Jump to content

Excessively strict on publishing caches


Adium

Recommended Posts

I have always said that hiding is much more difficult than finding. But the reward in hiding is that you are providing support for the game and you are contibuting to the fun and enjoyment of others. I say just keep on trying. Not every hide hits a home run. But even as we speak I am thinking of a hide, I don't know that they will ever get done, but it is a mental effort that involves problem solving and is a fun exercise in its own right.

 

I also think that doing events are more difficult for other reasons than a straight forward hide, but again many people enjoy them. So don't become discouraged.

 

So a tip of the hat to the hiders and the reviewers who try to keep things orderly. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
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! :rolleyes:

I agree, I like the puzzle caches, but at the same time a standard needs to be made. I have seen some where the actual cache is 5 miles away from the posted coordinates. In this case its hard to know which cache to solve. I have also seen some caches that people create to be unsolvable thinking that they are smarter than everyone else. I had a problem with one not too long ago, the posted coordinates were over a mile away. he used it as a waypoint for parking. While I am 50 miles from home visiting for the first time and planting a cache that I only intent on visiting every couple months I didn't take the time to solve this cache. I still haven't solved it. (GCP9MG if you want to try).

 

I am not saying spoil the cache by creating a backdoor, however a standard like 0.1mi away from the end point would be nice. Then I just have to comply with 0.2 to be safe. I don't have to go and solve ever puzzle and multi so I can hide my first cache.

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

Its solicitation. Even thought they sponsor Groundspeak, to meantion anything that sounds even remotely commericial in any posting is against the guidelines.

Link to comment

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!

 

You aren't alone. Once you place caches that push limits, you will have earned the scruteny. All caches that don't push the wrong limit will get published. Many follow this path of cache placment.

 

If BrianSnat suddenly started specializing in the same caches that you do, his "no problems" record would start bumping to the same probelms you are having. That's the way of things. It's also how they should be. Which kid do you watch more closely? The one who is responsible, or the one who's not?

Link to comment
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.

Hardly. None of the web sites I own have ads, for example. All this statement shows is inexperience regarding the internet.

 

 

The guidelines state that if you find a cache that has an issue, you can feel free to report it.

 

GC1CM3F -- my only comment there is "so what?" I don't see any relevance to the topic. There is no violation of the 528' guideline with the current hide, so what is your point? That they asked someone if they might move their cache? Big deal, that happens every now and then. The hint is wrong? Is that the best you got? :rolleyes:

 

GC12B8D -- logs show that there is a proper way to get to the cache. Perhaps you should read those logs.

 

GC4C89 -- again, "so what?". I had two caches in two Nat'l Parks at one point. They were there with permission. How do you know this person doesn't have permission?

 

GCNHW9 -- I read the cache owner's note. They don't seem to be overly upset over the problem they caused by not reacting to the issues with the cache ("I am not angry at all"). They have removed their container and are going to place it somewhere else. Once again, "so what?"

 

You went the wrong way and almost costs yourself $500, so don't blame the cache owner for that. Do better research and know when to accept that you might not know the right way to go about seeking a cache. Work with your reviewer and they will be happy to help you. That advice has been given over and over in this topic. That is because it works.

Link to comment

...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've had a cache disabled by a reviewer based on a log that clearly (to me, the reviewer cant' tell since it's not their cache) indicated the person was looking in the wrong spot. The reviewer also didn't see the email asking for clarification from that DNF person so I could cross check their log and give them a hint if they needed. They didn't respond. The reviewer did though. I had to renable the cache based on the busted coordinate.

 

Both are examples of the Archive/Disable first, and don't check with the owner way of doing things. Sometimes it's justified. Sometimes not.

Link to comment
I have always said that hiding is much more difficult than finding. But the reward in hiding is that you are providing support for the game and you are contibuting to the fun and enjoyment of others. I say just keep on trying. Not every hide hits a home run. But even as we speak I am thinking of a hide, I don't know that they will ever get done, but it is a mental effort that involves problem solving and is a fun exercise in its own right.

 

I also think that doing events are more difficult for other reasons than a straight forward hide, but again many people enjoy them. So don't become discouraged.

 

So a tip of the hat to the hiders and the reviewers who try to keep things orderly. :rolleyes:

 

I love hiding almost more than I do finding..., Here is my living room floor right now.

