cache placement vs. guidelines

[+wapahani]

I've place a few caches now under this account. The other evening I placed 2 caches and submitted them. I took over an hour to verify the location of my current cache placement to be out of the 500' rule.

So to my surprise for the second time I have a note from the reviewer stating he won't place my cache until I move it due to a mystery cache being within 500' of my location. He explained I should move it and gave my the distance to move it.

Problem is, I can't move it to this spot and also that the distance is under 100' to move it.

If I move it in the distance and direction he says I have to, I move into private location. Thus I can't place it there.

 

The site rules say the distance is arbitrary, which means that is open to flexibility in the distance.

I know for a fact that the location I placed this cache won't throw off the GPS for the so called Mystery cache because there isn't a hiding spot withing atleast 400' because I walked it.

 

This isn't the first time the said reviewer has bagged a cache for this. While I understand the need to keep cache placement far enough apart, sometimes you just have to understand the location in order to know the placement.

 

I know there use to be another spot that you could go when you wanted to dispute the placement/ruling of the reviewer, but I can't find this anymore. Anyone have an idea?

[+StarBrand]

You can appeal but chances are the ruling will stand.

 

The problem is one of saturation. Find an area with fewer caches to create a hide.

[+wapahani]

You can appeal but chances are the ruling will stand.

 

The problem is one of saturation. Find an area with fewer caches to create a hide.

 

There is another cache placed 3/10 away and its still waiting on approval.

 

The problem is the mystery cache placement. This location isn't overly saturated.

 

I'm thinking about pulling both caches and saying stick it.

[+Michael]

You can appeal but chances are the ruling will stand.

 

The problem is one of saturation. Find an area with fewer caches to create a hide.

 

Write appeals@geocaching. explain the whole issue and include the GC# of the cache page. Groundspeak will look it over and let you know what they decide.

[+wapahani]

You can appeal but chances are the ruling will stand.

 

The problem is one of saturation. Find an area with fewer caches to create a hide.

 

Write appeals@geocaching. explain the whole issue and include the GC# of the cache page. Groundspeak will look it over and let you know what they decide.

 

Michael,

Thanks, that was what I was looking for.

 

I went and removed the cache, and archived it. Its tiresome trying to play a guessing game with a reviewer!

[+flask]

alternately, you can play up front discussion games with the reviewer.

 

here are some i've used with some success:

 

the cache is on the grounds of a school, and i have written permission from the principal and knowledge of the staff.

 

the cache is near an active railroad, but the tracks are elevated and not accesible from the cache location.

 

the cache is within the proximity of another cache, but i've done some research and this is why the two won't interfere with each other.

 

then, after you talk with the reviewer about it, you still might not get what you want, but them's the breaks.

[+Renegade Knight]

... sometimes you just have to understand the location in order to know the placement....

 

True. That's why a couple of my cache are on Navicache. The spots needed a cache. 100' over didn't.

[+Lasagna]

Seems to me that you must not have done the mystery cache which is nearby ... so it seems to me that it would be difficult for you to know that what your placing will not cause confusion with the other cache. Someone suggested offering to the reviewer a reason why this placement should be allowed by citing a concrete reason why it won't cause conflict .... seems to me you need to go do the mystery cache and find that out.

 

Otherwise, with 3.79 million square miles of space in the United States, I'd say just find another location and move on.

 

I've place a few caches now under this account. The other evening I placed 2 caches and submitted them. I took over an hour to verify the location of my current cache placement to be out of the 500' rule.

So to my surprise for the second time I have a note from the reviewer stating he won't place my cache until I move it due to a mystery cache being within 500' of my location. He explained I should move it and gave my the distance to move it.

Problem is, I can't move it to this spot and also that the distance is under 100' to move it.

If I move it in the distance and direction he says I have to, I move into private location. Thus I can't place it there.

 

The site rules say the distance is arbitrary, which means that is open to flexibility in the distance.

I know for a fact that the location I placed this cache won't throw off the GPS for the so called Mystery cache because there isn't a hiding spot withing atleast 400' because I walked it.

 

This isn't the first time the said reviewer has bagged a cache for this. While I understand the need to keep cache placement far enough apart, sometimes you just have to understand the location in order to know the placement.

 

I know there use to be another spot that you could go when you wanted to dispute the placement/ruling of the reviewer, but I can't find this anymore. Anyone have an idea?

Edited June 22, 2008 by Lasagna

[+TotemLake]

Of course, this only appears as another case of entitlement.

[+wapahani]

What mystery cache is it? There are 4 withing a few miles of just this location. I had a mystery cache that was 8 miles from its posted location. So you would have to figure out which cache is which.

