Dissatisfaction

[greywolf1242]

Does it have something to do with cache saturation? If so, an explanation from the powers that be, at the very least, would have been nice.

Though I am just a lowly reviewer and not one of TPTB, I did comment about the over-saturation. That would be post number 8. Post numbers are at the upper right of each post.

 

And to greywolf1242, the point WebChimp is making is that *you* own 170 out of 200 caches in a 14 mile radius from a given point. I've seen the caches on hold. Most are roughly 0.1 miles from other caches on hold or from other caches you own. Maybe you should consider driving 20 miles away next time. Even Vinny does that when he throws caches out the window and aims at road signs.

 

Perhaps you need to learn how to plot distances on the map if you are coming up with most of the caches on hold being .1 mi from other caches. A number of them are at least .2 mi from other caches and some further than that. And one of the caches MT placed on HOLD wasn't even in the area in question. And your recommendation of 'driving 20 miles away next time', are you buying the gas? Of course, it's a moot point now since I will no longer be placing caches just so the Powers That Be can place them on hold indefinitely without explanation or recommentdations to receive approval. Unless you are familiar with the area in which I have been placing caches, you have no clue as to the difficulty of reaching those caches; let alone the minimal activity they receive in a year's time. As far as over-saturation, is that to mean by one person placing cahes, or does that take into consideration all caches placed? Does not 1827 caches within a 14 mi distance constitute over-saturation if 200 caches in a 14 mi area does? (Referring to the number of caches placed within 14 mi of Groudspeak's home address.) It's either a power trip by MT or a piss poor job of carrying out his/her duties as a reviewer; not to mention extremely poor business practices by Groundspeak in not responding to repeated Ticket submissions seeking a resolution .

[+Renegade Knight]

...Unless you are familiar with the area in which I have been placing caches, you have no clue as to the difficulty of reaching those caches; let alone the minimal activity they receive in a year's time...

 

For those that don't know. Gooding is on the edge of "Nothing". Yet if you know where to look (and the locals do) there are a heck of a lot of spectacular small natural wonders and areas of interest well worth the trip and a blown spare tire or two.

[greywolf1242]

I'd rate this geocide as a paltry 3. Had he invoked Godwin's law then I would have upped the rating to a 4.5

 

Duh, I finally figured out what all those 'ratings' are about; kind of like suicide, only dropping out of geocaching. Well, since my only participation in geocaching since I went on SS has been hiding caches and once in awhile attending a M&G and doing a little caching before and after, the only thing I'm missing out on, really, is hiding caches. And since MT has put a stop to me doing that, then it isn't geocide; possibly homigeocide?, if that can be a word? Probably is a word as much as geocide is. And being a dummy when it comes to forums, as well as other things, i'm sure, what the heck is Godwin's Law? Guess I'm about as ignorant about 'forum talk' as I am about placing caches.

[greywolf1242]

...Unless you are familiar with the area in which I have been placing caches, you have no clue as to the difficulty of reaching those caches; let alone the minimal activity they receive in a year's time...

 

For those that don't know. Gooding is on the edge of "Nothing". Yet if you know where to look (and the locals do) there are a heck of a lot of spectacular small natural wonders and areas of interest well worth the trip and a blown spare tire or two.

 

Renegade, I see you're familiar with our deser/hill/canyon country around here. Isn't it great! You almost have to LOVE this area to appreciate all it has to offer. I've only lost one tire and two oil pans on my van to geocaching, but it was worth it. And those were on other people's caches, not mine.

[Team Misguided]

Does not 1827 caches within a 14 mi distance constitute over-saturation if 200 caches in a 14 mi area does?

 

170 is 85% of 200 so you own 85% of the caches in that 14 mile area. If one person owned 85% of the caches in that 14 mile radius around Groundspeak then yes I'd call that over-saturation.

[+mtn-man]

Perhaps you need to learn how to plot distances on the map if you are coming up with most of the caches on hold being .1 mi from other caches. A number of them are at least .2 mi from other caches and some further than that.

Let's look at that. Here are five that I clicked at random in the unlisted list:

 

Cache 1, nearest 10 caches all within 1.06 miles, all yours, one of them archived some time ago.

Cache 2, nearest 10 caches all within 0.42 miles, six yours, one that could not be listed since it was too close to one of the other four.

Cache 3, nearest 10 caches all within 0.91 miles, nine yours, six on hold due to the saturation issue.

Cache 4, nearest 10 caches all within 0.42 miles, all yours, two on hold due to the saturation issue.

Cache 5, nearest 10 caches all within 1.09 miles, all yours, three on hold due to the saturation issue.

I took cache 5 out to nearest 20 caches, 1.39 miles, 15 of them yours.

 

If you click this link, you can see the GC.com Google map of one area that has been saturated by caches. Oddly enough, in your description, you mention that this is a Wilderness Study area. "As such, it is requested if you find evidence that there is beginning to be too much traffic to any of the caches located there, i.e., human trails being formed, you contact the owner of the cache so it can either be moved to a new location or archived." Wouldn't over-saturation of the area with extensive and excessively close caches cause such damage? I know desert terrain, and the answer is yes. Feel free to look at my profile and the map of the area I have found caches in. When questioning someone about what they know about the country, you should probably examine their credentials. I do go more than 20 miles from my house to find caches. Though I have not found caches in your 14 mile radius (yet), the terrain is very similar to areas I have been to for vacation and for caching.

 

And your recommendation of 'driving 20 miles away next time', are you buying the gas?

So, you are saying that driving 6 more miles is going to break your gas bank? Sounds to me as though you have reached your limit as to the number of caches you can maintain if driving six more miles is your breaking point.

 

As far as over-saturation, is that to mean by one person placing cahes,

Yes, precisely. The caches around Seattle are placed by hundreds of cachers, not just one as in your case. Team Misguided nails it perfectly.

 

Sorry, and I hope you reconsider archiving your active caches, but the facts are not in your court. Some things you have said do not bolster your case either.

[+BadAndy]

Does not 1827 caches within a 14 mi distance constitute over-saturation if 200 caches in a 14 mi area does?

 

170 is 85% of 200 so you own 85% of the caches in that 14 mile area. If one person owned 85% of the caches in that 14 mile radius around Groundspeak then yes I'd call that over-saturation.

 

Again, over-saturation should only be an issue in urban environs. This is entirely different.

 

I'm the first to shun microspew but greywolfs caches are not a dash along a greenbelt or a long row of lightpoles. He's also one of the only active cachers in his town.

 

Besides...it isn't like we have nearly the cache density here as in a concrete jungle. We appreciate all of greywolfs hides and it kinda tweaks my &%$ to see him shutdown because of an arbitrary call from an out of state reviewer. He followed the rules, was slapped down and kept in the dark.

 

I challenge all of you to do a search of active caches 14 miles surrounding your home coords.

 

Got Saturation?

