A worrisome trend - staking out cache locations without hiding a cache

July 29, 2008

I'm getting annoyed by this geocaching policy that allows people to basically stake out territory for an unlimited amount of time by putting up a cache page and then listing it as inactive. Someone could potentially take over an entire city, grabbing all the hot-spots and making inactive cache pages and then take their time about actually placing caches there while the territory is now only available to them. I think the policy MUST be changed so that you can only hold onto a geographic position when you've listed your cache as being visible to reviewers. Otherwise, it should fall back to the end of the queue after a certain amount of time so that this abuse of the feature doesn't happen. With one of my other caches, the same thing happened...I got the email saying it was too close to TWO new caches..BOTH OF WHICH have never gotten published months and months later. Any ideas?

38.2k · July 29, 2008

If you are working on a cache a reviewer will let you submit your page to hold the area for a limited time period.

Nobody will "take over an entire city, grabbing all the hot-spots and making inactive cache pages and then take their time about actually placing caches there while the territory is now only available to them." because it simply would not be allowed. So you can relax and stop worrying.

in your case if the caches that stopped yours still haven't been published "months and months later", get back to your reviewer to revisit the situation.

Edited July 29, 2008 by briansnat

6.5k · July 29, 2008

I'm sure we will hear the rest of the story in a day or three..... :drama:

Egads-rouge cachers taking over a whole city...will there be a film at 11?

Or is this destined to be a late night horror flick? :unsure:

Edited July 29, 2008 by wimseyguy

July 29, 2008

Yeah, I agree it's pretty unlikely that someone would 'take over' the city. But I don't think there is a 'limited time period' for inactive cache pages unless someone complains that the inactive cache page coords are blocking their own hide attempt. (I have some unfinished cache pages that have sat there for months.) I cache mainly in Victoria, B.C. and the city is getting very full of caches!

The check box says... "Yes, this cache is currently active (Reviewers will not see this listing unless box is checked)" Reviewers may not see this listing (i.e. it won't be in the queue), so then I guess the two caches that were blocking mine were actually in the queue, but never made it to publication? I guess my question is, when you uncheck that box, can your coords still stop someone else from publishing a cache within 528 ft, presumably for a unlimited time period (unless someone complains)?

If you are working on a cache a reviewer will let you submit your page to hold the area for a limited time period.

Nobody will "take over an entire city, grabbing all the hot-spots and making inactive cache pages and then take their time about actually placing caches there while the territory is now only available to them." because it simply would not be allowed. So you can relax and stop worrying.

in your case if the caches that stopped yours still haven't been published "months and months later", get back to your reviewer to revisit the situation.

2.4k · July 29, 2008

I guess my question is, when you uncheck that box, can your coords still stop someone else from publishing a cache within 528 ft, presumably for a unlimited time period (unless someone complains)?

Surprisingly yes, according to this thread: Unpublished Caches (especially posts #9 and 10 by Quiggle and post #31 by Michael, and then the followups at #33 and #34 by me and Keystone).

Edited July 29, 2008 by the hermit crabs

July 29, 2008

Does this box, being un-checked, "Yes, this cache is currently active (Reviewers will not see this listing unless box is checked)" hold the position from another cacher placing a cache?

I ask because I often work up a page with totally made up coordinates, then when I place the container, I revise the position, and then check this box.

2.4k · July 29, 2008

Does this box, being un-checked, "Yes, this cache is currently active (Reviewers will not see this listing unless box is checked)" hold the position from another cacher placing a cache?

I ask because I often work up a page with totally made up coordinates, then when I place the container, I revise the position, and then check this box.

Me too. See my post just above yours, and read the specified posts linked in it.

I now put my temporary coordinates somewhere out in the middle of the Atlantic until I'm ready to actually submit the cache, since those unsubmitted coordinates do "reserve the space" and cause extra work for reviewers when other caches are submitted.

24.7k · July 29, 2008

...With one of my other caches, the same thing happened...I got the email saying it was too close to TWO new caches..BOTH OF WHICH have never gotten published months and months later. Any ideas?

Puzzle or multi caches?

July 29, 2008

Yeah me too... I keep my coords out in the ocean somewhere until I'm ready to finalize the page, then change them to the actual coords and check the box. But I'm getting the distinct impressions that some cachers in my local caching area are using this feature to stake out cool-looking areas and then place caches months later when they feel like it. [ :unsure: ] There should be a limit on the amount of time that one can stake out an area this way - currently, one has to wait till there is a proximity conflict with the non-existent cache, and then go through a lengthy process with a reviewer to communicate with the other cacher to see if he/she actually plans to place a cache. This process can be fairly slow because the reviewer has to be the intermediary person since the cachers involved remain anonymous.