 

No, not a sense of entitlement, just a case of a reviewer that doesn't give enough info.

I've emailed but when it takes days to get back, it just makes you move on. Of course, there is history here too. With all the technology out there it seems to me that something is missing with the ability to have this site tell you "your too close to a cache location".

[Keystone]

If the reviewer gave you more info, he'd get flamed by the owner of the published puzzle cache for giving away its secrets.

 

Nope, I'd rather protect the guy who followed the guidelines and get flamed by the guy who hasn't found the caches in the area he's trying to hide in. Go find those four puzzles, or if they stump you, find an area and ask the reviewer if it's clear for a cache placement.

 

By the way, the actual location of a puzzle is supposed to be within two miles of the posted coordinates. You slipped one past the reviewer, it would seem. One of the reasons for that guideline is to help out people in your situation, to be alerted that there's puzzle caches nearby.

[+TotemLake]

What mystery cache is it? There are 4 withing a few miles of just this location. I had a mystery cache that was 8 miles from its posted location. So you would have to figure out which cache is which.

 

No, not a sense of entitlement, just a case of a reviewer that doesn't give enough info.

I've emailed but when it takes days to get back, it just makes you move on. Of course, there is history here too. With all the technology out there it seems to me that something is missing with the ability to have this site tell you "your too close to a cache location".

 

I'm thinking about pulling both caches and saying stick it

.

 

Yah, a sense of entitlement. If I can't have my way, I'll just pick up my ball and go home.

 

I've place a few caches now under this account.

 

You have one hide in your profile, not several. So it would appear you overstated your numerous hides and with that, your credibility drops.

 

You haven't been with the sport long, and yet you complain it's too hard to do it the right way. Many people have successfully communicated with the reviewer and resolved their issues. But you have to remember two things. 1) Reviewers are volunteers. 2) When you don't follow the guidelines and don't provide adequate information regarding your placement 400 feet away from another which is WAY too close even for a little bend, then your request goes to the bottom of the pile to wait its turn to bubble back up while the within guidelines caches get published.

[+Annie & PB]

If you view the communication between you and the reviewer as an opportunity to gain useful information rather than an 'argument' that you must win, I am sure you will find you reviewer more than helpful. If you explain that you can't move it that direction he/she suggested due to private property issues, they may well give you several other suggestions.

 

And sometimes, you just can't place the cache (on this website) where YOU want it. Thems the breaks. The reviewer does have the final say.

 

The usual procedure that I eventually developed when we didn't know where all our local caches were was to get co-ordinates for possible locations that we wanted to place a cache, and then email our reviewer BEFORE WE DID ANYTHING ELSE to ask if those locations would be ok. Some were, some weren't. You don't have to write up the whole cache page and all. Just flick the reviewer a quick email to query the co-ords.

 

The time that a reviewer is likely to get back to you in can normally be up to 72 hours. If you develop a good positive relationship with your reviewer it will generally be sooner. We now usually get our caches published with hours, or at most overnight, and occasionally within minutes (if we happen to catch him at his computer). This is because I have worked through my initial misunderstandings and so forth in a positive way, and he presumably now realises that our cache is 99.9% likely to be within the guidlines and good to go straight away.

[+Prime Suspect]

I've place a few caches now under this account. The other evening I placed 2 caches and submitted them. I took over an hour to verify the location of my current cache placement to be out of the 500' rule.

So to my surprise for the second time I have a note from the reviewer stating he won't place my cache until I move it due to a mystery cache being within 500' of my location. He explained I should move it and gave my the distance to move it.

Problem is, I can't move it to this spot and also that the distance is under 100' to move it.

If I move it in the distance and direction he says I have to, I move into private location. Thus I can't place it there.

 

If the Reviewer gave you an approximate direction and distance, he was trying to clue you in to the general area of where the other cache was located, without being specific enough to ruin the puzzle. He didn't mean you had to move it in that direction and distance. He intended for you to use that information get a rough idea of where the other cache was, so you could avoid it. You can move your cache any direction you want, so long as you keep it 1/10th of a mile away from other caches.

 

The site rules say the distance is arbitrary, which means that is open to flexibility in the distance.

 

arbitrary ≠ flexible

 

The distance between home plate and the pitcher's mound is arbitrary. It was not written in stone, as the 11th commandment. There is not a scientific reason behind it. It's 60' 6", because that's a distance that seems to work pretty well. But it could just as easily been 61' 2", or 59' 7¼". But that doesn't mean you get to build a ball park and just come up with your own measurements. At least, not if you intend to play in the Bigs.

[+wapahani]

Totem, its not a sense of entitlement, its a sense of helping one out.

Also, my caches, do you know if I haven't changed names or set up new accounts? You making a nice assumption. This account is our family cache account. Nice try, please play again.

 

Perhaps if the reviewer was from the area covered they might have a general understanding of the cache in question.

The rule doesn't say FIRM that its 528', its an ARBITRARY RULE. You must understand the term "Arbitrary" to understand that it isn't FIRM.

There are several caches around this area that are withing that rule. That is what led me to question it.

 

My issue is with the reviewers inability to communicate with the owners. I'm not the first to complain! But probably am the first to come here with it. Obviously.

I don't have an issue adjusting the cache. I pulled the cache in question and will place it in another spot at another time. I archived it and am still awaiting my other cache to be approved, which was listed ahead of this one.

 

Thanks for those that answer the question. I know this wasn't always an issue due to the popularity of the sport growing. Seems like now everywhere you turn there is a new cache going up, or a puzzle cache that is in the way. LOL

[+wapahani]

I've place a few caches now under this account. The other evening I placed 2 caches and submitted them. I took over an hour to verify the location of my current cache placement to be out of the 500' rule.

So to my surprise for the second time I have a note from the reviewer stating he won't place my cache until I move it due to a mystery cache being within 500' of my location. He explained I should move it and gave my the distance to move it.

Problem is, I can't move it to this spot and also that the distance is under 100' to move it.

If I move it in the distance and direction he says I have to, I move into private location. Thus I can't place it there.

 

If the Reviewer gave you an approximate direction and distance, he was trying to clue you in to the general area of where the other cache was located, without being specific enough to ruin the puzzle. He didn't mean you had to move it in that direction and distance. He intended for you to use that information get a rough idea of where the other cache was, so you could avoid it. You can move your cache any direction you want, so long as you keep it 1/10th of a mile away from other caches.

 

The site rules say the distance is arbitrary, which means that is open to flexibility in the distance.

 

arbitrary ≠ flexible

 

The distance between home plate and the pitcher's mound is arbitrary. It was not written in stone, as the 11th commandment. There is not a scientific reason behind it. It's 60' 6", because that's a distance that seems to work pretty well. But it could just as easily been 61' 2", or 59' 7¼". But that doesn't mean you get to build a ball park and just come up with your own measurements. At least, not if you intend to play in the Bigs.

 

He gave a generalized direction that I could place my cache. But its not allowed to have a cache placed there. This evening when I pulled the cache, I even walked the area again to make certain. This location leaves little to imagine about a cache in the area I could already place it. Thus calling into question how another cache is in the area. The cache that I knew about was just over 700' away, but due to it being a park, it was in a different area. Leaving the Mystery Cache and the known cache to overlap the 528' rule.

 

Oh well, water under the bridge. I just wanted others opinions.

[Keystone]

The last I checked, 528 feet was the same in Pennsylvania as it is in Indiana -- unlike Daylight Savings Time, which I'll never understand. You don't have to be "from the area" to study two caches on a map or aerial photo and see a red flag on the page warning that they are 300 feet apart.

 

Funny thing is, Indiana has two dedicated volunteer cache reviewers. They know the area and they know their job. Your reviewer was trying to help you by suggesting which way to move your cache. You want for him to tell you which puzzle it is, or its exact coordinates? Good luck with that.

[+ar_kayaker]

Most reviewers are flexible if you can give them a logical reason to make an exception to the rules. I have two caches that are 300 feet apart....vertically as well as horizontially, and they were published as exceptions to the rule.

[+Prime Suspect]

He gave a generalized direction that I could place my cache.

He wasn't telling you that's the only place you could put your cache. Did you bother to actually read my message before quoting it?

Edited June 22, 2008 by Prime Suspect

[+FireRef]

Of course, this only appears as another case of entitlement.

 

No, this only appears as a case of a reviewer following the guidelines too strictly. GS maintains that the guidelines are only guidelines, and exceptions can be granted.

 

On the other hand, I prefer having hard and fast rules, which make it a lot easier to figure out what you can and cannot do, rather than flexible rules which are only flexible from GS's interpretation, rather than everyone else who plays the game.

[+Lasagna]

You know, I seem to always get along quite well with the reviewer in my area. I've managed to publish a number of caches and even managed to coordinate a large scale puzzle cache involving numerous local cachers -- and get them all published at the exact same time thanks to the efforts of the reviewer to help bring a fun series to the area.

 

I haven't always agreed with the reviewer, but you know sometimes their hands are tied by rules from GC. It's disappointing when that happens, but thems the breaks. Other times, I have found them to turn down a cache, but offer suggestions on how to make it "approvable" whether that be by moving it slightly or by changing a writeup or type of cache. Sounds to me like your area reviewer did just that -- they suggested a way to make your hide approvable.

 

As others have suggested, you should form a working relationship with your reviewer by asking them questions before you just drop a box in the woods or wherever. They'll be glad to help make your placement a success and avoid a lot of unnecessary rework.

 

At the end of the day, it's just a game. You agreed to play by their rules -- and those rules say the reviewer gets the final say. Sounds to me like the reviewer exercised the 500' rule to which they are entitled and regardless of whether you agree or not, that's the way the cookie crumbles. So, find another spot.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Lasagna

[+Ambrosia]

 

The rule doesn't say FIRM that its 528', its an ARBITRARY RULE. You must understand the term "Arbitrary" to understand that it isn't FIRM.

 

 

It's not an arbitrary rule. It's an arbitrary distance, and they're guidelines. That means that Groundspeak would like to stick to 528', but gives the Reviewers the chance to make exceptions in a few specific cases where it is warranted. Obviously, the Reviewer didn't feel that this case was warranted.

[+beejay&esskay]

The last I checked, 528 feet was the same in Pennsylvania as it is in Indiana -- unlike Daylight Savings Time, which I'll never understand.

 

Time to update your understanding. Indiana now goes on DST. But it's not all in the Eastern time zone.

[+Elde]

Totem, its not a sense of entitlement, its a sense of helping one out.

Also, my caches, do you know if I haven't changed names or set up new accounts? You making a nice assumption.

 

He 'knows' you haven't changed names or set up new accounts because you specifically stated otherwise.

 

In your very first message you specifically stated:

 

I've place a few caches now under this account.

 

On the other hand, after claiming that... you now claim that:

 

This account is our family cache account. Nice try, please play again.

 

That sound you hear is your credibility dropping like a rock.

[+wapahani]

He gave a generalized direction that I could place my cache.

He wasn't telling you that's the only place you could put your cache. Did you bother to actually read my message before quoting it?

 

Yes, but you missed the point. The explanation given was that I could place it in that area. Like I said, knowing the area like I do, I know that I can't place it there. You see the area he is sending me is bounded by water. The area in question is off limits, and the other direction is more private property. So it limited me even father. I know what he was saying (and I thanked that) and I know what you are saying.

There is another published cache in the area that further limits the location yet more.

I can care less about the puzzle cache, I don't like to cheat, so having him say something about it wouldn't matter.

[+wapahani]

Of course, this only appears as another case of entitlement.

 

No, this only appears as a case of a reviewer following the guidelines too strictly. GS maintains that the guidelines are only guidelines, and exceptions can be granted.

 

On the other hand, I prefer having hard and fast rules, which make it a lot easier to figure out what you can and cannot do, rather than flexible rules which are only flexible from GS's interpretation, rather than everyone else who plays the game.

 

Finally, someone else gets it.

Others have turned this into a mess fest, and all I wanted was an answer about a question I am sure we all have had.

[+wapahani]

Totem, its not a sense of entitlement, its a sense of helping one out.

Also, my caches, do you know if I haven't changed names or set up new accounts? You making a nice assumption.

 

He 'knows' you haven't changed names or set up new accounts because you specifically stated otherwise.

 

In your very first message you specifically stated:

 

I've place a few caches now under this account.

 

On the other hand, after claiming that... you now claim that:

 

This account is our family cache account. Nice try, please play again.

 

That sound you hear is your credibility dropping like a rock.

 

Huh? I said "I've placed a few caches now under THIS ACCOUNT" I never said about this being my first, second, third or forty-fifth account!....

meaning, this name..... What part of that don't you get? This is the family account since the wife and kid are into it now...

 

Wow, I never have seen something so simple turned into a gripe session.

A simple question about a simple issue.

Edited June 22, 2008 by wapahani

[+wapahani]

The last I checked, 528 feet was the same in Pennsylvania as it is in Indiana -- unlike Daylight Savings Time, which I'll never understand. You don't have to be "from the area" to study two caches on a map or aerial photo and see a red flag on the page warning that they are 300 feet apart.

 

Funny thing is, Indiana has two dedicated volunteer cache reviewers. They know the area and they know their job. Your reviewer was trying to help you by suggesting which way to move your cache. You want for him to tell you which puzzle it is, or its exact coordinates? Good luck with that.

 

So we only go by "as the bird flies" distance? There is a dip (gulch, ditch whatever you call it) that puts this in a different area in elevation also, so if you walk it, drive it or roll, its well over 500'. Now, if you can fly to it, then its probably not..LOL

 

 

All I asked was about the review process, and having someone else look at this. I knew there was an email, but I couldn't remember it and couldn't find it.

Had their not been history behind this, then I wouldn't have said much, as I haven't in the past.

 

Here is the deal. Had a cache that was completely historical. It was a multi, the second stage was in a cemetery and was right at 500' from another cache, but due to the historical aspect I told him about it.

He refused to allow the cache, wouldn't budge on it at all. I took the second stage down and made it a traditional. He allowed that. That is the one you see listed on this account.

 

What I was getting at originally, there should be a way for us to input coords and see if its a GOOD or NOGO.

It would take into account all caches, and it wouldn't have to show us anything. It would just save alot of cachers pain in having to backtrack and get it moved, then wait and take a guess again!

[+WRASTRO]

Poor response. I read your OP to be saying you are an experienced hider and have used this account for said purpose. Aside from that, I agree with the vast majority of the posters here. You need to work with your reviewer to figure out if there is a way to publish your cache. Seems pretty straight forward to me. As with most threads where the original topic is something along the lines of "why can't I do this? The reviewers or Groundspeak are being unfair", you have failed to answer the questions that have been raised and you are simple arguing.

 

What have you done to attempt to work with the reviewer to take care of the problem(s) with your proposed cache placement?

 

Edited to note that this post was in reply to post #27.

Edited June 22, 2008 by WRASTRO

[+beejay&esskay]

 

What I was getting at originally, there should be a way for us to input coords and see if its a GOOD or NOGO.

It would take into account all caches, and it wouldn't have to show us anything. It would just save alot of cachers pain in having to backtrack and get it moved, then wait and take a guess again!

 

 

This has been discussed several times before and I won't bother to search for the threads since you can do it as well as I can.

 

A system like that would allow someone to determine where puzzle caches were with a little trial and error.

[Keystone]

So we only go by "as the bird flies" distance? There is a dip (gulch, ditch whatever you call it) that puts this in a different area in elevation also, so if you walk it, drive it or roll, its well over 500'. Now, if you can fly to it, then its probably not..LOL

Exceptions are made for things like cliffs and rivers, not "dips." I make exceptions for that all the time. I also make exceptions at distances of 495 or 510 feet all the time. Your cache doesn't fit any of the common criteria for granting an exception. There is no "right" to have an exception.

 

All I asked was about the review process, and having someone else look at this. I knew there was an email, but I couldn't remember it and couldn't find it.

Have you read the Listing Guidelines? As is often the case, the answer to your cache review process question can be found there:

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that “pushes the envelope” to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas. If, after exchanging emails with the reviewer, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, your next option is to ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum. Sometimes a second opinion from someone else who has seen a similar situation can help in suggesting a way for the cache to be published. Next, you should feel free to post a message in the “Geocaching Topics” section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived. Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an e-mail with complete details, waypoint name (GC****) and a link to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com.

 

What I was getting at originally, there should be a way for us to input coords and see if its a GOOD or NOGO.

It would take into account all caches, and it wouldn't have to show us anything. It would just save alot of cachers pain in having to backtrack and get it moved, then wait and take a guess again!

This suggestion has been raised as a feature request on many occasions. Geocaching.com has considered it, but hasn't yet found a way to make it "cheat proof." Based on experience, people would use the tool to figure out the locations of puzzles without solving them. Unless and until such a solution is developed, your options are to find the nearby puzzle caches and save the waypoints, hide caches where there are no nearby puzzles, or write to your reviewer for "pre-clearance" of an area you've targeted for a cache placement.

Edited June 22, 2008 by Keystone

[+FireRef]

Quote from Keystone... "There is no "right" to have an exception."

 

There is no "Right" to place a cache either.

 

But there are a lot of guidelines which are open to a lot of interpretation by a lot of people in authority on this website and in this game, but not to the people who play it. It makes it tough to play by rules which... in effect... don't exist.

 

Also interesting to note - I was questioned, possibly by Keystone, or possibly by another reviewer (not sure who published it) about a cache I placed maybe a year or two ago, asking if it was in a cemetary before it was published. The location of the cache was probably close to half a mile from the entrance, and maybe a quarter mile from any property owned by the cemetary in question. I'm not sure what map the reviewer was looking at, but the ones I was looking at didn't indicate it was anywhere close. This raises the point that the reviewers can only read what information the maps give them, because there is no way they can have an intimite understanding of a large chunk of one state, much less several. This means we are dependent on their interpretation of maps which may or may not be correct (I've found some doozies of mistakes on maps just in my own small town), or which may or may not reflect specific conditions present, and their willingness to trust the people who are submitting the caches with explanations of the specific topography and items present at the location.

 

I was also questioned on part of a multi because it was, on a map, close to a school. Physcially, it is accessable from multiple directions, and is located within walking distance of a school, but is not associated with the school or its property in any way. Once this was explained, it was published.

 

I would have to say if there was a legitmate reason why the .1 mile "guideline" should be excepted in this case, the reviewer would probably do it. What they consider legitimate is up to them. One reviewer, as referenced in another thread, interpreted a state code in a very specific and particular way, and in doing so, called for the immediate archival and removal of a large number of caches. This was done without any kind of legal opinion on the issue - just their interpretation. So it works both ways - sometimes they can be lenient and grant exceptions, and sometimes they can read into things which become restrictive to the point of being harmful to the game.

 

Just another consequence of having flexible guidelines instead of simple to follow, clearly defined and interpreted rules. What's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. Life (and geocaching) isn't fair.

[+The Hornet]

As an ex-reviewer and a fairly experienced geocacher I have seen and understand both sides of the argument so I will not comment on the rights or wrongs of the interpretation here.

 

What I would say, however, is that you question your reason for placing this particular geocache. Was it to take someone to somewhere you thought would give them pleasure? That's certainly what I try and do when placing a new cache. If so, then there's no need for your cache because they will be brought to that lovely, interesting or unique spot by the other cache.

 

Why not find another great location and place a cache there?

[+Ambrosia]

Of course, this only appears as another case of entitlement.

 

No, this only appears as a case of a reviewer following the guidelines too strictly. GS maintains that the guidelines are only guidelines, and exceptions can be granted.

 

On the other hand, I prefer having hard and fast rules, which make it a lot easier to figure out what you can and cannot do, rather than flexible rules which are only flexible from GS's interpretation, rather than everyone else who plays the game.

 

Finally, someone else gets it.

Others have turned this into a mess fest, and all I wanted was an answer about a question I am sure we all have had.

Actually, there have been multiple good answers to your questions in this thread. You just don't want to see it.

[+PhxChem]

Of course, this only appears as another case of entitlement.

 

No, this only appears as a case of a reviewer following the guidelines too strictly. GS maintains that the guidelines are only guidelines, and exceptions can be granted.

 

On the other hand, I prefer having hard and fast rules, which make it a lot easier to figure out what you can and cannot do, rather than flexible rules which are only flexible from GS's interpretation, rather than everyone else who plays the game.

 

Well, if you know that GS is the only one who can flex the guidelines, why not assume that the guidelines are rigid unless told otherwise? That might save you some trouble.

 

Yes, the person who makes the rules can flex them and even change them. And those who must follow the rules, do not. Seems like you understand how it works.

 

It is also the reviewers' prerogative to follow the guidelines "too closely" (whatever that means).

[+J-Way]

Of course, this only appears as another case of entitlement.

No, this only appears as a case of a reviewer following the guidelines too strictly. GS maintains that the guidelines are only guidelines, and exceptions can be granted.

 

On the other hand, I prefer having hard and fast rules, which make it a lot easier to figure out what you can and cannot do, rather than flexible rules which are only flexible from GS's interpretation, rather than everyone else who plays the game.

Well, if you know that GS is the only one who can flex the guidelines, why not assume that the guidelines are rigid unless told otherwise? That might save you some trouble.

 

Yes, the person who makes the rules can flex them and even change them. And those who must follow the rules, do not. Seems like you understand how it works.

That's what I was going to say. Just mentally replace the word "guidelines" with "strict rules", place all new caches to comply with the rules, and everything's good. Stay outside 0.1 mile of existing caches, don't place caches near railroads, always ask permission from the land owner/manager.

 

The only exception to this are the "unwritten rules" and "unwritten rule interpretations"... but that's a whole other thread topic.

[+uxorious]

What I would say, however, is that you question your reason for placing this particular geocache. Was it to take someone to somewhere you thought would give them pleasure? That's certainly what I try and do when placing a new cache. If so, then there's no need for your cache because they will be brought to that lovely, interesting or unique spot by the other cache.

 

If the cache that brings them to that lovely, interesting or unique spot is a puzzle cache, a lot of people will miss it. There are many who either do not like to or, with some puzzles, cannot do puzzle caches. If the spot is deserving of a cache and can handle both, it really needs both.

 

I do very few puzzle caches, generally I don't care for them. However, they are very popular, and I am glad that those that like them have them available. However, until someone a lot smarter than I, can come up with a solution to the proximity problem, we will have to live with it when hiding caches.

 

Telling some one they COULD solve the local puzzles before hiding is of course one option. For those that say a person SHOULD solve them, that is just poor advice.

 

If I were to hide a cache and have the problem you seem to be having, I would just move on and find somewhere else to hide it.

[Keystone]

FYI, there's a traditional cache .13 miles away from where the OP wanted to place his cache. So this park has a puzzle and a traditional.

[+wapahani]

Some are just ready to jump.

This was a simple question, about a review process.

 

I didn't have an issue with moving this cache. My issue was with not knowing their was a mystery cache located within the area. I told the reviewer in question it was ridiculous that there wasn't a better way to know about this stuff before hand. Simple as say "yes you can place or no you can not place". Not rocket science, just a simple option.

The reviewer stated that I could place the cache in another locations, but in reality I couldn't.

 

So we move on. The cache in question was pulled and the other cache is still awaiting approval. When I said "stick it" it was in terms of trying to make that cache work. A few just wanted to take it as something else.

 

I plan on hiding the said cache to another location. It isn't that big a deal. Go reread the original message. There wasn't anything more then that.

 

Above it was stated that a cache is located just .13 miles away. Yes, but in a different park, actually its a fishing area and not in the park.

 

OH well, I asked a question, got 1 person that understood and 1 that gave me the answer to my question.

To those, thanks!

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

What mystery cache is it? There are 4 withing a few miles of just this location. I had a mystery cache that was 8 miles from its posted location. So you would have to figure out which cache is which.

 

No, not a sense of entitlement, just a case of a reviewer that doesn't give enough info.

I've emailed but when it takes days to get back, it just makes you move on. Of course, there is history here too. With all the technology out there it seems to me that something is missing with the ability to have this site tell you "your too close to a cache location".

 

I'm thinking about pulling both caches and saying stick it

.

 

Yah, a sense of entitlement. If I can't have my way, I'll just pick up my ball and go home.

 

I've place a few caches now under this account.

 

You have one hide in your profile, not several. So it would appear you overstated your numerous hides and with that, your credibility drops.

 

You haven't been with the sport long, and yet you complain it's too hard to do it the right way. Many people have successfully communicated with the reviewer and resolved their issues. But you have to remember two things. 1) Reviewers are volunteers. 2) When you don't follow the guidelines and don't provide adequate information regarding your placement 400 feet away from another which is WAY too close even for a little bend, then your request goes to the bottom of the pile to wait its turn to bubble back up while the within guidelines caches get published.

Very well put! I agree that the OP is indeed displaying a sense of entitlement and also refusing to understand some of the basic rules of the sport (at least if he wishes to list his caches at geocaching.com) What is it about online forums and email list groups that tends to bring out the people with the sense of entitlement and need to complain?

[+FireRef]

I see less a sense of entitlement by the OP than I do by the regular posters on this board. They seem to feel they are entitled to hassle posters about their questions, and complain that they are expecting the rules to be bent (which they are all the time, just not by the people who play the game... by the people who run the website) or would like them to be bent.

 

Maybe we need to just back off and let people ask questions, and answer them. Not hassle them because they asked them.

 

Maybe there would be less complaints if the guidelines were enforced consistently, instead of having a "we can do whatever we want whenever we want" attitude about running the game...

 

Maybe...

Edited June 22, 2008 by FireRef

[Keystone]

I think I'll discontinue granting exceptions in Ohio and Pennsylvania for caches hidden 515 feet from an existing cache, or at the top and bottom of a cliff. The guideline says 528, and by gosh, I need to be *consistent.*

 

The OP's cache was less than 528 feet away, too. Nice to see consistency in the territory just to the west of mine.

[+wapahani]

I see less a sense of entitlement by the OP than I do by the regular posters on this board. They seem to feel they are entitled to hassle posters about their questions, and complain that they are expecting the rules to be bent (which they are all the time, just not by the people who play the game... by the people who run the website) or would like them to be bent.

 

Maybe we need to just back off and let people ask questions, and answer them. Not hassle them because they asked them.

 

Maybe there would be less complaints if the guidelines were enforced consistently, instead of having a "we can do whatever we want whenever we want" attitude about running the game...

 

Maybe...

 

I'm for the life of my trying to figure out the "sense of entitlement" ideal that is being brought up by a couple of posters.

Something I have witnessed for a while now are a few consistent posters that hassle others that ask questions.

WHY? The question put forward was simple. It was what is the process of having a review of the cache? Nothing more. It was later brought forth what the issue was.

Since that time, things have moved forward, yet some keep dragging the "sense of entitlement" idea out of the dark.

 

I have no sense of entitlement, never once have I said "my cache is the only one deserving to be there". I've also long since moved the cache and archived the post.

 

Some on here read into things too much. Its those same people that have a sense of entitlement that their opinion is the only one that matters! Oh well. All that does is drive more people from the hobby rather then to it. but again, there are many like that in any hobby.

 

Oh well.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I can care less about the puzzle cache, I don't like to cheat, so having him say something about it wouldn't matter.

Actually, your local reviewer is probably even more reluctant than most to "spill the beans" on a puzzle since it hit the fan a while back when he accidentally let the cat out of the bag in an attempt to have a hide checked out to see if it was there.

 

In the referenced incident the person the reviewer gave the coordinates to did not attempt to cheat either, but an extremely tangled web got weaved and Indiana cachers lost several puzzles and a GREAT puzzle cache hider quit because of the incident.

 

I would not expect ANY mystery cache final coordinates to come out of OUR local reviewer's 'mouth'- not in a million years.

[+FireRef]

I think I'll discontinue granting exceptions in Ohio and Pennsylvania for caches hidden 515 feet from an existing cache, or at the top and bottom of a cliff. The guideline says 528, and by gosh, I need to be *consistent.*

 

The OP's cache was less than 528 feet away, too. Nice to see consistency in the territory just to the west of mine.

 

Sarcasm aside, consistency is what I (and a number of others) are asking for. Why is that so difficult?

[+flask]

I think I'll discontinue granting exceptions in Ohio and Pennsylvania for caches hidden 515 feet from an existing cache, or at the top and bottom of a cliff. The guideline says 528, and by gosh, I need to be *consistent.*

 

The OP's cache was less than 528 feet away, too. Nice to see consistency in the territory just to the west of mine.

 

Sarcasm aside, consistency is what I (and a number of others) are asking for. Why is that so difficult?

 

it's difficult because sometimes a thing warrants an exception. people shouldn't take the possiblity of an exception for the right to one.

[+Annie & PB]

Simple as say "yes you can place or no you can not place". Not rocket science, just a simple option.

 

There is a simple option - email the co-ords to your reviewer before you do anything else.

 

Annie

[+beejay&esskay]

This must be a very special place to deserve so many caches.

 

How about the coordinates of it so those of us who live nearby can visit, cache or not?

[+TotemLake]

I see less a sense of entitlement by the OP than I do by the regular posters on this board. They seem to feel they are entitled to hassle posters about their questions, and complain that they are expecting the rules to be bent (which they are all the time, just not by the people who play the game... by the people who run the website) or would like them to be bent.

 

Maybe we need to just back off and let people ask questions, and answer them. Not hassle them because they asked them.

 

Maybe there would be less complaints if the guidelines were enforced consistently, instead of having a "we can do whatever we want whenever we want" attitude about running the game...

 

Maybe...

Perhaps if the opening post was better written there would be no mistaking what the OP meant. Then there wouldn't be a problem with asking about the issue at hand. In this case, it took the OP several posts to clarify what he really intended to say versus what he actually typed. It isn't a "sense of entitlement to harrass and harangue" the OP. It is a sense of doubt about the OP's motives when the misstatements posted are pointed out and the OP is questioned on it.

 

My advise to the OP; Next time, type your post in notepad, read it to yourself outloud and see if it makes sense with all the inflection you would put into it in a face to face conversation. I read your first post the same way and still come to the same conclusion that I started with and I'm not the only one that came to that conclusion.

 

Based on your experience here, it may be wise to have someone else read it as well before you post. In essence, you need to be sure the picture you paint with words cannot be easily misconstrued to become something else. It is too easy to happen with text and in most writer's rush and desire to be brief, they tend to put something else in that is completely different than intended.

 

It may or may not interest you Wapahani, to know this post to FireRef was edited several times before placing here. That's because I do go through my replies to make sure I'm putting my actual intent forward as much as possible. The first paragraph in this reply went from that first single sentence to one that expands on the opening concept to appropriately answer his opening allegation.

[+wapahani]

Totem,

Perhaps the original post could have been written better, but so could your original post. It works both ways.

My original post was just questioning the review process. If you reread the first posts in the thread, you will see that the first few responding to it understood the question and posted answers to it.

 

I've never had real issues up until this point. It doesn't help matters when we are having issues around here with fewer places to put caches.

One look at the map in the area in question makes you wonder if the 528' rule is just used against some people and not others.

 

My gripe was with not knowing the locations of the mystery caches. I'm not into the mystery cache scene (I have done a few, 1 on this account, as the wife doesn't like them!).

My original query was why isn't there a way to see a cache is a NO GO without having to depend on the reviewer.

 

Also, I moderate 3 forums, 2 of which I admin. I see both sides of the fire so to speak. I see those that post those that flame, those that don't get points across. I'm willing to admit my post should have been edited.

But I do have a right to be frustrated as any one else would.

Mistake? Yeah, I should have handle it better then I did.

 

For whatever reason I couldn't recall the appeal email, its on the old computer and not this one. I've got it now and hope I never need it!