Jump to content

cache listing denied


Recommended Posts

I placed a cache on a power trail about 45 minutes from my home. There are around 125 caches on this strectch of road. My family has really enjoyed getting around 50 of them so far. Well on our last cache run we placed a cache and it was denied. The reviewer said that he feels that there are too many caches in this area. I personally have enjoyed this power trail cache experience and have read the logs for ther other caches. Other Fellow geocahers have also enjoyed this experience. He also stated that my cache is too close in proximity to 3 other caches. They are really not that close. The other caches are located in other business parking lots and across a major highway. I am really frustrated by this cache being denied. Any suggestions. On the suggestion of the reviewer, I made an appeal to Groundspeak.

 

Thanks,

Giterdone79

Link to comment

This sounds like such a reversal of fate. Other geocachers populated an area with caches and don't get penalized, yet you attempt to hide a cache in the same area and get turned down. Thats how natural cache saturation works and is more ideal then one cacher placing 25 of the same cache hide in one area. Just out of curiosity, how close were those other 3 caches?

Link to comment

I placed a cache on a power trail about 45 minutes from my home. There are around 125 caches on this strectch of road. My family has really enjoyed getting around 50 of them so far. Well on our last cache run we placed a cache and it was denied. The reviewer said that he feels that there are too many caches in this area. I personally have enjoyed this power trail cache experience and have read the logs for ther other caches. Other Fellow geocahers have also enjoyed this experience. He also stated that my cache is too close in proximity to 3 other caches. They are really not that close. The other caches are located in other business parking lots and across a major highway. I am really frustrated by this cache being denied. Any suggestions. On the suggestion of the reviewer, I made an appeal to Groundspeak.

 

Thanks,

Giterdone79

You cannot place a cache within .1 mi of another cache even if there is a major freeway in between. Same thing happened to me when i was trying to place my first cache.

Link to comment

While I wasn't the reviewer for the OP's cache, I am familiar with the situation because I'm one of the other reviewers for the same state. This particular power trail area is not open to new caches, and the Ohio reviewers did check with Groundspeak before deciding this, so I wouldn't be optimistic about the odds on appeal

 

The three conflicting caches are 422, 481 and 517 feet away. The outcome would maybe be different if the overall area weren't so saturated, and if there had only been one proximity conflict (like the 517 foot one).

Link to comment

I placed a cache on a power trail about 45 minutes from my home. There are around 125 caches on this strectch of road. My family has really enjoyed getting around 50 of them so far. Well on our last cache run we placed a cache and it was denied. The reviewer said that he feels that there are too many caches in this area. I personally have enjoyed this power trail cache experience and have read the logs for ther other caches. Other Fellow geocahers have also enjoyed this experience. He also stated that my cache is too close in proximity to 3 other caches. They are really not that close. The other caches are located in other business parking lots and across a major highway. I am really frustrated by this cache being denied. Any suggestions. On the suggestion of the reviewer, I made an appeal to Groundspeak.

 

Thanks,

Giterdone79

My heart goes out to you! This is obviously a travesty of justice wrought by a sicko reviewer! What has been done to you by the evil selfish reviewers is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! They are WRONG, and you are a VICTIM. This is simply terrible, and the stupid facts that you placed your cache on a power trail and too close to three other caches do not matter at all, for the REAL FACT is that these downright nasty predatory evil reviewers have singled you out as their VICTIM just so they can get their cheap nasty thrills. Luckily, the reality is that God wants your cache to be published, and it is also true that all the angels in heaven are on your side, and, in fact, all the other geocachers in your state and in the world want your cache to be published, and so, there is a way out of this horrible morass caused by the selfish sadistic reviewers who are looking for cheap thrills in all the wrong places at your expense:

 

My vast experience and that of many others has shown that the way to deal with this insane travesty of justice is to contact Groundspeak immediately (via their "contact" email address) and advise them of the facts of this case, and firmly and clearly state that you will give them just twelve hours to rectify the matter, demanding that they also give you a free 5-year Platinum membership as well as compensation for the insane pain that their nasty selfish reviewers have caused you.