2.4k · July 29, 2008

But I'm getting the distinct impressions that some cachers in my local caching area are using this feature to stake out cool-looking areas and then place caches months later when they feel like it. []

When this issue was first brought up in the thread that I linked to above, I thought that there must be a lot of other people who, like me, were just learning for the first time that these unpublished, unsubmitted coords actually did reserve space. I wondered at the time if there'd be a sudden rash of people who started creating cache pages without submitting them for the sole purpose of "staking a claim" on a particular area. :unsure:

7.2k · July 29, 2008

I don't understand being thrown under the bus here since you and I seemed to have worked well together in the past, so let me try to figure this out...

First of all, there is NO such policy, nor do I, as your reviewer, follow this practice in the least. Period.

Case in point. You submitted a cache back in mid-June and had it disabled. Someone else listed a cache next to it two weeks afterward, since they had no idea your cache was there. I told them I would have to contact you and ask you what you were doing with your cache first since you listed your cache first. I contacted you and you said that you were going to have it ready in a couple of days. A week later, after nothing had been done, I contacted you again via a reviewer note on the cache page asking you if you were going to enable the cache and that the other cacher was curious what was going on. You apologized and told me that you were unable to finish it and said I could go ahead and list the other cacher's cache. I did just that and your cache is still out there, unpublished and disabled.

I only see two other caches of yours that are not published. One you have had disabled since listing it six months ago and there are no reviewer notes at all from you or me except for the initial automatic coordinate log, and a second cache that you have in the queue right now that you entered four days ago and is on hold because your final is too close to an existing published cache. All of your other caches have been published.

I will assure you that what you are alleging is not happening in BC. As noted above, you have seen the process that I personally follow directly and first hand very much recently. That you would insinuate that anything else is the case is something I do not understand since you have witnessed the process personally only a month ago.

Editing to add that I am saying that I am not going to give anyone much time to get things fixed, as you saw. If they want to list a cache out there for however long, it is what it is. If anyone does that and someone else places a cache too close, they better be ready to get in gear quickly or else they will lose the spot.

(Edited as noted for clarity.)

Edited July 29, 2008 by mtn-man

July 29, 2008

I have had a few never activated caches, ones that were denied publication for either location too close or inappropriate spot etc. I keep them 'un-reviewed' and use them when I'm looking at a spot. I plug in the new co-ords and check for nearby caches before checking off the 'Active'. That saves me and the reviewer the trouble of a denial.

If the spot is clear, I'll edit the listing and re-submit in the new spot with the 'dormant' number. I usually don't plan out locations far enough in advance to pre screen- I'll be somewhere and say " hmm.. this looks like a likely spot" and if it's convenient for me will leave a cache right then. Most of my few hides are on routes I take often, so the couple I've had to retrieve were no big deal time or gas wise.

6.5k · July 29, 2008

Oooh did I say a day or three?

Please forgive me, I meant to say an hour or three.

Ooh snap- :drama:

There goes my plan for taking over downtown Raleigh NC. :unsure:

18.9k · July 29, 2008

I don't understand being thrown under the bus here since you and I seemed to have worked well together in the past, so let me try to figure this out...

First of all, there is NO such policy, nor do I, as your reviewer, follow this practice in the least. Period.

Case in point. You submitted a cache back in mid-June and had it disabled. Someone else listed a cache next to it two weeks afterward, since they had no idea your cache was there. I told them I would have to contact you and ask you what you were doing with your cache first since you listed your cache first. I contacted you and you said that you were going to have it ready in a couple of days. A week later, after nothing had been done, I contacted you again via a reviewer note on the cache page asking you if you were going to enable the cache and that the other cacher was curious what was going on. You apologized and told me that you were unable to finish it and said I could go ahead and list the other cacher's cache. I did just that and your cache is still out there, unpublished and disabled.

I only see two other caches of yours that are not published. One you have had disabled since listing it six months ago and there are no reviewer notes at all from you or me except for the initial automatic coordinate log, and a second cache that you have in the queue right now that you entered four days ago and is on hold because your final is too close to an existing published cache. All of your other caches have been published.

