have 109 finds, and this is what I can recite from memory.

 

Problem isn't the reviewer per say..., just too many rules and everyone is starting to not care. It almost cost me a $500 ticket one day.

[+TotemLake]

 

People start ignoring one rule, soon they will ignore them all.

(Air Assault!!)

Whatta tadpole. This has been threatened so many times since I started and yet... nothing. The players that promise or predict this are either 1) new to the sport or 2) senior enough they believe they are entitled to break/bend/or otherwise mutilate the guidelines.

 

They eventually burn out and move on.

 

Save yourself some grief. Follow the reviewer recommendations to fix your cache listing to be within the guidelines or, there's the door.

[+Adium]

 

People start ignoring one rule, soon they will ignore them all.

(Air Assault!!)

Whatta tadpole. This has been threatened so many times since I started and yet... nothing. The players that promise or predict this are either 1) new to the sport or 2) senior enough they believe they are entitled to break/bend/or otherwise mutilate the guidelines.

 

They eventually burn out and move on.

 

Save yourself some grief. Follow the reviewer recommendations to fix your cache listing to be within the guidelines or, there's the door.

 

Ughhh..., I don't own any of those caches I just listed.

 

I love those people that have had an account since the early years of Geocaching so think they helped invent it and everyone owes them credit.

[+sbell111]

OK, this is getting carried away and everyone is thinking that its mainly about the reviewer, when its not.

 

It is a combination of harsh rules and people not following them. Some rules are good, too many is a diplomacy and sooner or later people revolt. Here in Syracuse people are revolting. Here are specific example. Keep in mine I only have a little over 100 finds, and can't remember the specifics to each cache. here is what I can remember though.

 

GC1CM3F - Violation of the 528 ft rule. He had it hidden under the bridge, he asked the people who owned GCZJMZ if he could move there cache, they said no (actually he flagged a maintainance flag on it for his request) so he said he moved the cache down stream. Funny, the hint says the cache is under the bridge, which is over 200 feet away.

The cacher should be thumped for arbitrarily moving someone else's cache.

GC12B8D - Middle of a rock quarry with posted signs every 10 feet. Because a kid was killed there its off limits and they do issue the tickets. I meantioned I was prior Army to the cop and we got talking and he let me go, I got lucky!

Cache should be archived unless explicit permission has been recieved. Did you post an SBA?

GC4C89 - Not only is it in a Bird Sanctuary, but the name of it is "A Bird's Sanctuary". On top of all that the cache is at the very base of a tree that has a posted sign on it.

That cache may have no problems. It's illegal to pass the sign, not walk up to it. Otherwise, how would anyone know that they would be trespassing before they were trespassing?

GCNHW9 - Reviewer archived while the owner was in the hospital. After 3 years and 50 finds of being active one person said they saw a posted sign and archived it. I went to the site and that guy who saw the posted sign was about 500 feet off course.

All the owner has to do is contact the reviewer and work the issue out. Reviewers archive these caches first so the rest of us don't get arrested.

I have 109 finds, and this is what I can recite from memory.

 

Problem isn't the reviewer per say..., just too many rules and everyone is starting to not care. It almost cost me a $500 ticket one day.

You should be complaining about your local rulebreakers and pressuring them to play within the guidelines. Edited June 5, 2008 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

It is a combination of harsh rules and people not following them.

 

The rules are not harsh. They were not created for the sake of creating rules. In most cases they were created to address issues that have cropped up. Often they are just common sense and sometimes they are to protect Grounsdpeak's interests (they are a business you know).

 

Caches that violate guidelines happen everywhere, not just in NY. The reviewer can only go by what he is told and what he sees on maps. He doesn't visit the cache site. He often has to take the cache hider at his word and and not all cachers are honest. If the reviewer discovers that a cacher is a liar it will only make getting his caches published a lot harder.

 

I'm not sure what you are trying to say by posting those caches. The first two probably should be archived. The Third is a maybe. If its a the base of a sign perhaps its outside the property. I'm sure your reviewer will thank you for calling them to his attention and the owners might not be your best buds at the next event.

 

The final one seems to have been some sort of misunderstanding, but there were numerous mentions of posted signs yet the owner insists that there no posted signs. The reviewer disabled it at first to give the owner a chance to addresss it, then archived. You certainly wasted no time in jumping in with your own cache in the spot, rather than allowing the previous owner time to work it out with the admin, so I'm not sure what your complaint is there.

Edited June 5, 2008 by briansnat

[+infiniteMPG]

It is a combination of harsh rules and people not following them. Some rules are good, too many is a diplomacy and sooner or later people revolt.

Revolt away! (I think in geocaching the term "revolt" means "quit the game and find something else to do with your recreational time").

 

As far as the caches you listed every one of them should be archived IMHO and the deceitful cachers banned. The hides all sound off limits, against the guidelines and dangerous. And even the one that got archived, if there is even one no tresspassing sign, it's off limits even it was the first cache ever hidden. Sounds to me like that reviewer has their hands full and needs to crack down a little more.

 

Problem isn't the reviewer per say..., just too many rules and everyone is starting to not care. It almost cost me a $500 ticket one day.

Problem isn't too many rules, problem seems to be too many people in your area feel they're above the ones that exist which seem to allow the nearly 600,000 caches already hidden.

 

I would use the term "revolting" but more in the context of disgust at the situation there then as in a social uprising against oppression.

[+Adium]

You should be complaining about your local rulebreakers and pressuring them to play within the guidelines.

 

because I know where they all live right? Or maybe I should deputize myself and follow them around to other caches. Then we don't need a reviewer at all, we got someone physically checking each cache!

[+sbell111]

People start ignoring one rule, soon they will ignore them all.

(Air Assault!!)

Whatta tadpole. This has been threatened so many times since I started and yet... nothing. The players that promise or predict this are either 1) new to the sport or 2) senior enough they believe they are entitled to break/bend/or otherwise mutilate the guidelines.

 

They eventually burn out and move on.

 

Save yourself some grief. Follow the reviewer recommendations to fix your cache listing to be within the guidelines or, there's the door.

Ughhh..., I don't own any of those caches I just listed.

 

I love those people that have had an account since the early years of Geocaching so think they helped invent it and everyone owes them credit.

Huh? TL's still a noob.

 

BTW, have you considered that the people that have been participating for years have a clue because things tend to already have been discussed? Also, many of the guidelines exist to resolve issues that came up in these old forum discussions?

[+TotemLake]

People start ignoring one rule, soon they will ignore them all.

(Air Assault!!)

Whatta tadpole. This has been threatened so many times since I started and yet... nothing. The players that promise or predict this are either 1) new to the sport or 2) senior enough they believe they are entitled to break/bend/or otherwise mutilate the guidelines.

 

They eventually burn out and move on.

 

Save yourself some grief. Follow the reviewer recommendations to fix your cache listing to be within the guidelines or, there's the door.

Ughhh..., I don't own any of those caches I just listed.

 

I love those people that have had an account since the early years of Geocaching so think they helped invent it and everyone owes them credit.

Huh? TL's still a noob.

 

BTW, have you considered that the people that have been participating for years have a clue because things tend to already have been discussed? Also, many of the guidelines exist to resolve issues that came up in these old forum discussions?

I'll never make that platinum membership now.

 

Adium, You have me mistaken for somebody else. I never believed in entitlement and I do embrace change and I never made claim to being a part of the creation of this game. I merely stated a point of fact. Please be kind enough to get your accusations right. I was merely being snide at your OP the guidelines are too strict without ever once bothering to do any research into why the guidelines are the way they are.

Edited June 5, 2008 by TotemLake

[+wimseyguy]

And the funny thing is that 2.5 days=60 hours. And on the Hide and Seek a cache page where you submit a new listing it reads:

Reporting a new cache is easy. Just fill out our online form to report a new cache to the web site. Login is required.

 

If it has been 72 hours and your cache is not listed more information may be found on the Groundspeak Help Page.

[+infiniteMPG]

The reviewer disabled it at first to give the owner a chance to addresss it, then archived. You certainly wasted no time in jumping in with your own cache in the spot, rather than allowing the previous owner time to work it out with the admin, so I'm not sure what your complaint is there.

Coragyps atratus?

[+Adium]

The final one seems to have been some sort of misunderstanding, but there were numerous mentions of posted signs yet the owner insists that there no posted signs. The reviewer disabled it at first to give the owner a chance to addresss it, then archived. You certainly wasted no time in jumping in with your own cache in the spot, rather than allowing the previous owner time to work it out with the admin, so I'm not sure what your complaint is there.

 

I didn't know about it until she contacted me after she got out of the hospital and told me about it then let me have the spot as I wanted to hide that particular cache in that park. As the story goes that cache was hidden in the hospital to explain how my brother broke his leg attempting to hide the cache at the other end of the park.

 

There were two meantions. One said they just put them up. Didn't say where. The other guy was lost. He also failed to meantion that they were on a fence that goes around the nearby hospital.

 

With the Bird cache, I don't know about you, but in a wooded area my GPS doesn't point out the tree for me. I am sometimes 100 feet off. Meaning I could go up to 100 feet past that tree with the posted sign. If you read my comment I left on that page..., I just about did exactly that.

[+starscream2]

OK, this is getting carried away and everyone is thinking that its mainly about the reviewer, when its not.

 

It is a combination of harsh rules and people not following them. Some rules are good, too many is a diplomacy and sooner or later people revolt. Here in Syracuse people are revolting. Here are specific example. Keep in mine I only have a little over 100 finds, and can't remember the specifics to each cache. here is what I can remember though.

 

Problem isn't the reviewer per say..., just too many rules and everyone is starting to not care. It almost cost me a $500 ticket one day.

 

I thought I understood your complaint, but now you are losing me a bit....

 

Whose rules are too harsh? Geocaching.com guidelines? If so which rules in particular do you want changed if you were king of it?

 

Do you want geocaching.com to say it is okay to place caches in posted areas? Or at least look the other way if you want to place a cache in such an area?

 

Do you want to do away with the solicitation rule? (Thus allowing businesses all over the place to setup caches in their stores, and/or allowing caches to be full page ads for products).

 

Do you want to eliminate the 528' rule?

 

Or is the point that because some caches out there violate some of these rules, you think the reviewer should look the other way when new caches are posted?

 

I am just trying to understand what your main complaint is and how you would change things. It seems like your main problem was the solicitation guideline for your caches. So maybe just that rule you have an issue with? But then the examples you give where regarding the proximity rule and posted signs. Did you like finding caches by posted signs and think the geocaching should stop cracking down on those and be more leniant?

[+infiniteMPG]

because I know where they all live right? Or maybe I should deputize myself and follow them around to other caches. Then we don't need a reviewer at all, we got someone physically checking each cache!

Respectful cachers who notice things like no tresspassing signs, dangerous conditions or caches hidden outside the guidelines normally do contact the owner and/or reviewer to try to protect the future of geocaching and the safety of the geocachers hunting the cache. Yeah, we're all kinda mini-reviewers, we just try to handle it diplomatically and light heartedly as this is fun.... for most of us.

[+sbell111]

You should be complaining about your local rulebreakers and pressuring them to play within the guidelines.

 

because I know where they all live right? Or maybe I should deputize myself and follow them around to other caches. Then we don't need a reviewer at all, we got someone physically checking each cache!

You could become more involved with your local caching organization or have an event all on your own.

[+sbell111]

... With the Bird cache, I don't know about you, but in a wooded area my GPS doesn't point out the tree for me. I am sometimes 100 feet off. Meaning I could go up to 100 feet past that tree with the posted sign. If you read my comment I left on that page..., I just about did exactly that.

It's only fair to note that tresspassing signs are unlike caches in that they are positioned to be easily seen. If you got to ground zero and realized that it was bisected by a line of no trespassing signs, you should have merely reduced the area in which you searched for the cache to exclude the posted property.

[+Adium]

OK, this is getting carried away and everyone is thinking that its mainly about the reviewer, when its not.

 

It is a combination of harsh rules and people not following them. Some rules are good, too many is a diplomacy and sooner or later people revolt. Here in Syracuse people are revolting. Here are specific example. Keep in mine I only have a little over 100 finds, and can't remember the specifics to each cache. here is what I can remember though.

 

Problem isn't the reviewer per say..., just too many rules and everyone is starting to not care. It almost cost me a $500 ticket one day.

 

I thought I understood your complaint, but now you are losing me a bit....

 

Whose rules are too harsh? Geocaching.com guidelines? If so which rules in particular do you want changed if you were king of it?

 

Do you want geocaching.com to say it is okay to place caches in posted areas? Or at least look the other way if you want to place a cache in such an area?

 

Do you want to do away with the solicitation rule? (Thus allowing businesses all over the place to setup caches in their stores, and/or allowing caches to be full page ads for products).

 

Do you want to eliminate the 528' rule?

 

Or is the point that because some caches out there violate some of these rules, you think the reviewer should look the other way when new caches are posted?

 

I am just trying to understand what your main complaint is and how you would change things. It seems like your main problem was the solicitation guideline for your caches. So maybe just that rule you have an issue with? But then the examples you give where regarding the proximity rule and posted signs. Did you like finding caches by posted signs and think the geocaching should stop cracking down on those and be more leniant?

The solicitaion rule should be more detailed, specific, and lightened. I had to remove a picture on one cache cause it had the name of a business in it. (Yet I know of a virtual cache that is a store called the travel bug).

 

The 528 ft rule makes sense to me. However multi-cache's and puzzle cache's need to set rules so that they can comply with this or at least devise a system in which the two can co-exist. For example, make it so we know where all the waypoints to a multi-cache are so we can comply and not have to hit and miss with the reviewer cause we can't solve the nearby puzzle cache so don't know where it really is.

 

The posted signs, people should use common sense on that. However I know that some people use them for primarily hunters despite that they say tresspassing on them. Someone should be allowed to say on the details page that exact situation. Currently the guidlines says you can't tell fellow cachers to ignore posted signs..., what if they are yours? If someone does post a remark about posted signs, then the reviewer shouldn't just archive it. Cachers get hurt all the time. My brother fell 20' and is going to have pins in his leg now for 6 weeks, he can't do crap.

 

If the guidelines says no knives in a cache, then they shouldn't allow people to make travel bugs out of them no matter how small they are.

 

Groundspeak needs to set guidelines that not only can be followed, but are reasonable and not a double standard. Jeep travel bugs are ok, but I can't tell someone about my jeep even though I have a travel bug magnet on the back?

[+Adium]

... With the Bird cache, I don't know about you, but in a wooded area my GPS doesn't point out the tree for me. I am sometimes 100 feet off. Meaning I could go up to 100 feet past that tree with the posted sign. If you read my comment I left on that page..., I just about did exactly that.

It's only fair to note that tresspassing signs are unlike caches in that they are positioned to be easily seen. If you got to ground zero and realized that it was bisected by a line of no trespassing signs, you should have merely reduced the area in which you searched for the cache to exclude the posted property.

That makes perfect sense and I would do that..., except I know that people hiding caches aren't respecting them when they hide the cache so sometimes they mean nothing to me.

 

100 feet off can also mean I am standing on the cache but the GPS says walk ahead 100 feet.

[+tozainamboku]

I can't tell from the information you give exactly what the problem is. It may be one or more of the following:\

 

1. There may be a need for additional reviewers to help out the reviewer in central NY. Sometimes a reviewer can get behind in reviewing caches and it may take additional time to work through caches that have issues. Generally caches that follow the guidelines strictly can be approved quickly. But when a cache page appears to solicit or the location appears to have an issue of being close to another cache or close to RR tracks, schools, government buildings, etc. or in cemeteries or other locales where the reviewer might ask if you have explicit permission, it can take longer. Sometimes the reviewer will be asking you for additional information - you should check your email or for reviewer notes on the cache page - and sometimes the reviewer may be consulting with other reviewers before making a decision on the cache.

 

2. There may be a group of cachers in Syracuse who are deliberately trying to skirt the guidelines by not revealing information the reviewer needs to determine if the cache is OK or by changing the cache page after the cache has been published. This may be contributing to the reviewer's work load and thus to number 1 above. I doubt that the reviewer will be extra strict on new cachers or cachers who haven't be guilty of skirting guidelines, but there is a possibility that a reviewer is being more careful in order to not be fooled by a dishonest hider.

 

3. Reviewers are human. They do the best they can to interpret and fairly apply the guidelines. But sometime they make mistakes. Sometime they catch these after the cache has been published and they have to retract the cache (or archive it). If the problem can be fixed, the cache owner can contact the reviewer to have the cache re-enabled when it is in compliance with the guideline. Reviewers rely on reports, especially Should Be Archived logs, from the community to find some problems. Based on the information in the SBA log they will decide whether or not to archive the cache. If they do the cache owner can still provide an explanation and fix any problems and the reviewer can unarchive the cache.

 

4. Newbie has not read or not understood the guidelines. Sometimes newbies (and even experienced cachers) will see a particular hide and think that they can copy this. They may have missed the following section of the guidelines

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be “grandfathered” and allowed to stand as is.

 

Sometimes TPTB have given reviewers an interpretation of the guidelines before they discuss it or update the guidelines themselves. In this case the reviewers do seem to be excessively strict. However, after some discussion there will generally be a clarification from a Groundspeak person here and eventually some wording changes may be made to the guidelines. The guidelines change and get reinterpreted. Ideally cachers would know when this happens but there seems to be always a short lag. If you run into this problem it is best to try to work out the issues with your reviewer and if there is still a problem contact 'appeals @ geocaching.com'

[+briansnat]

Part of the problem with this issue is that the reviewers are given a decent amount of latitude in what they accept and what they don't. And then TPTB reserve the right to do whatever they want whenever they want, even if it is in clear violation of the guidelines (other than the guideline that says the can do this). So consistency, although hoped for by many of us, is likely not to happen.

 

That being said, breaking the rules intentionally is not good. I recently looked for a cache and found that although listed as a traditional, it is actually a multi and they even state this on the cache page. That was rather irritating, and I had considered complaining - haven't decided yet. The reviewers in our area sometimes complain about things when posting caches (and with all the new, random rules which restrict what we can say on the page, I don't even know if I want to go through the process at this point), but generally get back to people within a day or two with a yea or nay. But intentionally breaking the rules (sorry... guidelines as people keep pointing out to me) is always a bad idea. Work for change (unless you get told to stop complaining... then work even harder!), but breaking rules just gets you in trouble.

 

I agree - too strict. Too many restrictions.

 

Interesting. In the same post you rip Groundspeak because reviewers are given some latitude and TPTB sometimes allow caches to be published that violate the guidelines, then you complain that they are too strict.

[+starscream2]

The solicitaion rule should be more detailed, specific, and lightened. I had to remove a picture on one cache cause it had the name of a business in it. (Yet I know of a virtual cache that is a store called the travel bug).

 

The 528 ft rule makes sense to me. However multi-cache's and puzzle cache's need to set rules so that they can comply with this or at least devise a system in which the two can co-exist. For example, make it so we know where all the waypoints to a multi-cache are so we can comply and not have to hit and miss with the reviewer cause we can't solve the nearby puzzle cache so don't know where it really is.

 

The posted signs, people should use common sense on that. However I know that some people use them for primarily hunters despite that they say tresspassing on them. Someone should be allowed to say on the details page that exact situation. Currently the guidlines says you can't tell fellow cachers to ignore posted signs..., what if they are yours? If someone does post a remark about posted signs, then the reviewer shouldn't just archive it. Cachers get hurt all the time. My brother fell 20' and is going to have pins in his leg now for 6 weeks, he can't do crap.

 

If the guidelines says no knives in a cache, then they shouldn't allow people to make travel bugs out of them no matter how small they are.

 

Groundspeak needs to set guidelines that not only can be followed, but are reasonable and not a double standard. Jeep travel bugs are ok, but I can't tell someone about my jeep even though I have a travel bug magnet on the back?

 

You make some good reasonable points there. I do hear what you are saying and certainly don't completely disagree.

 

The puzzle/mutli issue gets rehashed a lot. The problem is that if there a system to find out where they are, people would use that system to go logs finds of the cache. I don't know how that one can be solved. On one hand people should be allowed to make good multi/puzzles without having to worry about a "backdoor" that people can use to cheat, on the other hand it does make it more difficult to know where you can place new hides.

 

I guess I am in the camp that sort of wants the reviewer to have a pretty quick trigger finger on the archive button if someone does point something out. Sure people get hurt and sick but really in the big picture that has to be pretty rare that someone claims an invalid problem with a cache right at a time when the owner is unable to defend that hide. I would rather "chance" that occurance then have mutiple people get tickets for tresspassing or something because the reviewer was slow to archive it. I have to think that in the vast majority of the cases where invalid information leads to a caching being archived the owner would respond to the reviewer and get it turned back on quickly.

[+Totem Clan]

You know there is nothing wrong with helping the reviewers do their job either. If you know there is a problem with a cache in the area, drop the reviewer a line. They can only work with the information they are given.

[+sbell111]

... With the Bird cache, I don't know about you, but in a wooded area my GPS doesn't point out the tree for me. I am sometimes 100 feet off. Meaning I could go up to 100 feet past that tree with the posted sign. If you read my comment I left on that page..., I just about did exactly that.

It's only fair to note that tresspassing signs are unlike caches in that they are positioned to be easily seen. If you got to ground zero and realized that it was bisected by a line of no trespassing signs, you should have merely reduced the area in which you searched for the cache to exclude the posted property.

That makes perfect sense and I would do that..., except I know that people hiding caches aren't respecting them when they hide the cache so sometimes they mean nothing to me.

Just because someone else chose to trespass, doesn't give you free reign to do so.

[+infiniteMPG]

The solicitaion rule should be more detailed, specific, and lightened. I had to remove a picture on one cache cause it had the name of a business in it. (Yet I know of a virtual cache that is a store called the travel bug).

I understand this is relaxing a little, but until it's 100% settled you need to go with the flow.

 

The 528 ft rule makes sense to me. However multi-cache's and puzzle cache's need to set rules so that they can comply with this or at least devise a system in which the two can co-exist. For example, make it so we know where all the waypoints to a multi-cache are so we can comply and not have to hit and miss with the reviewer cause we can't solve the nearby puzzle cache so don't know where it really is.

100% DISAGREE!!! You think a reviewer is EVER going to tell ANYONE where a hidden stage of a cache is???? NO WAY!!!! If you are hiding a cache near a multi or puzzle cache then you should complete the nearby cache. I've had to do that dozens of times and had several of mine placed and had to move them for that reason. It's incentive for you to find caches near where you're trying to hide them. If you want to scope out a spot then I am sure sending your proposed coords to the reviewer first would work as they could tell you if the spot is clear, but I doubt they'd even tell you WHICH cache the interferring spot is interferring with.

 

I had a cache spot that wasn't allowed because of that exact reason and the first stage of that multi was about 6-1/2 miles away. It was up to me to figure out what cache it "might" be and then go find it. Part of the adventure!

 

The posted signs, people should use common sense on that. However I know that some people use them for primarily hunters despite that they say tresspassing on them. Someone should be allowed to say on the details page that exact situation. Currently the guidlines says you can't tell fellow cachers to ignore posted signs..., what if they are yours?

No tresspassing means no tresspassing and unless the sign stipulates who doesn't have to follow it then it means everyone. I hid a cache at my work near a small lake and some picnic tables. It was pointed out to me later there was a rotted old no tresspassing sign at the entrance to the parking area and even though it's my company and I know the sign was put there to keep people out of the parking lot (we have people change their oil and work on their cars here, big parking lot) and we'd never call the law in unless someone was committing a crime, I still HAD to move it outside the sign boundaries.

 

If someone does post a remark about posted signs, then the reviewer shouldn't just archive it. Cachers get hurt all the time. My brother fell 20' and is going to have pins in his leg now for 6 weeks, he can't do crap.

If a sign exists the cache gets archived. No wiggle room with that.

 

If the guidelines says no knives in a cache, then they shouldn't allow people to make travel bugs out of them no matter how small they are.

The guidelines state to use common sense and they also state they "shouldn't be placed in a cache" is does not say you can't do it. Use your head. Many little kids cache with their parents and they love to open the containers. You want your kid grabbing a knife or something else dangerous out??? As is stated "use common sense".... puh-lease.

 

Groundspeak needs to set guidelines that not only can be followed, but are reasonable and not a double standard.

For the vast majority of us they are reasonable and not a double standard.

 

Jeep travel bugs are ok, but I can't tell someone about my jeep even though I have a travel bug magnet on the back?

What was the reason given for not being able to mention your Jeep?

[Skippermark]

I am curious is this normal? Are they suppose to be this sensitive and strict when it comes to publishing a cache?

 

Yes, it's their job to make sure the rules are being followed. Each state has certain laws and they vary from place to place. For instance, in South Carolina, no cemetery caches are allowed. It's a state law. The reviewer knows all these rules and has to make sure that every cache not only passes geocaching guidelines but the law as well. I am not a reviewer, nor do I live in NY, but I know that NY is stricter than some other states.

 

The reviewer is being so strict that everyone here has no choice but to violate what he says we can and can't do.

 

That's too bad because that could jeopardize all caches in the state. By making sure that caches don't violate any laws, the reviewers are keeping both the cache owner and the state happy. If people start doing whatever they want, the state may just ban all caches entirely.

 

I think about what happened up in Portsmouth, NH where the city was considering banning all caches...

 

Edited to fix typo

Edited June 5, 2008 by Skippermark

[+Renegade Knight]

...Does anyone else see this from where they are caching? I'm in Central New York.

 

I've seen variations between reviewers.

 

Overall it seems this site is getting more and more strict on "solicitation". Given we live in capatalist system it's hard to avoid 'solicitation' when you broaden how you intreprete it to mean you can't name a cache "Land Rover's Paradise" because that's solicitation.

 

When it comes to publish then archive. Yup. Reviewers archive first and use the archive not to ask any questions they had. Direct communications isn't used as it takes too much time. It's harsh and it's rude. Though anymore most folks don't understand why and won't until they meet someone who actually has some social grace and yet manages to do exactly the same job.