 

If the admins at Groundspeak HQ DO NOT do the needful within twelve hours, then you will need to go to the next step, which involves writing to Groundspeak, to your local newspaper and to your local US Congressman and US Representative demanding IMMEDIATE rectification of this horrible intrusion on your right to happiness, and stating that you have weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in your basement (and in the glove compartment of your car, and in your bathroom medicine cabinet) that you will need to deploy across the land if your rights continue to be violated. Specifically, it helps to state that you will deploy your WMD if your demands are not met within twenty-four hours of the time of issuance of your warning. It will also help if you make the same announcement in a new thread on the Groundspeak forums, entitled something like "I have been wronged, and I have WMDs that will make things right!", with a subtitle reading "Approve my cache now, or see the world destroyed!". This kind of thing really gets the attention of the lazy slacker admins at Groundspeak, and ensures that they will be stricken with righteous fear.

 

It will help further if you will contact your local TV and radio stations with the same announcement, for the simple reality is that most of the media are well aware of the evil selfish actions of nasty geocache reviewers and the horrid pain that such actions have caused their victims, and thus these media outlets are on your side, and they WANT TO HELP YOU GET YOUR CACHE PUBLISHED. It is also usually very helpful if you also demand, as a further condition, that each of the offending reviewers be publicly subjected to eighty lashes with a vinegar-soaked whip at high noon on Saturday in the square in front of your State Capital building.

 

I am very very sorry that you were so callously victimized in this way by these babbling idiots who get their sick perverse thrills by denying your rightful God-given cache listings, and I wish you the very best in using the FORCE and the POWER which God has given to you in rectifying this horrible nasty mess caused by these predatory evil reviewers, who get their perverse sick thrills by denying cache listings to simple and pure God-fearing upright citizens such as yourself. One thing I can tell you, as a suave, sophisticated, intelligent and handsome veteran of cache publication wars, is that you are in the right and the nasty sicko reviewers are in the wrong, and since God and right are on your side, you will TRIUMPH! I wish you the best with your righteous battle in clawing your way out of victimhood into VICTORY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D

 

 

:(

 

 

 

 

 

:(

Link to comment

 

My heart goes out to you! This is obviously a travesty of justice wrought by a sicko reviewer! What has been done to you ... snip to reduce space clawing your way out of victimhood into VICTORY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

:)

 

 

:)

 

 

 

 

 

:)

 

I'm rolling on the floor over here!!!! Dude! My cheeks and belly hurt!~

:):)

Link to comment

I had a cache denied last night because it was too close to another multi - I get it, the only problem is that when you're placing a cache, you don't KNOW that there is a stage of a multi in the area. I wish the clever Groundspeak people could come up with something that throws out a red flag when you upload your cache for review. I mean obviously, you don't want to be spoon fed the location of the other cache (wait, maybe we do) but maybe a message could pop up with a warning.

Link to comment

I had one denied because it was 455 feet away from the nearest cache, even though the next closest one (when I placed it) was .6 of a mile away.

 

From the guidelines:

 

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.

 

The two bolded sections is what bugs me. The fact it is stated in the guidelines that the 528 ft rule is "arbitrary" means that there is no 528 foot rule. Abritrary by definition means that there is no set number. "Guideline" does not mean "rule." A cache 455 away, across a park and street from another cache should be more than enough distance away to "reduce confusion." Considering the next closest one is .2 away now, then .6, the area is not oversaturated.

 

Unfortunately the reviewer doesn't agree, and holds fast to a rule that's not a rule.

Link to comment

I had one denied because it was 455 feet away from the nearest cache, even though the next closest one (when I placed it) was .6 of a mile away.

 

From the guidelines:

 

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.

 

The two bolded sections is what bugs me. The fact it is stated in the guidelines that the 528 ft rule is "arbitrary" means that there is no 528 foot rule. Abritrary by definition means that there is no set number. "Guideline" does not mean "rule." A cache 455 away, across a park and street from another cache should be more than enough distance away to "reduce confusion." Considering the next closest one is .2 away now, then .6, the area is not oversaturated.

 

Unfortunately the reviewer doesn't agree, and holds fast to a rule that's not a rule.

 

It's amazing that every time someone complains about being denied, they highlight the "arbitrary", "guideline" and "reduce confusion" parts of the guidelines, but NEVER the "ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area" part.

 

P.S. I agree with Vinny ;)

Link to comment

 

It's amazing that every time someone complains about being denied, they highlight the "arbitrary", "guideline" and "reduce confusion" parts of the guidelines, but NEVER the "ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area" part.

 

P.S. I agree with Vinny ;)

 

If the goal is to reduce the number of caches in an area, then why allow them at all. That seems totally contradictary to the purpose of placing a cache.

 

If you read the part where I said the area wasn't saturated, then you would see that wasn't an issue.

 

I'm guessing you never have dealt with the frustration of having one denied...

Link to comment

 

It's amazing that every time someone complains about being denied, they highlight the "arbitrary", "guideline" and "reduce confusion" parts of the guidelines, but NEVER the "ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area" part.

 

P.S. I agree with Vinny ;)

 

If the goal is to reduce the number of caches in an area, then why allow them at all. That seems totally contradictary to the purpose of placing a cache.

 

If you read the part where I said the area wasn't saturated, then you would see that wasn't an issue.

 

I'm guessing you never have dealt with the frustration of having one denied...

 

I've had a couple denied for being too close...one was just last month for being too close to a puzzle I hadn't solved yet.

 

Your cache that was 455' feet away couldn't move another 70 feet? Yes, the 528' is an arbitrary guideline in that TPTB had to pick "something" and that's what they decided was reasonable. It's a guideline because there are times a reviewer may allow you to be closer than that.

 

Having something you've put a lot of time into get denied is frustrating....but it's not the end of the world either. I went back out, moved my cache to a new location and got it listed.

Link to comment

I can't imagine that too many of us haven't had a cache denied for the proximity rule.

Its just one of those things. It would be nice to have all caches approved, but it just doens't happen.

This is why I keep my reviewers email handy and send them a line when I want to place one.

Link to comment

 

Your cache that was 455' feet away couldn't move another 70 feet?

 

Actually, no, considering the cache is an ammo can, and there is no cover for it further away. I put it as far away as I could to still be hideable. I could make it a micro and move it further away, but there are too many lampost skirt micros in town, and too few regular sized caches.

 

Yes, the 528' is an arbitrary guideline in that TPTB had to pick "something" and that's what they decided was reasonable. It's a guideline because there are times a reviewer may allow you to be closer than that.

 

Then why say it's "arbitrary" instead of saying, "the minimum distance between caches must be greater than 528 feet unless natural obstacles (cliffs, rivers, etc) are between one cache and another. These caches will be considered on an individual basis"? That is wording that is pretty straightforward. To say it's "arbitrary" is what gets people frustrated about the "rule"...it's a direct contradition.

Link to comment

I had one denied because it was 455 feet away from the nearest cache, even though the next closest one (when I placed it) was .6 of a mile away.

 

From the guidelines:

 

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.

 

The two bolded sections is what bugs me. The fact it is stated in the guidelines that the 528 ft rule is "arbitrary" means that there is no 528 foot rule. Abritrary by definition means that there is no set number. "Guideline" does not mean "rule." A cache 455 away, across a park and street from another cache should be more than enough distance away to "reduce confusion." Considering the next closest one is .2 away now, then .6, the area is not oversaturated.

 

Unfortunately the reviewer doesn't agree, and holds fast to a rule that's not a rule.

 

Actually see this article on the "real" meaning of arbitrary - especially in this case.

 

Arbitrary is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary

 

Face the facts - you have to be 528 feet away unless you have a very very good reason to be closer.

Link to comment

He also stated that my cache is too close in proximity to 3 other caches. They are really not that close. The other caches are located in other business parking lots and across a major highway. I am really frustrated by this cache being denied. Any suggestions. On the suggestion of the reviewer, I made an appeal to Groundspeak.

 

Not just a power trail, a parking lot power trail! Well, to each his own. ;) Looks interesting, if I found the right one. Centered on about GC155FA perhaps, along Rt. 224?

Link to comment

What I always think is funny when people want to emphasize the word "arbitrary" in the guidelines is that they always seem to want to construe it to mean that it could be less than 528 if the reviewer determines so (which is true) but it also could just as easily be construed that the reviewer is able to determine that in any particular situation, the distance should be GREATER than 528. This never seems to cross the minds of those making the arguement.

Edited by Motorcycle_Mama
Link to comment

Actually see this article on the "real" meaning of arbitrary - especially in this case.

 

Arbitrary is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary

 

 

Ok, since wikipedia is the de facto truth source on the internet...we can also use their definition of "rule of thumb" (term used in the guidelines)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

 

A rule of thumb is a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation

 

Let's take that one step further and use their definition of "guideline":

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guideline

A guideline is any document that aims to streamline particular processes according to a set routine. By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory (protocol would be a better term for a mandatory procedure). Guidelines are an essential part of the larger process of governance.

 

So even if we take your definition of "arbitrary", (which applies more to an action than a number, two different meanings, as in math, arbitrary equates to "any"), then there is still an argument for a cache being closer than 528 feet to another by the definitions of "rule of thumb" and "guideline"

 

Face the facts - you have to be 528 feet away unless you have a very very good reason to be closer.

 

Actually the facts are that due to the defintions shown above, you don't have to be within 528 feet. It may be the recommended distance, but not a minimum distance, nor a rule. It is a "rule of thumb" that is a "guideline"

Link to comment
I'm guessing you never have dealt with the frustration of having one denied...
I've easily had several dozen denied. Had one denied recently because it was too close to the final of a multi I had not found and had to figure out what it was... stage one was about ten miles away. When a spot gets denied you can discuss it diplomatically with your reviewer but if they come back and stand by the denial, then the correct term is "oh well" and find somewhere else. There enough land area in this country for around 370 million caches 1/10 mile apart so there's gotta be some other place that would work... ;)
Link to comment

I had a cache denied last night because it was too close to another multi - I get it, the only problem is that when you're placing a cache, you don't KNOW that there is a stage of a multi in the area. I wish the clever Groundspeak people could come up with something that throws out a red flag when you upload your cache for review. I mean obviously, you don't want to be spoon fed the location of the other cache (wait, maybe we do) but maybe a message could pop up with a warning.

With a little patience, you could ultimately ferret out that waypoint without solving the challenge. That would be inappropriate and raise more complaints than this one.

 

Your best bet is to work with the reviewer and locate a suitable location.

 

I have a new cache that would have been ultimately declined if I was to just go out and place it. But because I asked about the coordinates first, the reviewer was able to do a little research and found the coordinates would have been blocked by a 3 year old virtual that never got published.

 

I find when you pick a spot, and maybe a couple of alternates, as well you are willing to check with the reviewer, your placement becomes easier. I call it doing your homework before physically placing the cache.

Link to comment

Actually the facts are that due to the defintions shown above, you don't have to be within 528 feet. It may be the recommended distance, but not a minimum distance, nor a rule. It is a "rule of thumb" that is a "guideline"

And to clarify this further, they usually are ok with being inside that on one cache, but as you stated, you were inside the circle of three caches. That's an obvious saturation hit. Knowing this, you should have had some inkling you would have been declined; shrugged your shoulders and moved on.

 

See my above post for how best to work out the issues.

Link to comment

Actually the facts are that due to the defintions shown above, you don't have to be within 528 feet. It may be the recommended distance, but not a minimum distance, nor a rule. It is a "rule of thumb" that is a "guideline"

And to clarify this further, they usually are ok with being inside that on one cache, but as you stated, you were inside the circle of three caches. That's an obvious saturation hit. Knowing this, you should have had some inkling you would have been declined; shrugged your shoulders and moved on.

 

See my above post for how best to work out the issues.

 

You're confusing me with the original poster. ;) I was only in the circle of 1 cache.

Link to comment

<snip>

I have a new cache that would have been ultimately declined if I was to just go out and place it. But because I asked about the coordinates first, the reviewer was able to do a little research and found the coordinates would have been blocked by a 3 year old virtual that never got published.

<snip>

 

I don't see the issue, from the guidelines ....

 

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.

 

unpublished or not I don't see how a virtual can block a physical cache. Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

Jim

Link to comment

I'm guessing you never have dealt with the frustration of having one denied...

Only once...and my reaction went something like..."Oh, carp...I forgot about that cache!!!". Otherwise, my solution to the situation, find all the caches in that area before placing one...pretty good way to be sure the placement should be ok...

 

Actually see this article on the "real" meaning of arbitrary - especially in this case.

 

Arbitrary is a term given to choices and actions which are considered to be done not by means of any underlying principle or logic, but by whim or some decidedly illogical formula.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary

 

 

Ok, since wikipedia is the de facto truth source on the internet...we can also use their definition of "rule of thumb" (term used in the guidelines)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

 

A rule of thumb is a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation

 

Let's take that one step further and use their definition of "guideline":

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guideline

A guideline is any document that aims to streamline particular processes according to a set routine. By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory (protocol would be a better term for a mandatory procedure). Guidelines are an essential part of the larger process of governance.

 

So even if we take your definition of "arbitrary", (which applies more to an action than a number, two different meanings, as in math, arbitrary equates to "any"), then there is still an argument for a cache being closer than 528 feet to another by the definitions of "rule of thumb" and "guideline"

 

Face the facts - you have to be 528 feet away unless you have a very very good reason to be closer.

 

Actually the facts are that due to the defintions shown above, you don't have to be within 528 feet. It may be the recommended distance, but not a minimum distance, nor a rule. It is a "rule of thumb" that is a "guideline"

The "mighty" Wiki has been used once again...I guess we all have seen the errors of our ways :P:):P;):D

Link to comment

Actually the facts are that due to the defintions shown above, you don't have to be within 528 feet. It may be the recommended distance, but not a minimum distance, nor a rule. It is a "rule of thumb" that is a "guideline"

And to clarify this further, they usually are ok with being inside that on one cache, but as you stated, you were inside the circle of three caches. That's an obvious saturation hit. Knowing this, you should have had some inkling you would have been declined; shrugged your shoulders and moved on.

 

See my above post for how best to work out the issues.

 

You're confusing me with the original poster. ;) I was only in the circle of 1 cache.

 

You're right and I apologize. I'll take license on the nice "in" though. :P

 

<snip>

I have a new cache that would have been ultimately declined if I was to just go out and place it. But because I asked about the coordinates first, the reviewer was able to do a little research and found the coordinates would have been blocked by a 3 year old virtual that never got published.

<snip>

 

I don't see the issue, from the guidelines ....

 

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.

 

unpublished or not I don't see how a virtual can block a physical cache. Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

Jim

I'm not talking about grandfathered anything.

 

The relevance: Virtual or not, published or not, the coordinates for that cache was being encroached by my intended target even though I couldn't see it with my existing tools. My first cache was the same way with a multi, and I had to go the extra length to justify my cache's existance with the preparation I probably would have to move it.

 

The point I was making: The OP could have saved themselves a lot of grief by doing the appropriate homework, realize there were too many issues that would probably cause a decline and be prepared to move on.

Link to comment
I'm not talking about grandfathered anything

 

I think what he is pointing out is that you cannot set up a new virtual cache, so all virtual caches that are in place now were grandfathered in. Because of that, the fact you have a physical cache near a virtual cache makes the 528 rule moot. But here's my question...why would your cache be denied when the cache in question that was too close was unpublished? If it wasn't published, especially after 3 years, then it shouldn't disqualify yours...

Edited by TexTiger
Link to comment
I'm not talking about grandfathered anything

 

I think what he is pointing out is that you cannot set up a new virtual cache, so all virtual caches that are in place now were grandfathered in. Because of that, the fact you have a physical cache near a virtual cache makes the 528 rule moot. But here's my question...why would your cache be denied when the cache in question that was too close was unpublished? If it wasn't published, especially after 3 years, then it shouldn't disqualify yours...

Actually, the initial response to my request was my cache was blocked by another within a 200 feet. The reviewer had to dig further when I indicated I didn't see anything active or disabled that close. But that's another point I didn't bring up. Sometimes you have another cacher getting ready to place a cache within the same vicinity and they may have beat you to it by simply creating the cache page with those coordinates until they could place the cache.

Link to comment
I'm not talking about grandfathered anything

 

I think what he is pointing out is that you cannot set up a new virtual cache, so all virtual caches that are in place now were grandfathered in. Because of that, the fact you have a physical cache near a virtual cache makes the 528 rule moot. But here's my question...why would your cache be denied when the cache in question that was too close was unpublished? If it wasn't published, especially after 3 years, then it shouldn't disqualify yours...

 

Precisely. If a physical cache was unpublished for 3 years and I wanted to place a cache I would argue I have the right to place the cache. Either get the other guy off his butt and get the cache published or let me have the spot.

 

And as I was pointing out in the snippet of the guidelines, the 528 foot rule does not apply to virtuals, earth, stages of a multi or puzzle cache that are questions to answer or the bogus co-ordinates of a puzzle/multi for the initial waypoint.

 

So place your cache even though there is an unpublished virtual within 528 feet because it does not affect your cache for the saturation rule.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Sometimes you have another cacher getting ready to place a cache within the same vicinity and they may have beat you to it by simply creating the cache page with those coordinates until they could place the cache.

 

I thought you had to have the cache in place when you submit it for approval. Since it could be approved within minutes, and then found 10 minutes after that (with some of the FTF people around here), "saving"

the coordinates isn't something you could do...or am I wrong on this one? If not, I know of few places I could go stake claim to until I could place a cache...

Link to comment
I'm not talking about grandfathered anything

 

I think what he is pointing out is that you cannot set up a new virtual cache, so all virtual caches that are in place now were grandfathered in. Because of that, the fact you have a physical cache near a virtual cache makes the 528 rule moot. But here's my question...why would your cache be denied when the cache in question that was too close was unpublished? If it wasn't published, especially after 3 years, then it shouldn't disqualify yours...

 

Precisely. If a physical cache was unpublished for 3 years and I wanted to place a cache I would argue I have the right to place the cache. Either get the other guy off his butt and get the cache published or let me have the spot.

 

And as I was pointing out in the snippet of the guidelines, the 528 foot rule does not apply to virtuals, earth, stages of a multi or puzzle cache that are questions to answer or the bogus co-ordinates of a puzzle/multi for the initial waypoint.

 

So place your cache even though there is an unpublished virtual within 528 feet because it does not affect your cache for the saturation rule.

 

Jim

Exactly. I have placed several caches over the years very close to (then-existent) virtuals and other "virtual" waypoints, such as the fake coords for ? caches, and in each case, the cache was published with no problem.

Link to comment
Sometimes you have another cacher getting ready to place a cache within the same vicinity and they may have beat you to it by simply creating the cache page with those coordinates until they could place the cache.

 

I thought you had to have the cache in place when you submit it for approval. Since it could be approved within minutes, and then found 10 minutes after that (with some of the FTF people around here), "saving"

the coordinates isn't something you could do...or am I wrong on this one? If not, I know of few places I could go stake claim to until I could place a cache...

You can have an unpublished cache page not submitted for approval and still lock in the coordinates. I wouldn't suggest abusing it though. There are worse things that can happen.

Link to comment

I see a lot of folks get miffed when a cache that is under 528 feet from another is not published. They always bring up the word "arbitrary" as though it means "whatever number we want"

 

A little common sense here, please...520 feet *might*be OK, or even 498...those are reasonably close to 528, and you may be able to convince a reviewer the spot warrants an exception, especially in an area with relatively few caches. Much more than that is really pushing the envelope. Asking for a cache 300 or 400 feet from another cache is a bit much, unless there is some major obstacle between the two (one at the top of a cliff, the other at the bottom).

 

I've gotten an exception on 6 feet or so--I wouldn't have asked for a 60 foot exception without an extraordinary reason.

 

I think the real block to the placement of this particular cache was not the distance to nearby caches (although that is a legitimate factor) so much as the existence of a plethora of caches in the general area. Yes, I understood--you enjoyed having many caches in that area to find. Obviously the area is a nice one for caching, or there wouldn't already be so many caches there and yes, your cache would get more visitors because it is in proximity to others, but there has to be some unexplored real estate somewhere else that could use some caches. Why not hide a cache in a sparsely cached area and start bringing folks to the new area so lots of caches can be put out?

Link to comment

...This particular power trail area is not open to new caches,...

 

Where is this indicted so a cache placer would know?

I posted my thoughts about this power trail in a busy local forum. Few cachers from that area follow the Groundspeak Forums. I believe that another reviewer has communicated directly with the primary "trailblazer" of the power trail in question.

Link to comment

I see a lot of folks get miffed when a cache that is under 528 feet from another is not published. They always bring up the word "arbitrary" as though it means "whatever number we want"

"Arbitrary" in the sense used in the cache saturation guideline means that Groundspeak could have chosen 400 feet or they could have chosen one mile as the minimum separation distance. The choice of .1 miles as the baseline was "arbitrary." There is nothing magic about 528 feet versus 500 feet or 200 metres, but 528 was the number chosen.

 

That being the case, all our decisions are then based upon this admittedly arbitrary number. By sticking closely to the 528 foot standard, we promote predictability. Yet, when circumstances justify it, reviewers are happy to make exceptions. I make exceptions to the cache saturation guideline pretty much every week. It's intended to be a fairly flexible guideline as opposed to, say, the buried caches guideline.

 

So, while exceptions are granted regularly, I don't see one being made in a saturated area with three separate proximity violations.

Link to comment

...This particular power trail area is not open to new caches,...

 

Where is this indicted so a cache placer would know?

I posted my thoughts about this power trail in a busy local forum. Few cachers from that area follow the Groundspeak Forums. I believe that another reviewer has communicated directly with the primary "trailblazer" of the power trail in question.

 

That's a good response to that situation, and I can see the OP, living 50+ miles away not knowing about it. If I found the correct power trail (and I believe I did), that's quite a "trailblazer" there. :laughing: Glad to see there is a point where enough is enough.

Link to comment

...This particular power trail area is not open to new caches,...

 

Where is this indicted so a cache placer would know?

I posted my thoughts about this power trail in a busy local forum. Few cachers from that area follow the Groundspeak Forums. I believe that another reviewer has communicated directly with the primary "trailblazer" of the power trail in question.

 

Excellent. It's a tough enouch concept without the extra help.

Link to comment

I had a cache denied last night because it was too close to another multi - I get it, the only problem is that when you're placing a cache, you don't KNOW that there is a stage of a multi in the area. I wish the clever Groundspeak people could come up with something that throws out a red flag when you upload your cache for review. I mean obviously, you don't want to be spoon fed the location of the other cache (wait, maybe we do) but maybe a message could pop up with a warning.

With a little patience, you could ultimately ferret out that waypoint without solving the challenge. That would be inappropriate and raise more complaints than this one.

 

Your best bet is to work with the reviewer and locate a suitable location.

 

I have a new cache that would have been ultimately declined if I was to just go out and place it. But because I asked about the coordinates first, the reviewer was able to do a little research and found the coordinates would have been blocked by a 3 year old virtual that never got published.

 

I find when you pick a spot, and maybe a couple of alternates, as well you are willing to check with the reviewer, your placement becomes easier. I call it doing your homework before physically placing the cache.

 

my reviewer is absolutely awesome and I did have an alternative location picked out and he was even willing to tell me that it was an okay area (no multi stages around). I have no complaints about that - I was only hoping that some day when the programmer people are doing their thing they could come up with some kind of warning that pops up...."you are too close to a multi" type of warning or something when you upload a cache

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...