I will assure you that what you are alleging is not happening in BC. As noted above, you have seen the process that I personally follow directly and first hand very much recently. That you would insinuate that anything else is the case is something I do not understand since you have witnessed the process personally only a month ago.

Editing to add that I am saying that I am not going to give anyone much time to get things fixed, as you saw. If they want to list a cache out there for however long, it is what it is. If anyone does that and someone else places a cache too close, they better be ready to get in gear quickly or else they will lose the spot.

(Edited as noted for clarity.)

Well now - there you go. Reserving a spot idefinitly just isn't going to happen.

14k · July 29, 2008

Yeah, I agree it's pretty unlikely that someone would 'take over' the city. But I don't think there is a 'limited time period' for inactive cache pages unless someone complains that the inactive cache page coords are blocking their own hide attempt. (I have some unfinished cache pages that have sat there for months.) I cache mainly in Victoria, B.C. and the city is getting very full of caches!

There is a simple solution to this. Don't try to publish any more caches in the city. Looking at some cache maps it looks like Victoria is pretty saturated, but there appears to be a lot of open space to the northwest.

9.5k · July 29, 2008

Oooh did I say a day or three?

Please forgive me, I meant to say an hour or three.

Ooh snap-

There goes my plan for taking over downtown Raleigh NC.

:unsure:

7.9k · July 30, 2008

Editing to add that I am saying that I am not going to give anyone much time to get things fixed, as you saw. If they want to list a cache out there for however long, it is what it is. If anyone does that and someone else places a cache too close, they better be ready to get in gear quickly or else they will lose the spot.

(Edited as noted for clarity.)

And that...is the rest of the story!

And indeed the way I hope it goes world-wide.

3.6k · July 30, 2008

Oooh did I say a day or three?

Please forgive me, I meant to say an hour or three.

Ooh snap-

There goes my plan for taking over downtown Raleigh NC.

August 3, 2008

Ref: mtn-man's post. I apologize if I implied that my frustration was somehow directed at you; it wasn't at all! You do a fantastic job and I appreciate that.

My frustration was directed at what I see as a unfortunate loophole in the geocaching.com reviewer process in general. Perhaps these caches that ended up blocking mine from being published were actually in conflict with other caches and therefore never got published as well, who knows. I still think that a cache in the queue should only be able to be in conflict with caches that are farther ahead in the queue and are visible to reviewers (i.e. fully ready to be published). Unchecking that box should cause a cache to drop to the end the of the queue, allowing cachers who are ready to publish their cache in the same location to not have to worry about a lengthy process of imaginary conflicts. If there is some way to change this policy, I think it would be great.

38.2k · August 3, 2008

Ref: mtn-man's post. I apologize if I implied that my frustration was somehow directed at you; it wasn't at all! You do a fantastic job and I appreciate that.

My frustration was directed at what I see as a unfortunate loophole in the geocaching.com reviewer process in general. Perhaps these caches that ended up blocking mine from being published were actually in conflict with other caches and therefore never got published as well, who knows. I still think that a cache in the queue should only be able to be in conflict with caches that are farther ahead in the queue and are visible to reviewers (i.e. fully ready to be published). Unchecking that box should cause a cache to drop to the end the of the queue, allowing cachers who are ready to publish their cache in the same location to not have to worry about a lengthy process of imaginary conflicts. If there is some way to change this policy, I think it would be great.

If the box is not checked it does not appear in the reviewer's queue, but it will show up on a proximity search. If it is too close the reviewer can investigate and can usually tell if it's something being worked on or if it's an old cache page that needs to be archived. If not a quick note to the owner can clear things up.

If the scenario that you suggest occurs, where Cache A is blocked by Cache B and you submit Cache C, it will not be blocked by Cache A, because Cache A will have been archived. Even if Cache A is behind Cache C in the queue, the reviewer again will investigate, resolve the problem and clear the way for Cache C.

No no need to worry about this stuff. It all works quite well. You can go back to worrying about the important things like whirled peas (have you seen the price of them lately?).

3.9k · August 3, 2008

Does this box, being un-checked, "Yes, this cache is currently active (Reviewers will not see this listing unless box is checked)" hold the position from another cacher placing a cache?

I ask because I often work up a page with totally made up coordinates, then when I place the container, I revise the position, and then check this box.

Me too. See my post just above yours, and read the specified posts linked in it.

I now put my temporary coordinates somewhere out in the middle of the Atlantic until I'm ready to actually submit the cache, since those unsubmitted coordinates do "reserve the space" and cause extra work for reviewers when other caches are submitted.