 

Yeah...I'd be a bit pissed myself.

[+softball29]

I guess I just don't get the saturation thing.

 

So it's OK for 200 caches to be in a 14-mile radius, just 180 of them can't be placed by one person?

 

What's the difference? If people like his caches and that's how he enjoys playing the game, who cares?

 

Like some of the other numbers posted in here showing 1,500+ or whatever in a 14-mile radius. It's fine because there are hundreds of people doing them instead of one or two?

 

Seems silly to me. Saturation is saturation. It either is or it isn't. Shouldn't matter how many people are actually placing them. Especially if they are be taken care of.

[+DaFunkyFrogs]

Within 14 miles of my home coords? Only 90--but probably 60 of those are mine. Guess we aren't over-saturated yet, but I'm workin on it

 

I can only give the original post a 1.5---that was the quickest, easiest park-n-grab I've ever seen. It only gets a 1 if it jumps in my truck when I pull up.

[greywolf1242]

Perhaps you need to learn how to plot distances on the map if you are coming up with most of the caches on hold being .1 mi from other caches. A number of them are at least .2 mi from other caches and some further than that.

Let's look at that. Here are five that I clicked at random in the unlisted list:

 

Cache 1, nearest 10 caches all within 1.06 miles, all yours, one of them archived some time ago.

Cache 2, nearest 10 caches all within 0.42 miles, six yours, one that could not be listed since it was too close to one of the other four.

Cache 3, nearest 10 caches all within 0.91 miles, nine yours, six on hold due to the saturation issue.

Cache 4, nearest 10 caches all within 0.42 miles, all yours, two on hold due to the saturation issue.

Cache 5, nearest 10 caches all within 1.09 miles, all yours, three on hold due to the saturation issue.

I took cache 5 out to nearest 20 caches, 1.39 miles, 15 of them yours.

 

In all of your above statistics, you only mention how many caches are in a given radius; you failed to mention that none of the caches are closer than .13 miles from any others. Most people think in linear terms and stating that there are 10 caches within 1.06 miles makes it sound like a lot of caches when, in fact, it is not. If there is one cache that is closer than .10 miles of another cache, I have not been made aware of it prior to this; which is what I would think MTFellwalker should have done to begin with.

 

If you click this link, you can see the GC.com Google map of one area that has been saturated by caches. Oddly enough, in your description, you mention that this is a Wilderness Study area. "As such, it is requested if you find evidence that there is beginning to be too much traffic to any of the caches located there, i.e., human trails being formed, you contact the owner of the cache so it can either be moved to a new location or archived." Wouldn't over-saturation of the area with extensive and excessively close caches cause such damage? I know desert terrain, and the answer is yes. Feel free to look at my profile and the map of the area I have found caches in. When questioning someone about what they know about the country, you should probably examine their credentials. I do go more than 20 miles from my house to find caches. Though I have not found caches in your 14 mile radius (yet), the terrain is very similar to areas I have been to for vacation and for caching.

 

If I remember correctly, you live somewhere in the southeast, but have done some caching in desert country. I know the desert terrain around here, but I can't profess to be an authority on all desert terrain in other parts of the country. And I don't recall saying anything about how far you go from home to do your caching. Unfortuanately, some of us are not privileged to be able to travel as extensively as you have. But, I fail to see where that makes you any more of an authority on the type of terrain around here than it would make me an authority on the terrain around where you live just because I visited there for a short time.

You may know desert terrain in some of the places you have been, but you obviously have not been to southern Idhao. You really should come and check out the caches in our desert. This is canyon lands where these caches are placed, for the most part. There is more activity from hikers and sightseers than there ever will be from cachers; and, mostly in the main canyon. Very few people ever leave the main canyon because of the difficulty of the terrain. Check some of my existing caches in this area and see just how many visits they've gotten since being placed. I'm impressed with your financial ability to have cached in all the places you've been. And perhaps you have been in similar country in your travels, but until you've cached in this area, you should reserve your judgement of what type of terrain it is until you've actually done so. I do hope some day you will be able to visit this area; I'll be more than happy to act as a guide.

 

You referenced a quote from a note I put in all my descriptions of caches placed in wilderness study areas. Here is the entire note:

 

NOTE: The Gooding Little City of Rocks, as well as the Gooding City of Rocks, is a Wilderness Study Area. As such, it is requested if you find evidence that there is beginning to be too much traffic to any of the caches located there, i.e., human trails being formed, you contact the owner of the cache so it can either be moved to a new location or archived. Natural game trails and cattle trails are not to be considered as human impact trails.

Also, the land you cross from the gate you pass through to where you park near the dam is PRIVATE property. Treat it as such! All the bottom land south of the Little City of Rocks to the fenceline is PRIVATE. No off-roading with motorcycles, ATVs or other motorized vehicles. Practice CITO while hiking in this area so it can be enjoyed by all who come to this unique place.

 

This note was a result of my working with the BLM official who oversees these areas. He also approved the caches that were placed on HOLD by MTFellwalker, as not saturaing the area as far as he was concerned.

 

And your recommendation of 'driving 20 miles away next time', are you buying the gas?

So, you are saying that driving 6 more miles is going to break your gas bank? Sounds to me as though you have reached your limit as to the number of caches you can maintain if driving six more miles is your breaking point.

 

I apologize for the misunderstanding of what you were getting at in 'driving 20 miles away next time'. I understood it to mean 20 miles more than where I placed the caches in question. My mistake. And I do maintain my caches...every one of them.

 

As far as over-saturation, is that to mean by one person placing cahes,

Yes, precisely. The caches around Seattle are placed by hundreds of cachers, not just one as in your case. Team Misguided nails it perfectly.

 

My mistake again. I must have missed that 'rule' when I first started placing caches, or the notice that must have been sent out informing all cachers that only a certain number of caches could be placed by any one individual in any given area. Could you point that rule out to me, I can't seem to find it anywhere. To my way of thinking, over-saturation is over-saturation, regardless of the name attached to the cache. And I believe if you'll pull up all the caches placed within 20 miles of 83330 you'll find very few people hiding caches. Does that mean that this area should be practically devoid of caches just because I'm just about the only person placing them? How many other caches have been placed within that 14 miles referenced to earlier by other cachers?

 

Sorry, and I hope you reconsider archiving your active caches, but the facts are not in your court. Some things you have said do not bolster your case either.

 

Rather than reconsidering archiving my active caches, you've only reinforced my reasons why I should. I'm not sure what things I've said that 'do not bolster your case either', but misconstruing facts certainly hasn't bolstered your case to me. I'm normally a pretty agreeable person and offered to do whatever was necessary to get even some of those caches approved by MTFellwalker, but that fell on deaf ears, as does most things when addressed to those who like to exert their 'power'. I can just imainge that one of my responses, sooner or later, will get me putnted off the fourm; which will just reinforce what I've already said.

[+Snoogans]

As far as over-saturation, is that to mean by one person placing cahes,

Yes, precisely. The caches around Seattle are placed by hundreds of cachers, not just one as in your case. Team Misguided nails it perfectly.

 

Sorry, and I hope you reconsider archiving your active caches, but the facts are not in your court. Some things you have said do not bolster your case either.

 

Sidebar: How does a prolific hider like King Boreas with over 1,600 hides last time I checked figure into this new double secret prolific hider saturatuon guideline I've never heard of or read about until just now?

 

Not meaning to drag the great KB into this, but just wondering about precident...?

[+Roland_oso]

snip...........<

>.......snip Not meaning to drag the great KB into this, but just wondering about precident...?

 

My dear friend, please remember that at Groundspeak there is no such thing as precident.

[+SixDogTeam]

Bless you, Greywolf. These things, too, will pass.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

That's 170 within only 14 miles.

 

I'm not sure what that tells you, but somebody might think that's pretty saturated.

 

Gadzooks and egads! Thems a lot of caches

 

Hardly. Check out the thread I started call What is your cache density. It asked people to post the number of caches within 5, 10, 25, 50 miles of their zipcode to get a sense of how cache rich different areas are.

 

A large number of the respondents indicated they had 2-3 times that many within a 10 mile radius and several had cache density numbers of over 1000 caches within a 10 mile radius (Burbank, Ca had over 1600).

 

The issue, as I see it, is not that the unpublished caches may have been placed in a saturated area or any other specific breach of the guidelines. The issue, as I read it, was that the OP felt that the reviewer and Groundspeak were not being responsive about why, specifically the caches were not being published.

 

I also would like to hear the full story, especially from the reviewer and the TPTB.

[+paulandstacey]

You know, I don't mind the restrictions, whatever they may be. In our region, we've been asked to be careful not to create power trails. I didn't agree necessarily given the location and length of these trails, but once we were told "try to have caches .15 to .2 miles apart" I was happy - knowledge is power, right?

 

Now I see people having caches turned down because they've hidden too many in a particular area? Again, if them's the rules, them's the rules - but it would be nice to know it prior to going out, hiding caches under what we understand to be the guidelines and being told "Oh by the way, this cache doesn't meet Unpublished Guideline X, and as such, cannot be approved."

 

This is my main problem with "guidelines" - I'm not psychic and can't guess when these things are going to change. Maybe I'm just to simple, but I like to know the rules before I play a game. Cuts down on disagreements and angst by at least 3.14159265 percent (because I like Pi too).

 

I'm certainly not going to archive my caches, but it does make one think long and hard before putting in the time and effort of hiding any more.

 

(Falls of soapbox due to exhaustion)

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Personally, as a rather impartial observer, I find the somewhat-shifting array of information provided by Greywolf to be rather confusing, while I find the information offered by Mtn-man to be rather clear and straighforward. However, my real purpose in sending this post is simply to weigh in on my own experiences with MTFellwalker. MTFellwalker was the reviewer for an extreme cache which I placed a few years ago along the ID/WY border. Since this was a 5/5 cache with a number of related safety factors and even questions of legality (all of which I had researched and for which I provided the answers) and due to some other factors as well (such as the fact that I was placing the cache over a thousand miles from my home and would be relying on my local friend/wilderness guide/co-placer Greta for maintenance) it could reasonably be expected that a reviewer could find excuses to give me an incredibly hard time about this cache placement. None of those possible problems emerged with MTFellwalker, and rather, he asked a few pertinent and reasonable questions about legalities and other issues, all of which I answered truthfully and promptly, and then in short order, he published the cache. I have also had occasion since that time to correspond with him once in a while about the cache, and I always found his responses to be very reasonable and sane.

 

Now, Mtn-man -- he is another story; he is a real piece of work. Last year, I attempted to list on geocaching.com a 5/5 cache which was a gold-colored nano placed near the peak of the gold roof on the Capitol Dome in Washington, DC, and he found ways to try to make me jump through hoops for six months before he finally refused to publish the cache for some totally silly and unreasonable "reasons" related to "legal issues" and some kind of nonsensical blather about "...the spectre of cache hunters being shot to death by Secret Service sharpshooters and tumbling off the roof...". What a wussy!

Edited June 26, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Mudfrog]

Does not 1827 caches within a 14 mi distance constitute over-saturation if 200 caches in a 14 mi area does?

 

170 is 85% of 200 so you own 85% of the caches in that 14 mile area. If one person owned 85% of the caches in that 14 mile radius around Groundspeak then yes I'd call that over-saturation.

 

Again, over-saturation should only be an issue in urban environs. This is entirely different.

 

I'm the first to shun microspew but greywolfs caches are not a dash along a greenbelt or a long row of lightpoles. He's also one of the only active cachers in his town.

 

Besides...it isn't like we have nearly the cache density here as in a concrete jungle. We appreciate all of greywolfs hides and it kinda tweaks my &%$ to see him shutdown because of an arbitrary call from an out of state reviewer. He followed the rules, was slapped down and kept in the dark.

 

I challenge all of you to do a search of active caches 14 miles surrounding your home coords.

 

Got Saturation?

 

Yeah...I'd be a bit pissed myself.

I don't understand why oversaturation is an issue here. If the OP placed them within GC.com guidelines, has permission from the local property owners, and he isn't holding a gun to other cacher's heads telling them they can't place any caches of their own, then i don't see what the problem is here...

[+derangedlunatech]

what the heck is Godwin's Law?

 

Godwin's Law

[+sbell111]

... I much prefer having the reviewers as a filter. The filter is good, the filter is your friend.

Yeah, and after seeing all of the lame trache that geocachers put out I see that reviewer filter thing is the cat's meow, too.

Right up to the point where your caches are determined to be lame trash, I suspect.

[+Markwell]

I still don't understand the angst over power trails either.... Is there a guideline forbidding them now. It has been awhile since I read them.....

 

That's odd. You placed a cache on 20 May 08. That means you checked the box that you had read the guidelines...

[+Renegade Knight]

Does not 1827 caches within a 14 mi distance constitute over-saturation if 200 caches in a 14 mi area does?

 

170 is 85% of 200 so you own 85% of the caches in that 14 mile area. If one person owned 85% of the caches in that 14 mile radius around Groundspeak then yes I'd call that over-saturation.

 

Then you have just created a second problem for you all to enjoy dealing with. The first problem is that nobody has a useful handle on over saturation to begin with so they wouldn't know that they are wasting their time placing a cache because "that's the one". Now you have complicated it by also defining over saturation as when a single person places one too many caches in an area even though another cacher could have done so with no problems.

[+sbell111]

... Over saturation may be a problem in the urban environment when muggle contact and related issues can cause harm. It shouldn't be an issue in the wild desert where 100 yards can be quite a bushwhack. ...

In my opinion, you have it backwards. In an urban environment, there is less risk that multiple geocachers going from cache to cache will cause a casual trail, since sidewalks are hard to wear down. Also, since urban areas are owned and managed by many different people, there is less risk of a landmanager being shocked when he suddenly finds out that there are thirty caches on 'his' land.

I still don't understand the angst over power trails either.... Is there a guideline forbidding them now. It has been awhile since I read them.....

That's odd. You placed a cache on 20 May 08. That means you checked the box that you had read the guidelines...

The bit of the guidelines that mentions 'power trails' refers to a series of caches placed by the same hider. If Snoogans merely placed one cache, he wouldn't be affected by the guideline and, therefore, may not remember it.

[+Renegade Knight]

....I don't understand why oversaturation is an issue here. If the OP placed them within GC.com guidelines, has permission from the local property owners, and he isn't holding a gun to other cacher's heads telling them they can't place any caches of their own, then i don't see what the problem is here...

There isn't a real problem. The cache owner and responsible party did their homework. There is however an artificial problem. By artificial I mean it's becoming clear that had another cache also done the the same job working with the BLM and placing the same cache they would be getting kudos from most of the reviewers who are now dogpiling on this cacher over 'the problem'.

[+Userzero]

I'm new here, but I have been lurking (and debating) on many forums for more than 15 years.

 

For it's entertainment value, I give this thread (as a whole) a score of 6.5 on a scale of 10.

 

[+mtn-man]

Sidebar: How does a prolific hider like King Boreas with over 1,600 hides last time I checked figure into this new double secret prolific hider saturatuon guideline I've never heard of or read about until just now?

 

Not meaning to drag the great KB into this, but just wondering about precident...?

Perfect example actually.

 

KB saturated areas up in Minneapolis many years ago. It caused a backlash with several park managers up there. Park authorities began to limit the number of caches that could be placed in a park -- because of over-saturation. Many are still in place. We don't just pull this stuff out of the air. Most guidelines come about because of past problems. Ironically, you nailed one instance of several that lead to the creation of the saturation guideline.

[+Renegade Knight]

... Wouldn't over-saturation of the area with extensive and excessively close caches cause such damage? I know desert terrain, and the answer is yes. ...

 

I'm sure the BLM who this cacher has been working with would voice a concern. In working with them on past caches, and professionaly I find them very easy to work with. I've seen them do a good job working with cache owners on specific caches that they had concerns with.

 

The area is high mountain desert. I forget the term (but if you really want to know I can look it UP) dominated by sagebrush. You can find this terrain in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Nevada and a few other locations. It's a bit more hardy than what most folks think of when they think "desert".

[+Renegade Knight]

Sidebar: How does a prolific hider like King Boreas with over 1,600 hides last time I checked figure into this new double secret prolific hider saturatuon guideline I've never heard of or read about until just now?

 

Not meaning to drag the great KB into this, but just wondering about precident...?

Perfect example actually.

 

KB saturated areas up in Minneapolis many years ago. It caused a backlash with several park managers up there. Park authorities began to limit the number of caches that could be placed in a park...

So if KB worked with the managrs like GW did here and they were good saturation would not have come up?

[+mtn-man]

I specifically said that he was not the only instance. There were others. Snoogans brought him up. I used that as an example since he brought it up. Is your preference to just saturate the area into regulation?

[+J-Way]

This happened locally a while back. A prominent husband/wife team (with over 600 hides between them) got miffed about derogatory comments about cache saturation and other issues. Apparently some of the other locals didn't like the fact that this team was "using up all the good places". They committed geocide on the local forums (not here that I'm aware of) and immediately started pulling caches. Most of their caches were disabled and notes were posted along the lines of, "I'm pulling this cache. If you can find it before I pick up the container, then log it. Thanks for the ride."

 

The vast majority of caches were ultimately reactivated and left in place. The couple is still hiding new ones.

 

[Edit: minor corrections]

Edited June 26, 2008 by J-Way

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

To keep this thread within Groundspeak guidelines, and since all previous posters (including myself) have failed to do so, I am hereby providing appropriate textual material so that this thread will qualify forthwith as having met Godwin's Law, as follows:

 

Anyone who does not agree with me is a Nazi and would have voted for Hitler!

[+Ambrosia]

To keep this thread within Groundspeak guidelines, and since all previous posters (including myself) have failed to do so, I am hereby providing appropriate textual material so that this thread will qualify forthwith as having met Godwin's Law, as follows:

 

Anyone who does not agree with me is a Nazi and would have voted for Hitler!

I thought we were supposed to be talking about goats.

[+sbell111]

Anyone who does not agree with me is a Nazi and would have voted for Hitler!

I guess that it would depend on who he was running against.

[+Castle Mischief]

... I much prefer having the reviewers as a filter. The filter is good, the filter is your friend.

Yeah, and after seeing all of the lame trache that geocachers put out I see that reviewer filter thing is the cat's meow, too.

 

I smell sarcasm. At least the reviewers are keeping "lame trache" caches from being scattered around National Parks and other areas were the land owners have forbidden such hides. And at least the reviewers will step in and archive a cache that has been abandoned. The reviewers aren't perfect, but I greatly prefer the filter than the unmoderated/self-moderated situation in the letterboxing community.

 

I enjoy letterboxing, my wife more so. I would prefer to actually find the letterboxes we look for. The letterboxes we haven't found have been the result of actions that the reviewers would/could have prevented.

Edited June 26, 2008 by Castle Mischief

[greywolf1242]

Personally, as a rather impartial observer, I find the somewhat-shifting array of information provided by Greywolf to be rather confusing, while I find the information offered by Mtn-man to be rather clear and straighforward.

 

Perhaps you could enlighten me on what 'somewhat-shifting array of information' provided by me you are referring to. And the only thing 'rather clear and straightforward' in what Mtn-man had to offer was just an opinion, not based on facts that weren't distorted to present his case. And it seems all the emphasis has been placed on saturation/over-saturation, when in fact, the whole problem revloves around the failure of MTFellwalker and Groundspeak to reply to numerous request for information on how to resolve the issue of my caches being placed on HOLD. When a cacher has placed multiple caches over a one or two week period that are placed on hold and that cacher offers to do whatever is necessary to resolve the problem, then it behoves the reviewer to put forth recommendations to bring about a solution. That hasn't/isn't and probably would never be done by MTFellwalker since I have had no communication from him/her since May 20. To me, that is a gross deriliction of his/her duties as a reviewer to offer prompt and reasonable recommendations to resolve the perceived problem. That, more than saturation/over-saturation or any other item of discontent of mine or others is what this thread was about.

[greywolf1242]

... Over saturation may be a problem in the urban environment when muggle contact and related issues can cause harm. It shouldn't be an issue in the wild desert where 100 yards can be quite a bushwhack. ...sbell wrote:

In my opinion, you have it backwards. In an urban environment, there is less risk that multiple geocachers going from cache to cache will cause a casual trail, since sidewalks are hard to wear down. Also, since urban areas are owned and managed by many different people, there is less risk of a landmanager being shocked when he suddenly finds out that there are thirty caches on 'his' land.

 

I guess you didn't read the part about the BLM person in charge of the area in question being well aware of how many and the location of the caches on HOLD. The local BLM office keeps track of all caches placed on BLM land in the area that may have an adverse affect on the environment of those areas; caves that are home to bats, wilderness study areas, and raparian areas to name a few. And if cachers took the time to get acquainted with and run their ideas on cache placement by these land managers there would be no 'surprises'. I have taken the time to work with the BLM, since that is where the majority of my 252+ caches are placed. And I do have the approval of this gentleman for the caches that were placed on HOLD by MTFellwalker.

Edited June 26, 2008 by greywolf1242

[+sbell111]

... Over saturation may be a problem in the urban environment when muggle contact and related issues can cause harm. It shouldn't be an issue in the wild desert where 100 yards can be quite a bushwhack. ...sbell wrote:

In my opinion, you have it backwards. In an urban environment, there is less risk that multiple geocachers going from cache to cache will cause a casual trail, since sidewalks are hard to wear down. Also, since urban areas are owned and managed by many different people, there is less risk of a landmanager being shocked when he suddenly finds out that there are thirty caches on 'his' land.

I guess you didn't read the part about the BLM person in charge of the area in question being well aware of how many and the location of the caches on HOLD. The local BLM office keeps track of all caches placed on BLM land in the area that may have an adverse affect on the environment of those areas; caves that are home to bats, wilderness study areas, and raparian areas to name a few. And if cachers took the time to get acquainted with and run their ideas on cache placement by these land managers there would be no 'surprises'. I have taken the time to work with the BLM, since that is where the majority of my 252+ caches are placed. And I do have the approval of this gentleman for the caches that were placed on HOLD by MTFellwalker.

I guess that you didn't read that my post had two parts. The word 'also' was a clue that a point was made previously in the post.

 

Also (there's that word, again), my post was responding to BadAndy's position that the saturation guidelines should not affect caches placed in non-urban environments, not specifically to your particular drama.

Edited June 26, 2008 by sbell111

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

To keep this thread within Groundspeak guidelines, and since all previous posters (including myself) have failed to do so, I am hereby providing appropriate textual material so that this thread will qualify forthwith as having met Godwin's Law, as follows:

 

Anyone who does not agree with me is a Nazi and would have voted for Hitler!

I thought we were supposed to be talking about goats.

Oops! Sorry! My apologies! Here then, is the requisite mention of goats:

 

I bet a goat would have a really fun time finding the wilderness caches placed on BLM lands by greywolf1242!

 

Oh, and time for the requisite mention of my unrequited crush on sweet Ambrosia!

[+marcjboudreau]

I'd say you've done everything you could to have these caches approved or at least receive an official response from TPTB.

I'd advise listing them elsewhere, after all gc.com may be the most popular listing service but it isn't the only listing service out there. The main complaint I hear from people regarding these other sites is that there aren't enough caches listed there to bother. If you listed all your caches there, it would certainly kill that argument, at least for your area.

GC.com only has the power to decide to list or not to list your caches, they can't stop you from placing them and listing them elsewhere.

[+tozainamboku]

I still don't understand the angst over power trails either.... Is there a guideline forbidding them now. It has been awhile since I read them.....

 

That's odd. You placed a cache on 20 May 08. That means you checked the box that you had read the guidelines...

The relevant portion of the guidelines is below with italics added

 

Cache Saturation

 

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a “Power Trail”), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache.

 

The cache saturation guideline applies to all physical stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, as well as any other stages entered as “stages of a multicache.” The guideline does NOT apply to event caches, earthcaches, grandfathered virtual and webcam caches, stages of multicaches or puzzle caches entered as “question to answer” or “reference point,” or to any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache. Within a single multicache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between waypoints.

The problem is that once again the reviewers have discussed what this section means (probably in relation to specific cache submissions) with Groundspeak and have an understanding that is unknown to the average geocacher - even those that frequent the forums.

Just what is a power trail. Does 20 caches make a trail? 10? 5? If the caches are 600 feet apart instead of 528 feet is it still a power trail? What if they caches are .2 miles apart? Is it a power trail if the cacher added caches over a period of several years or only if he hid them all at one time? What if several cachers in the area have each hidden a few caches separately, but together they "saturate" an area? What if the same cachers got together to build a power trail and simply divide up who submitted the caches? And what is the real issue with power trails? We hear of land managers who look at a geocaching map and see a cluster of caches in their area and decide to ban or regulate caches because they are having a bigger impact by being clustered like that. How often does this really happen? And what if the person hiding all the caches can show he has permission from the land manager to hide the caches? Is there and exemption for power trails if you have permission? In some areas cachers like the fact that you can find a lot of caches clustered together. Given gas prices who can blame someone for hiding a bunch of caches on trail system near their home instead of just one or two caches and then having to travel greater and greater distances if they want to hide additional caches. I'd like to see something from someone at Groundspeak clarifying the "power-trail" rules to that they don't seem so arbitrary.

 

But that isn't the issue here. The issue is that somewhere the communication between the OP and the reviewer failed. The OP does not seem to have been given the reason why his caches were on hold for so long. Even if he was and just forgot (or maybe he accidentally deleted an email from the reviewer), when he appealed to Groundspeak he did not get an answer. I think we still haven't seen the whole story here. Why does the OP feel that he was not treated properly? I would hope that if a reviewer sees a problem with a cache (or group of caches) and wants to consult with other reviewers or Groundspeak before approving or archiving the caches, he will let the cache hider know this and will follow up in a reasonable time. If in fact the cache owner knew what the issues were he could either have worked with the reviewer to decide which of the caches could be approved or perhaps make a multi-cache from. I really don't know who was at fault in the communications failure here - perhaps there is blame on both sides.

[+J-Way]

To keep this thread within Groundspeak guidelines, and since all previous posters (including myself) have failed to do so, I am hereby providing appropriate textual material so that this thread will qualify forthwith as having met Godwin's Law, as follows:

Anyone who does not agree with me is a Nazi and would have voted for Hitler!

I thought we were supposed to be talking about goats.

Oops! Sorry! My apologies! Here then, is the requisite mention of goats:

I bet a goat would have a really fun time finding the wilderness caches placed on BLM lands by greywolf1242!

Oh, and time for the requisite mention of my unrequited crush on sweet Ambrosia!

Wait... goats? I thought the current off-topic animals of choice were peacocks? I'm confused...

And are your wife and all your stalkers aware of your crush on Ambrosia? If not, is it wise to mention the object of your affection in the public forums? I'm only thinking of her safety here, as I'm sure your guard peacocks are quite capable of protecting you.

[+mtn-man]

And the only thing 'rather clear and straightforward' in what Mtn-man had to offer was just an opinion, not based on facts that weren't distorted to present his case.

Not facts? Distorted???

Did you read my post? This is information right from *your* cache pages...

Here are five that I clicked at random in the unlisted list:

 

Cache 1, nearest 10 caches all within 1.06 miles, all yours, one of them archived some time ago.

Cache 2, nearest 10 caches all within 0.42 miles, six yours, one that could not be listed since it was too close to one of the other four.

Cache 3, nearest 10 caches all within 0.91 miles, nine yours, six on hold due to the saturation issue.

Cache 4, nearest 10 caches all within 0.42 miles, all yours, two on hold due to the saturation issue.

Cache 5, nearest 10 caches all within 1.09 miles, all yours, three on hold due to the saturation issue.

I took cache 5 out to nearest 20 caches, 1.39 miles, 15 of them yours.

 

If you click this link, you can see the GC.com Google map of one area that has been saturated by caches. Oddly enough, in your description, you mention that this is a Wilderness Study area. "As such, it is requested if you find evidence that there is beginning to be too much traffic to any of the caches located there, i.e., human trails being formed, you contact the owner of the cache so it can either be moved to a new location or archived." Wouldn't over-saturation of the area with extensive and excessively close caches cause such damage? I know desert terrain, and the answer is yes. Feel free to look at my profile and the map of the area I have found caches in. When questioning someone about what they know about the country, you should probably examine their credentials. I do go more than 20 miles from my house to find caches. Though I have not found caches in your 14 mile radius (yet), the terrain is very similar to areas I have been to for vacation and for caching.

How about bringing some facts to the table yourself?

[Dinoprophet]

To keep this thread within Groundspeak guidelines, and since all previous posters (including myself) have failed to do so, I am hereby providing appropriate textual material so that this thread will qualify forthwith as having met Godwin's Law, as follows:

 

Anyone who does not agree with me is a Nazi and would have voted for Hitler!

Sorry, Godwin's Law cannot be invoked intentionally.

[+Renegade Knight]

I specifically said that he was not the only instance. There were others. Snoogans brought him up. I used that as an example since he brought it up. Is your preference to just saturate the area into regulation?

 

My preference is to solve real problems.

If saturation is an issue the BLM he was talking to would bring it up.

Is it policy to ignore land managers? I know that this happens on occasion but why not have that be the exception to the rule?

 

Here is the desert type

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrub-steppe

[+Renegade Knight]

...The local BLM office keeps track of all caches placed on BLM land in the area that may have an adverse affect on the environment of those areas; caves that are home to bats, wilderness study areas, and raparian areas to name a few....

 

This has been my experience. It's worked well. I have not worked with the same BLM folks as greywolf, but the others I've worked with have even suggested where I should place caches to avoid NPS concerns in their jointly managed Craters of the Moon. Where a cache has been a concern they contact the cache owner and ask them to archive it. They use discression because most of the the areas they are protecting are open for public access.

[+derangedlunatech]

 

My preference is to solve real problems.

If saturation is an issue the BLM he was talking to would bring it up.

Is it policy to ignore land managers? I know that this happens on occasion but why not have that be the exception to the rule?

 

It seems to me (and I'm just making a SWAG here) that the saturation issue (as it applies to geocaching) is not a concern of the BLM manager. His or her concern is the impact on the land itself, not the impact on geocaching.

 

The reviewer, on the other hand, has to balance the 2 - what is in the best interests of the land manager and the best interests of geocaching.

 

Not saying that I agree or disagree with this - just my thought as I read this.

[+sbell111]

Oh, and time for the requisite mention of my unrequited crush on sweet Ambrosia!

I'd just as soon have some nice cut fruit. Ambrosia is somebodY's idea of making something that's pretty good for you to be sorta bad for you. Plus, I'm not a huge fan of marshmallows (except when they are toasted on a stick and popped into a smore, in a rice krispie treat, or floating in hot chocolate.) Edited June 26, 2008 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

The .01 rule is arbitrary, but I understand why it is necessary.

I don't.

 

Saturation? The proximity rule is linear, not density-based. I know of no area that bumps up against the density 0.1 mile rule or comes even close. (That's around 350 caches in a 1 mile radius, BTW.)

 

Confusion with other caches? Aren't cache supposed to be marked? If there were a problem with folks finding and then logging the wrong cache I'd probably want to tighten up on proper marking of the cache. It'd probably help in other aspects of the hobby, too.

 

Power trails? Different rule with different criteria.

 

Originally, the rule might have been the easiest answer to the above, but not the best.

 

I agree that the 0.1 mile rule is arbitrary, but I don't see why it is necessary.

[greywolf1242]

And the only thing 'rather clear and straightforward' in what Mtn-man had to offer was just an opinion, not based on facts that weren't distorted to present his case.

Not facts? Distorted???

Did you read my post? This is information right from *your* cache pages...

Here are five that I clicked at random in the unlisted list:

 

Cache 1, nearest 10 caches all within 1.06 miles, all yours, one of them archived some time ago.

Cache 2, nearest 10 caches all within 0.42 miles, six yours, one that could not be listed since it was too close to one of the other four.

Cache 3, nearest 10 caches all within 0.91 miles, nine yours, six on hold due to the saturation issue.

Cache 4, nearest 10 caches all within 0.42 miles, all yours, two on hold due to the saturation issue.

Cache 5, nearest 10 caches all within 1.09 miles, all yours, three on hold due to the saturation issue.

I took cache 5 out to nearest 20 caches, 1.39 miles, 15 of them yours.

 

If you click this link, you can see the GC.com Google map of one area that has been saturated by caches. Oddly enough, in your description, you mention that this is a Wilderness Study area. "As such, it is requested if you find evidence that there is beginning to be too much traffic to any of the caches located there, i.e., human trails being formed, you contact the owner of the cache so it can either be moved to a new location or archived." Wouldn't over-saturation of the area with extensive and excessively close caches cause such damage? I know desert terrain, and the answer is yes. Feel free to look at my profile and the map of the area I have found caches in. When questioning someone about what they know about the country, you should probably examine their credentials. I do go more than 20 miles from my house to find caches. Though I have not found caches in your 14 mile radius (yet), the terrain is very similar to areas I have been to for vacation and for caching.

How about bringing some facts to the table yourself?

 

I'll let the correspondence speak for itself. Unfortunately, I don't have copies of the tickets to Groundspeak because they don't provide you with same when you submit a ticket. But, here is the correspondence from beginning to end.

 

5-1-08

 

-- Copy of email sent to MT Fellwalker --

After making an inquiry about several submissions I've made, I discovered the right person to write to. I made the following submissions several days ago and have received no word on why they haven't been published:

 

ETD: Hikers Challenge N43 07.087 W114 41.753 4-26-08

ETD: Just Off the Road N43 06.823 W114 42.171 4-28-08

ETD: LCR-Hunters Camp N43 06.868 W114 41.567 4-26-08

ETD: Near the Top – LCR N43 08.130 W114 41.637 4-25-08

ETD: Rock Island – LCR N43 08.440 W114 41.764 4-25-08

ETD: Rockchuck Ambush N43 06.702 W114 40.911 4-26-08

ETD: Rocky Point View N43 07.045 W114 42.153 4-28-08

ETD: Shelter From the Wind N43 08.272 W114 41.634 4-25-08

ETD: View N43 07.006 W114 41.576 4-26-08

ETD: Which Way? N43 08.509 W114 41.573 4-25-08

ETD: Sit a Spell N43 06.901 W114 42.672 5-02-08

ETD: In the Eye N43 07.058 W114 42.519 5-02-08

ETD: Top of the Draw N43 07.514 W114 41.413 5-03-08

ETD: Overlooking the Bend N43 09.104 W114 39.439 5-08-08

 

(Caches in bold, the cooridnates and dates were not included in this e-mail.)

 

I have a very good relationship with the BLM in Shoshone, ID and have discussed with them the subject of saturation in any given area. They assured me they don't have a problem with the number of caches placed anywhere as long as it isn't detrimental to the environment; especially around caves known to house bats.

Pulling up each of the above mentioned caches on GoogleEarth would show a terrain that is not very conducive to heavy visitation by cachers or anyone else. Most of these caches would be lucky to get 10 visitors in a year and all fall within the guidelines of being at least .10 mile from any other cache; unless, of course, I missed putting a cache in my unit before placing these caches.

If there is a problem with any of these caches I would appreciate hearing about the problem so I know what the problem is and can do something to correct it. (Original was not in bold.)

I do realize this is a busy time of the year for reviewers as people are starting to get back into the great outdoors and feel the urge to place caches; so, this is not a criticisim of expediency in getting my caches approved.

 

Thanks for your attention,

 

greywolf1242

 

5-12-08

 

Dennis Frisby,

Your ticket has been received, one of the staff members will review it and reply accordingly. Listed below are details of this ticket, Please make sure the Ticket ID remains in the subject at all times.

 

Ticket ID: SRX-329586

Subject: NEW-968722

Department: Geocaching

Priority: High

Status: Open

 

You can check the status or reply to this ticket online at: http://support.Groundspeak.com/Support/ind...ticketid=211847

Please do let us know if we can assist you any further,

 

Groundspeak, Inc.

 

(The link to check the status never did work on any of the tickets submitted.)

 

5-15-08

 

Dennis Frisby,

Your ticket has been received, one of the staff members will review it and reply accordingly. Listed below are details of this ticket, Please make sure the Ticket ID remains in the subject at all times.

 

Ticket ID: DXT-903964

Subject: NEW-968722

Department: Geocaching

Priority: High

Status: Open

 

You can check the status or reply to this ticket online at: http://support.Groundspeak.com/Support/ind...ticketid=212819

Please do let us know if we can assist you any further,

 

Groundspeak, Inc.

 

5-18-08

 

On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Geocaching <noreply@geocaching.com> wrote:

> After making an inquiry about several submissions I've made, I discovered the right person to write to. I made the following submissions several days ago and have received no word on why they haven't been published:

 

I'm rather at a loss as to how to proceed here. You and I have had

e-mail discussions in the past regarding the saturation guidelines and

the problems that come from 'bombing' an area with numerous caches all

within a short time. I thought you understood the portion of the

guidelines that ask you to not go 'cache crazy' when you hide your

containers, even if you personally don't agree with that part of the

section on saturation.

 

But with the start of Spring you began placing numerous caches all

within a very short distance from one another. Ice and Wind listed the

first bunch, but then the next weekend came and there were even more.

At that point they started discussing the situation with me, and we

also asked for the advice of the rest of the reviewing team.

 

Meanwhile even more caches showed up. I kept hoping you'd slow down

and we could then discuss all of the new submissions and come to some

understanding, but you never did so. We ended up with two dozen new

caches, all within a 1 mile radius, placed within a few weeks of one

another. And that doesn't take into account the existing caches in the

area, yours and those of other folks.

 

I'm at a loss to see this as anything but you going 'cache crazy'.

With all of southern Idaho to hide containers in, how is it that this

particular tiny speck of the state has so many special locations that

each needs its very own geocache? How could I list all of these

submissions, then tell anyone else that the park they are trying to

squeeze another container into is full? Please explain to me how each

of these spots can stand alone when from the point of view of an

outside observer many of them seem to be nothing more than an excuse

to stick something under a rock?

 

I'd like to find a way to work with you on your submissions, but we'll

need to be able to communicate effectively in order to do so. I hope

we can.

 

MT Fellwalker

 

5-19-08

 

-- Copy of email sent to MT Fellwalker --

MT,

 

I can understand your concern about the number of caches hidden in the area of the Gooding Little City of Rocks. In answer to your question, ‘With all of southern Idaho to hide containers in, how is it that this particular tiny speck of the state has so many special locations that each needs its own geocache?’, I would imagine pictures of the area would do much more than words in conveying just how special this area is. I would be more than happy to forward pictures Ive taken in each of these areas if that would make your job easier in reaching a decision as to whether the caches in question are to be approved or not.

 

I have also discussed, at length, with David Freiberg, (208) 732-7271, Outdoor Recreation Planner with the Bureau of Land Management, who oversees the area in question, the placement and number of caches in this area as well as the Gooding City of Rocks; both of which are in Wilderness Management Areas. He assured me they dont have a problem with the number of caches placed as long as the activity is monitored to prevent the making of trails.

 

If you would like to review the number of visits to other caches in this area to see how little traffic they receive, it would be pretty clear that this is not a high-traffic area for cachers; especially with the high cost of gas now. The area receives more visitors from nature lovers and hikers than it probably ever will from geocachers.

 

I live on a very small fixed income, which limits the distance I can go to look for or place caches. Placing caches for others to find is my way of giving back to the sport that provided me with the number of caches I have been able to log, and allows others in the area to continue in the sport without having to travel long distances to do so.

 

Most of the caches now on hold, but not all, were placed in strategic locations to get people to explore more of the area. A couple of the caches, ETD: Overlooking the Bend (GC1C2R3) and Tribute to Quietbreezes (GC1C9HK) arent anywhere near the Gooding Little City of Rocks, so I’m still not sure why they have been put on hold.

 

‘How could I list all of these submissions, then tell anyone else that the park they are trying to squeeze another continer into is full?’ That is a difficult question for me to answer. Although I guess the Gooding Little City of Rocks could be considered a park, but not in the traditional sense, it does cover a pretty vast area when compared to most city parks. I have tried to maintain over .10 distance and thought that I had done so, but I may have missed entering a cache or two in my GPSr before going out and gotten one or two closer then they should have been.

 

‘Please explain to me how each of these spots can stand alone when from the point of view of an outside observer many of them seem to be nothing more than an excuse to stick something under a rock?’ As stated previously, pictures would do more justice than any words. However, each cache was placed becasuse of a particular view from that area, unusual rock formations, or some historical significance to that particular area. This area was used extensively by Native Americans years ago and has a couple of areas that contain petroglyphs. But, in the interest of preserving the petroglyphs, I wouldnt consider placing a cache anywhere near one of those locations.

 

As Im sure you noticed with each of my descriptions, there is a statement about the area being in a Wilderness Study Area and how it should be treated. NOTE: The Gooding Little City of Rocks, as well as the Gooding City of Rocks, is a Wilderness Study Area. As such, it is requested if you find evidence that there is beginning to be too much traffic to any of the caches located there, i.e., human trails being formed, you contact the owner of the cache so it can either be moved to a new location or archived. Natural game trails and cattle trails are not to be considered as human impact trails.

Also, the land you cross from the gate you pass through to where you park near the dam is PRIVATE property. Treat it as such! All the bottom land south of the Little City of Rocks to the fenceline is PRIVATE. No off-roading with motorcycles, ATVs or other motorized vehicles. Practice CITO while hiking in this area so it can be enjoyed by all who come to this unique place.

 

This statement was the result of my communications with David Frieberg.

 

By the way, the reason I usually place multiple caches when I go out is because of my limited income. I could just as easily place the caches and then submit them one at a time over a period of weeks, if that would be more agreeable. It would, unfortunately in some cases, destroy the theme that some of these multiple caches represent, such as the Hikers Challenge caches and discourage, rather than incourage cachers to come to this area and explore beyond the bottom of the main canyon.

 

Whatever your decision, Im obvioulsy at the mercy of the powers that be and will pull the caches you belive to be too close to others, or whatever needs to be done to get the rest of my caches released; especially Tribute to Quietbreezes (GC1C9HK), who is a dear friend and fellow geocacher.

 

I hope this is along your line of thought in being able to ‘communicate effectively in order to work with you on your submissions’.

 

Sincerely,

 

greywolf1242

 

5-20-08

 

> I hope this is along your line of thought in being able to "communicate effectively" in order "to work with you on your submissions."

> Sincerely,

> Dennis Frisby, a.k.a., greywolf1242

 

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I want you to understand that

I am part of a team that are doing what we feel is the best for the

sport while upholding the guidelines we have been asked to enforce.

 

I understand from your note that you feel all of these hides are

special, but that some like 'Tribute to Quietbreezes' are especially

so. What I'm going to do is go ahead and list that one while I discuss

the others with the reviewers who oversee this area of the country. It

clearly is hidden with an agenda, but under the circumstances I feel

you have done an adequate job of balancing that agenda with the goals

of geocaching being a light and fun activity.

 

As for the others, I'll let you know what the consensus is from the

reviewers so we can proceed.

 

Thank you.

 

MT Fellwalker

 

5-30-08

 

-- Copy of email sent to MT Fellwalker --

I apologize if this e-mail follows closely on the heels of another one I thought I sent but can find no record of.

 

It has been 10 days since I last heard anything about the caches that you have on hold. It has been a month and five days since I submitted the first four caches in question. You stated in your last e-mail, "What I'm going to do is go ahead and list that one (Tribute to Quietbreezes (GC1C9HK) while I discuss the others with the reviewers who oversee this area of the country." Might I inquire who these other reviewers are and where they are located that they would be more knowledgeable about the area in question than David Freiberg of the BLM? I'm also curious why any other caches placed outside the area of the Little City of Rocks would be put on hold when they are not in the proximity of those caches you have on hold?

 

I must admit that I feel I'm being singled out for one reason or another to have my caches placed on hold for more than a month without any further correspondence with suggestions of what could be done to have at least some of those caches approved. I've offered to remit pics of the area to help in your decision making process, but my offer was not accepted. I've given you the name and phone number of the BLM official in charge of that area and he has not responded to me that he was ever contacted.

 

I just submitted another cache today: In Memory of Corky (GC1CRNJ). Is it also going to be placed on 'hold' until a decision is reached on my other cache placements?

 

I also asked previously why ETD: Overlooking the Bend (GC1C2R3) was placed on hold, but have yet to receive an answer. I'm beginning to wonder if my e-mails are getting through.

 

A prompt reply would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thank you,

 

greywolf1242

 

 

6-3-08

 

Dennis Frisby,

Your ticket has been received, one of the staff members will review it and reply accordingly. Listed below are details of this ticket, Please make sure the Ticket ID remains in the subject at all times.

 

Ticket ID: JHK-426605

Subject: Caches submitted and placed on hold.

Department: Geocaching

Priority: Urgent

Status: Open

 

You can check the status or reply to this ticket online at: http://support.Groundspeak.com/Support/ind...ticketid=219208

Please do let us know if we can assist you any further,

 

Groundspeak, Inc.

 

6-10-08

 

Hello,

 

We have all of your tickets submitted to use for this issue. These tickets have been escalated to the Customer Service Manager. Unfortunately, it takes some time for her to get back to you. To expedite the response time, please provide me with the GC#'s for the cache pages in question.

 

Thank you.

 

Eric

Groundspeak, Inc.

 

Ticket Details

===================

Ticket ID: MJT-835197

Department: Geocaching

 

6-25-08

 

Dennis Frisby,

Your ticket has been received, one of the staff members will review it and reply accordingly. Listed below are details of this ticket, Please make sure the Ticket ID remains in the subject at all times.

 

Ticket ID: ENR-897046

Subject: Cancel paid membership

Department: Geocaching

Priority: Critical

Status: Open

 

You can check the status or reply to this ticket online at: http://support.Groundspeak.com/Support/ind...ticketid=226432

Please do let us know if we can assist you any further,

 

Groundspeak, Inc.

 

That is the full extent of all correspondence between MTFellwalker, Groundspeak and myself. Draw your own conclusions.

[+WebChimp]

 

That may indeed be the case, but it appears that instead of just stating that, this guy hasn't heard anything.

 

 

That was the same impression I had initially, but I went back and read the OP again. He did get communications, and as recently as May 20 got an email from a reviewer telling him he was sharing the new listing with other reviewers, and would get back to him when there was an outcome.

 

I have had a cache listing held before because the reviewer felt the need to get opinions from other reviewers, and since they all take their job seriously, that takes some time. This is situation when patience is truly a virtue, and it is good to remember that the reviewers want the listing situation resolved as much as the CO does.

 

So he has heard from the reviewers, he just may not have heard what he wanted to hear, or heard it within the time frame he desired.

 

Life can be that way some times.

[+WebChimp]

Perhaps what you meant was "geocide" - and that wasn't mentioned until post #30.

 

Yeah, but who's counting?