215 - Film canisters

8 - Mr. Magneto

8 - Coffee cans

1 - 30 Caliber ammo can

2 - Decon containers

15 - recycled food, medicine, and other containers

3 - tupperware containers

8 - small ziplock bags, great for cracks in walls.

 

Total of 260 containers, all complete with log books, laminated stash notes, writing utensils (if they are big enough), and some little bit of swag spread between all of them

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adium/2545644...57604730211181/

Link to comment

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!!)

 

Sounds to me like some out there needs to learn the guidelines. Everyone going about and circumventing the reviewer and guidelines should either stop and do what's right or be banned from placing caches.

 

By ignoring the guidelines, you and others like yourself are seriously endangering future hiding privileges.

Sounds like a bunch of you feel you are above the review process...maybe the reviewers need to take a closer look?

Link to comment
I agree, I like the puzzle caches, but at the same time a standard needs to be made. I have seen some where the actual cache is 5 miles away from the posted coordinates. In this case its hard to know which cache to solve. I have also seen some caches that people create to be unsolvable thinking that they are smarter than everyone else. While I am 50 miles from home visiting for the first time and planting a cache that I only intent on visiting every couple months I didn't take the time to solve this cache.

 

The guideline is 1-2 miles for puzzle caches. As the guidelines change, old caches are grandfathered through, so things like posted coord distances and the like may not be up to the new guidelines, but they're allowed to stay. In the past, there was no difficulty/terrain rating, which is why some older caches that require a 5 mile hike are rated a 1/1. Requiring posted coords to be within .1 would make it too easy to find the caches without solving the puzzle.

 

As far as creating hard puzzles, what may be hard for one person may be easy for another. Not everyone likes the same things, and there are those who enjoy solving really difficult puzzles.

 

There are puzzles that some people have never solved, yet others have solved it in their head while driving to the cache for the FTF. Placing caches near stages of other caches is one of the things that a hider may encounter, and there's really nothing that can be done about it other than relocate the cache when the reviewer tells you you're too close.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment
While I am 50 miles from home visiting for the first time and planting a cache that I only intent on visiting every couple months I didn't take the time to solve this cache.

Vacation caches too, eh? How many guidelines can one person break? :rolleyes::lol:

 

I don't think the problem is the reviewer here. :lol:

Link to comment

GC1CM3F -- my only comment there is "so what?" I don't see any relevance to the topic. There is no violation of the 528' guideline with the current hide, so what is your point? That they asked someone if they might move their cache? Big deal, that happens every now and then. The hint is wrong? Is that the best you got? :rolleyes:

 

GC12B8D -- logs show that there is a proper way to get to the cache. Perhaps you should read those logs.

 

GC4C89 -- again, "so what?". I had two caches in two Nat'l Parks at one point. They were there with permission. How do you know this person doesn't have permission?

 

GCNHW9 -- I read the cache owner's note. They don't seem to be overly upset over the problem they caused by not reacting to the issues with the cache ("I am not angry at all"). They have removed their container and are going to place it somewhere else. Once again, "so what?"

 

You went the wrong way and almost costs yourself $500, so don't blame the cache owner for that. Do better research and know when to accept that you might not know the right way to go about seeking a cache. Work with your reviewer and they will be happy to help you. That advice has been given over and over in this topic. That is because it works.

 

Wow, a perfect example as to why there is a problem in Groundspeak. The moderater isn't reading.

 

Go back to GC1CM3F, zoom in really close. You can do this easily by clicking the "1" level zoom on the lower map on the details page. The hint says the cache is under the bridge. Where is the bridge. 200 feet south! If you still can't figure that out, the street "Spencer St", in order to go over water there has to be a bridge.

 

GC4C89 - I took pictures all over that mountain. I stopped and talked to a cop, or how about I WAS THERE 100 FEET FROM THE CACHE THREATENED WITH A $500 TICKET!!! You can see my pictures of the car match the same car on the cache page. It's HIGHLY off limits. Or do you want me to get you the cop's phone number..., could of sworn I meantioned the cop before.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adium/sets/72157604917911602/

 

GC4C89 - It's posted! Bottom line, big orange sign says no tresspassing..., means I can't go there. Why, cause its a bird santuary. Since the cache is called "A bird sanctuary" and the cache is at the bottom of a tree with a posted sign, I would have to say the owner knows he is wrong. I bet you held your hand in front of your sisters face repeatedly telling her, "I'm not touching you".

 

GCNHW9 - No they aren't angry, not everyone gets angry. However I didn't feel real great that I put a cache in the exact same spot making it so they couldn't put there's back and considering the condition with my brother they weren't about to ask me too.

 

With that said maybe we should have a system that lets us check for archived caches as well. I know one guy that just quit everything and archived all his caches, I have been going around picking up his geolitter. He had lots of letterboxes too.

Link to comment

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).

In several recent threads, I have made the same point. The interpretation of the commecial guideline was recently tightened up. Certain cases, such a a link to a commercial site that used to be allowed, were no longer allowed. The commercial clause has always allowed Groundspeak to make exceptions, so reviewers got in the habit of denying any cache with any link to any thing that might be seen as commercial. They would then post that they couldn't approve the cache but that you could use contact @ geocaching.com to ask for an exception from Groundspeak. About a month ago, Miss Jenn from Grounspeak posted a clarification of the commercial cache guidelines. The guidelines were also updated at this time. It may be necessary to continue to refine the commercial and solicitation guidelines and to publish additional clarification. But things are much clearer now than before the recent change.

 

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.

There have been several request for ways to automatically check coordinates before hiding/submitting a cache to avoid having it turned down because it is too close to a stage of a multi or the real coordinates of a puzzle cache. The idea of a automatic system has been rejected because of the potential to use it to brute force the solution to a puzzle. Instead the reviewers are willing to work with hiders to let them know if a area may have some other caches before you place a cache. Just check with your reviewer if you think there may be a puzzle cache or stage of a multi to close to where you plan to hide your cache.

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.

Permission goes a long way. If there is a posted sign you should provide a reviewer note explaining the situation. If you have permission from the land owner or manager indicate this on the cache page. Sorry about your brother.

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.

Guidelines regarding cache contents are hard to enforce. The cache owner isn't at his cache site to make sure no one leaves a knife or other forbidden items. Generally this is seen as a Needs Maintenance issue and the cache owner is given time to get to his cache and remove the contraband. If a travel bug is attached to some item that shouldn't be placed in a cache, I would guess that a cache owner (or any cacher who found it) would be entitled to remove that item and replace it with something more appropriate. But you might want to ask in the Travel Bug forum for other opinions.

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?

The guidelines seem to be followed by the majority of people without any problems. Most people find them reasonable. There are clearly some objections. It may sometimes seem like a double standard but in fact the guidelines themselves state that they are only guidelines. In some instances the reviewers are given some discretion. For example the 528 foot rule is a rule of thumb. Many reviewers will allow caches 500 feet apart. If there is a natural or man-made barrier that separates the caches, a reviewer may allow caches even closer. On the other hand, if the reviewer thinks you are saturating an area by placing a lot of caches near each other, they may ask to to put them further apart or make some of them into a multi cache. In other areas, Groundspeak reserves the right to grant exceptions. Groundspeak has decide to not allow cache pages to be used a place where companies and organization can get free advertising (intentionally or not). Part of their business is selling advertising on the website. They reserve the right to allow commercial content on a case by case basis. A company or individual want to put commercial content on a cache or travel bug page can contact Groundspeak to negotiate an exception. In my opinion there is no double standard.
Link to comment
While I am 50 miles from home visiting for the first time and planting a cache that I only intent on visiting every couple months I didn't take the time to solve this cache.

Vacation caches too, eh? How many guidelines can one person break? :rolleyes::lol:

 

I don't think the problem is the reviewer here. :lol:

You call 50 miles vacation? You need to get out more!

 

I drive twice that to go caching sometimes. For the day and back. Drove over 200 miles last week just to get a yellow jeep.

 

I say 50 miles to give an example that I am not 100% familier and haven't cached there before. I also added that I intended to visit every couple months.

 

You really need to start reading everything before you comment.

Link to comment

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).

In several recent threads, I have made the same point. The interpretation of the commecial guideline was recently tightened up. Certain cases, such a a link to a commercial site that used to be allowed, were no longer allowed. The commercial clause has always allowed Groundspeak to make exceptions, so reviewers got in the habit of denying any cache with any link to any thing that might be seen as commercial. They would then post that they couldn't approve the cache but that you could use contact @ geocaching.com to ask for an exception from Groundspeak. About a month ago, Miss Jenn from Grounspeak posted a clarification of the commercial cache guidelines. The guidelines were also updated at this time. It may be necessary to continue to refine the commercial and solicitation guidelines and to publish additional clarification. But things are much clearer now than before the recent change.

 

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.

There have been several request for ways to automatically check coordinates before hiding/submitting a cache to avoid having it turned down because it is too close to a stage of a multi or the real coordinates of a puzzle cache. The idea of a automatic system has been rejected because of the potential to use it to brute force the solution to a puzzle. Instead the reviewers are willing to work with hiders to let them know if a area may have some other caches before you place a cache. Just check with your reviewer if you think there may be a puzzle cache or stage of a multi to close to where you plan to hide your cache.

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.

Permission goes a long way. If there is a posted sign you should provide a reviewer note explaining the situation. If you have permission from the land owner or manager indicate this on the cache page. Sorry about your brother.

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.

Guidelines regarding cache contents are hard to enforce. The cache owner isn't at his cache site to make sure no one leaves a knife or other forbidden items. Generally this is seen as a Needs Maintenance issue and the cache owner is given time to get to his cache and remove the contraband. If a travel bug is attached to some item that shouldn't be placed in a cache, I would guess that a cache owner (or any cacher who found it) would be entitled to remove that item and replace it with something more appropriate. But you might want to ask in the Travel Bug forum for other opinions.

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?

The guidelines seem to be followed by the majority of people without any problems. Most people find them reasonable. There are clearly some objections. It may sometimes seem like a double standard but in fact the guidelines themselves state that they are only guidelines. In some instances the reviewers are given some discretion. For example the 528 foot rule is a rule of thumb. Many reviewers will allow caches 500 feet apart. If there is a natural or man-made barrier that separates the caches, a reviewer may allow caches even closer. On the other hand, if the reviewer thinks you are saturating an area by placing a lot of caches near each other, they may ask to to put them further apart or make some of them into a multi cache. In other areas, Groundspeak reserves the right to grant exceptions. Groundspeak has decide to not allow cache pages to be used a place where companies and organization can get free advertising (intentionally or not). Part of their business is selling advertising on the website. They reserve the right to allow commercial content on a case by case basis. A company or individual want to put commercial content on a cache or travel bug page can contact Groundspeak to negotiate an exception. In my opinion there is no double standard.

 

Wow! Logical thinking and a thought out response. Why aren't you the moderator instead of the illiterate guy?

Link to comment

GC1CM3F -- my only comment there is "so what?" I don't see any relevance to the topic. There is no violation of the 528' guideline with the current hide, so what is your point? That they asked someone if they might move their cache? Big deal, that happens every now and then. The hint is wrong? Is that the best you got? :rolleyes:

 

GC12B8D -- logs show that there is a proper way to get to the cache. Perhaps you should read those logs.

 

GC4C89 -- again, "so what?". I had two caches in two Nat'l Parks at one point. They were there with permission. How do you know this person doesn't have permission?

 

GCNHW9 -- I read the cache owner's note. They don't seem to be overly upset over the problem they caused by not reacting to the issues with the cache ("I am not angry at all"). They have removed their container and are going to place it somewhere else. Once again, "so what?"

 

You went the wrong way and almost costs yourself $500, so don't blame the cache owner for that. Do better research and know when to accept that you might not know the right way to go about seeking a cache. Work with your reviewer and they will be happy to help you. That advice has been given over and over in this topic. That is because it works.

 

Wow, a perfect example as to why there is a problem in Groundspeak. The moderater isn't reading.

 

Go back to GC1CM3F, zoom in really close. You can do this easily by clicking the "1" level zoom on the lower map on the details page. The hint says the cache is under the bridge. Where is the bridge. 200 feet south! If you still can't figure that out, the street "Spencer St", in order to go over water there has to be a bridge.

 

GC4C89 - I took pictures all over that mountain. I stopped and talked to a cop, or how about I WAS THERE 100 FEET FROM THE CACHE THREATENED WITH A $500 TICKET!!! You can see my pictures of the car match the same car on the cache page. It's HIGHLY off limits. Or do you want me to get you the cop's phone number..., could of sworn I meantioned the cop before.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/adium/sets/72157604917911602/

 

 

As Mtn. Man said, there is a long log by a well-known Central NY cacher for the Quarry cache outlining what seems to be legal accesss to this area, and mentions the same trailhead for another cache in the area.

 

Have you visited this quarry cache site? (GC12B8D) There are no logs from you (and not many, period, in over a year). And I hardly think this is part of an organized Syracuse area rule breaking conspiracy, the owner is an out-of-towner from Washington State.

 

Which also explains a cache description with no parking coords, or information on how to access the area.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment
As Mtn. Man said, there is a long log by a well-known Central NY cacher outlining what seems to be legal accesss to this area, and mentions the same trailhead for another cache in the area.

 

Where is your DNF for GC4C89? You've never posted anything to this cache page! If this cache is in fact in a posted area, with people subject to $500 fines for tresspassing, I believe you should inform fellow cachers, at the very least.

 

March 30th, I logged GC4C89

Edited by Adium
Link to comment
As Mtn. Man said, there is a long log by a well-known Central NY cacher outlining what seems to be legal accesss to this area, and mentions the same trailhead for another cache in the area.

 

Where is your DNF for GC4C89? You've never posted anything to this cache page! If this cache is in fact in a posted area, with people subject to $500 fines for tresspassing, I believe you should inform fellow cachers, at the very least.

 

March 30th, I logged GC4C89

 

My bad. I was talking about the quarry cache, and was editing as you were responding. Sorry.

Link to comment

Part of what has instigated the post here.

 

With the amount of posted signs (I don't care what way you come in you will end up in the middle of an empty field/quary) I find it hard to believe no one has mentioned the signs before. I mentioned the one in GC4C89, but its phased no one.

Link to comment
While I am 50 miles from home visiting for the first time and planting a cache that I only intent on visiting every couple months I didn't take the time to solve this cache.

Vacation caches too, eh? How many guidelines can one person break? :lol::lol:

 

I don't think the problem is the reviewer here. :o

You call 50 miles vacation? You need to get out more!

 

I drive twice that to go caching sometimes. For the day and back. Drove over 200 miles last week just to get a yellow jeep.

 

I say 50 miles to give an example that I am not 100% familier and haven't cached there before. I also added that I intended to visit every couple months.

 

You really need to start reading everything before you comment.

Oh, goodness. Mtn-man gets out more than most people I know. :rolleyes:

 

I thought your comment was funny, too. I think it was more the way you worded it, like, "sheesh...the cache is out of my local area enough that I couldn't do all the puzzles and multis near it. I'm visiting for the first time and can't be expected to do all the necessary work to put out a proper hide". Sounds like a bit of self-entitlement. ;)

Link to comment

I've personally found that the person who reviews my area in New York to be quick and easy to deal with. Before placing a couple of my caches, I've gone to him with coordinates, where it is and see if it fits OK. He's worked well with me and I appreciate it. That's how I plan to keep it, too.

 

As for the original OP, I do think some people jumped on him because he was pointing out others kind of do their own thing. He never said he did it, too, rather was asking if it was the norm. Though it does sound like he's frustrated and such, I didn't get the impression he was trying to bust the rules.

 

On that note, too, I can't imagine somewhat calling out a reviewer on these forums can be a good thing. E-mail your reviewer. Have a chat. Things get done much quicker if you talk with the reviewers than bringing it into a public forum.

Link to comment
I've personally found that the person who reviews my area in New York to be quick and easy to deal with. Before placing a couple of my caches, I've gone to him with coordinates, where it is and see if it fits OK. He's worked well with me and I appreciate it. That's how I plan to keep it, too.

 

As for the original OP, I do think some people jumped on him because he was pointing out others kind of do their own thing. He never said he did it, too, rather was asking if it was the norm. Though it does sound like he's frustrated and such, I didn't get the impression he was trying to bust the rules.

 

On that note, too, I can't imagine somewhat calling out a reviewer on these forums can be a good thing. E-mail your reviewer. Have a chat. Things get done much quicker if you talk with the reviewers than bringing it into a public forum.

 

You're right, I think somewhere along the lines we got sidetracked.

 

OK, Simple question! Are they rules? Or, are they guidelines? Rules you follow like laws to the letter. Guidelines, are just a suggestion.

 

If they are guidelines, then the locals are right and the reviewer is overly harsh.

If they are rules, then the locals are crooks and the reviewer is doing his job.

 

Just so I know which group to fall into....!

Edited by Adium
Link to comment

Part of what has instigated the post here.

 

With the amount of posted signs (I don't care what way you come in you will end up in the middle of an empty field/quary) I find it hard to believe no one has mentioned the signs before. I mentioned the one in GC4C89, but its phased no one.

 

Well, one guy did, but he only posted a note. True though, hardly any mention of posted signs in the logs. I've found if something gets published on this website, there will never be a shortage of enthusiastic, non-complaining "I see nothing" smiley seekers.

 

Probably a totally illegal cache placed by an out-of-towner, and some local just happened to find a route to it without encountering a single posted sign. Impossible to tell for sure though.

Link to comment

Probably a totally illegal cache placed by an out-of-towner, and some local just happened to find a route to it without encountering a single posted sign. Impossible to tell for sure though.

That's half the issue though. Its immpossible to not encounter a single posted sign. There is one directly over the cache. If you don't encounter that one then you don't find the cache.

Link to comment

He doesn't want to read what I write and then criticizes me about it. Where if he took the time to read what I said before he would of answered his own question. Once is forgivable. Twice is getting sloppy. Now he is quiet so I am hoping he is reading up what I said, and understands I am not bashing the reviewers. I want standards to the rules thats it!

Edited by Adium
Link to comment

Wow! Logical thinking and a thought out response. Why aren't you the moderator instead of the illiterate guy?

 

So you're calling mtn-man illiterate? Nice. Real nice.

 

Well, yeah. He obviously doesn't know how to spell out Mountain Man. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Wow! Logical thinking and a thought out response. Why aren't you the moderator instead of the illiterate guy?

 

So you're calling mtn-man illiterate? Nice. Real nice.

 

Well, yeah. He obviously doesn't know how to spell out Mountain Man. :rolleyes:

LOL, give the man some cheese.

Link to comment
I've personally found that the person who reviews my area in New York to be quick and easy to deal with. Before placing a couple of my caches, I've gone to him with coordinates, where it is and see if it fits OK. He's worked well with me and I appreciate it. That's how I plan to keep it, too.

 

As for the original OP, I do think some people jumped on him because he was pointing out others kind of do their own thing. He never said he did it, too, rather was asking if it was the norm. Though it does sound like he's frustrated and such, I didn't get the impression he was trying to bust the rules.

 

On that note, too, I can't imagine somewhat calling out a reviewer on these forums can be a good thing. E-mail your reviewer. Have a chat. Things get done much quicker if you talk with the reviewers than bringing it into a public forum.

 

You're right, I think somewhere along the lines we got sidetracked.

 

OK, Simple question! Are they rules? Or, are they guidelines? Rules you follow like laws to the letter. Guidelines, are just a suggestion.

 

If they are guidelines, then the locals are right and the reviewer is overly harsh.

If they are rules, then the locals are crooks and the reviewer is doing his job.

 

Just so I know which group to fall into....!

 

This is exactly the point I have tried to make a number of times, and I keep being told "They're guidelines, and we even wrote into them that we can make exceptions to any of them anytime we want.".

 

Nothing like consistency.

Link to comment
OK, Simple question! Are they rules? Or, are they guidelines? Rules you follow like laws to the letter. Guidelines, are just a suggestion.

 

If they are guidelines, then the locals are right and the reviewer is overly harsh.

If they are rules, then the locals are crooks and the reviewer is doing his job.

 

They are called guidelines. Let's just say they are more like rules with some flexibility built in. How much flexibility depends on the guideline. No caches on RR tracks is a lot less flexible than say the .1 mile guideline.

 

But if you read the guidelines you know what is expected. If you know you are stepping very close to, or over the line, it is a good idea to run it by your reviewer first, or expect that your cache might be held up while you address the reviewers concerns.

 

If you want relatively trouble free cache placements don't go near the line.

Link to comment
I agree, I like the puzzle caches, but at the same time a standard needs to be made. I have seen some where the actual cache is 5 miles away from the posted coordinates. In this case its hard to know which cache to solve.
My example was the final was 6.5 miles away from stage 1. But it was a great multi and the final was a great bit of camo.

 

I have also seen some caches that people create to be unsolvable thinking that they are smarter than everyone else. I had a problem with one not too long ago, the posted coordinates were over a mile away. he used it as a waypoint for parking. While I am 50 miles from home visiting for the first time and planting a cache that I only intent on visiting every couple months I didn't take the time to solve this cache. I still haven't solved it. (GCP9MG if you want to try).
Might try it. There is a local puzzle cache Poney Music GC1BR3J placed over a month ago and so far I am the only one who's solved it (it's well deserving of it's 4 star difficulty rating)

 

I am not saying spoil the cache by creating a backdoor, however a standard like 0.1mi away from the end point would be nice. Then I just have to comply with 0.2 to be safe. I don't have to go and solve ever puzzle and multi so I can hide my first cache.
Not saying you have to but by the same account you could just find another place as it appears someone else had already snagged that one.

 

My disagreement on disclosing anything is exampled with a puzzle cache I have been working on for a couple weeks. The puzzle will require you to figure out every digit of the coords. If I *HAVE* to place the final within 1/10th mile of the posted coords then people can pretty much skip the # positions of the puzzle and only solve the last digit or maybe the last 2 at the most : N ##° ##.#?? W ##° ##.#?? Personally I'd like the option to put the posted coords in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico if I wanted.

 

What was the reason given for not being able to mention your Jeep?
Its solicitation. Even thought they sponsor Groundspeak, to meantion anything that sounds even remotely commericial in any posting is against the guidelines.
Okay, this one I definitely have to side with you on. We have a Grand Cherokee and a Liberty and where I bought mine I placed a cache named "Jeep Jeep" GCVVPW. The word "Jeep" appears in the text ten times. No issues with having that posted and I have almost 100 finds on it. In fact if you do a search there are 305 caches published with the word JEEP in the title. They may consider these grandfathered in as when rules change (even the 1/10th mile rule) things placed prior to that rule are generally let be. Edited by infiniteMPG
Link to comment

He doesn't want to read what I write and then criticizes me about it. Where if he took the time to read what I said before he would of answered his own question. Once is forgivable. Twice is getting sloppy. Now he is quiet so I am hoping he is reading up what I said, and understands I am not bashing the reviewers. I want standards to the rules thats it!

 

So ultimately, you're pointing out inconsistencies. I get it, they certainly exist.

 

Also, looking at the Google photo's of the Quarry cache, it's pretty obvious it's smack-dab in the middle of the quarry. Not surprising, a couple of years ago, less than a mile from my house, a since-archived cache was published on the well-posted (at least I thought it was) property of a large factory that was, and still is in business. Looks like the cache had 54 smileys, and only two smiley claimers expressing even mild concern (one of them an out-of-towner passing through).

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment
My disagreement on disclosing anything is exampled with a puzzle cache I have been working on for a couple weeks. The puzzle will require you to figure out every digit of the coords. If I *HAVE* to place the final within 1/10th mile of the posted coords then people can pretty much skip the # positions of the puzzle and only solve the last digit or maybe the last 2 at the most : N ##° ##.#?? W ##° ##.#?? Personally I'd like the option to put the posted coords in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico if I wanted.

 

I am taking a minute out of context to brag. I recently built this site, http://www.razornylon.com/puzzle/ which supports a couple of cache's I own. The latest being GC1CWJV.

 

Basically its an AI bot that I have programmed to respond only to the answers to the puzzle I make. The responses are coordinates, or in the case of my next puzzle you have to enter an entire NY time sunday crossword, which then gives you a code, which when you are 100% complete and have 100% of the code you can enter the code and get the coordinates. This way no cheating.

 

So we don't drift apart from the topic at hand here I did make a seperate post on this puzzle here:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=195475

Link to comment

Probably a totally illegal cache placed by an out-of-towner, and some local just happened to find a route to it without encountering a single posted sign. Impossible to tell for sure though.

That's half the issue though. Its immpossible to not encounter a single posted sign. There is one directly over the cache. If you don't encounter that one then you don't find the cache.

 

You are posting about being hassled over your caches, then hassling others about theirs.

Slow down. Back up. Quick second guessing others caches because it's every bit as annoying as you are posting about.

 

In other words. The golden rule. Don't want to be hassled. Don't hassle.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...