(relevant quote rendered in bold in quoted text above)

AAARRGGHH! So you're the one! I despise you! Sheesh!

You have managed, with your duplicitious double-dealings involving bogus coordinates in the middle of the Atlantic -- in fact, specifically in the regions sporting the deepest parts of the Atlantic Trench -- caused the reviewers to reject over 130 of my Psycho Ocean Cache listing submissions, each of which had sported waypoint coordinates in the middle of the Atlantic. Please expect rants, angst, references to Hitler and Godwin's Law, and lawsuits to follow.

I am now seething with anger.... You have cheated me of prime locations in the middle of the Atlantic, and I fear that one day I shall awaken to discover that you have staked out all available cache locations in the entire Atlantic Ocean. Grrrr...!

2.4k · August 3, 2008

I now put my temporary coordinates somewhere out in the middle of the Atlantic

AAARRGGHH! So you're the one! I despise you! Sheesh!

You have managed, with your duplicitious double-dealings involving bogus coordinates in the middle of the Atlantic -- in fact, specifically in the regions sporting the deepest parts of the Atlantic Trench -- caused the reviewers to reject over 130 of my Psycho Ocean Cache listing submissions, each of which had sported waypoint coordinates in the middle of the Atlantic. Please expect rants, angst, references to Hitler and Godwin's Law, and lawsuits to follow.

I am now seething with anger.... You have cheated me of prime locations in the middle of the Atlantic, and I fear that one day I shall awaken to discover that you have staked out all available cache locations in the entire Atlantic Ocean. Grrrr...!

Just wait until you try to put caches at Chernobyl, Bhopal, or Love Canal...

Mine, all MINE!!!

1.1k · August 3, 2008

I didn't know that. I have a cache container set up (already has the CG# painted on it) and a page that's been unpublished for a year now. that I've been sitting on, not knowing that it meant anything.

Fortunately, it's somewhere I guarantee nobody would want (middle of a lake) but it's still interesting that happens.

3.9k · August 3, 2008

I now put my temporary coordinates somewhere out in the middle of the Atlantic

AAARRGGHH! So you're the one! I despise you! Sheesh!

You have managed, with your duplicitious double-dealings involving bogus coordinates in the middle of the Atlantic -- in fact, specifically in the regions sporting the deepest parts of the Atlantic Trench -- caused the reviewers to reject over 130 of my Psycho Ocean Cache listing submissions, each of which had sported waypoint coordinates in the middle of the Atlantic. Please expect rants, angst, references to Hitler and Godwin's Law, and lawsuits to follow.

I am now seething with anger.... You have cheated me of prime locations in the middle of the Atlantic, and I fear that one day I shall awaken to discover that you have staked out all available cache locations in the entire Atlantic Ocean. Grrrr...!

Just wait until you try to put caches at Chernobyl, Bhopal, or Love Canal...

Mine, all MINE!!!

GRRR! You have just named three of my favorite alternate Psycho Cache locations, and I had, until this moment, been wondering why all of my cache listing submissions for those areas, and also for Hanford Nuclear Reservation (aka DOE Hanford Site) in Washington state, were being rejected by the Groundspeak reviewers. AAARRRGH! Foiled!

Oh well, at least you failed to nab any space at the DOE Savannah River Nuclear Site (SRS) in South Carolina! ...err, wait a minute.... what the....

AAARRRGGGHHH!

3.8k · August 4, 2008

Fortunately, it's somewhere I guarantee nobody would want (middle of a lake)

Don't be so sure..

August 4, 2008

AAARRGGHH!

Grrrr...!

AAARRRGGGHHH!

Would these be pirate-themed caches you're trying to put out?

August 4, 2008

so far I haven't had any problems with this. for caches in our state parks-dcnr takes sometimes 3-4 months to give an okay. so the cache page is sitting there unchecked for several months. now that I know the coords show up when reviewers search-I've been waiting for dcnr approval before checking the reviewer box.

August 4, 2008

Oooh did I say a day or three?

Please forgive me, I meant to say an hour or three.

Ooh snap-

There goes my plan for taking over downtown Raleigh NC.

Seeing threads like this is almost as much fun as watching customers at Walmart.

Very interesting

BTW Wimseyguy I am closing into taking over Raleigh meself. Attacking from the South, North and now West

-HHH

Edited August 4, 2008 by Headhardhat

A worrisome trend - staking out cache locations without hiding a cache

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation