Jump to content

Problem With Cache being denied


alwagner
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

My son worked for a month making a cache out of a stump that we dug up and then painting a cache container to match the color. We lugged this 70 lb log a half mile around a local lake along a trail our Cub Scout Pack helps maintain (and I have a fairly severe neuropathy, so this was neither fun nor particularly safe for me). We had been watching this location for about 6 months, planned this a month ago, made sure no caches were anywhere near, and then placed the cache and logged it when we got home (as per geocaching rules). Our cache has been denied as it is too close to a cache that is "a work in progress" according to the reviewer. Worse, she states that there are a number of these "works in progress" around this area so there is no room for our cache. First off, why can people lay claim to areas like this without caches being in place. And secondly, why, if this was allowed, does geocaching not allow me to be warned before we waste half our day placing this thing? Now we have to go back and get it. My 10 year old is ready to quit geocaching and the reviewer wil lnot respond to my emails asking if there was anywhere I could put it around that area that would be acceptable. I even sent some coordinates, asking if they would be OK, but they will not respond, and now my cache just sits there, with no communication from my reviewer. How do I solve this? I have emailed geocaching.com, but without any response except an automated one.

Link to comment

I am very disappointed that the reviewer has not responded to your emails. The willingness to show common courtesy should be a pre requisite to being a reviewer.

Should reviewers be reviewed??

I have it on good authority that the reviewer has answered emails. It's the cache owner that isn't showing courtesy by bringing a complaint here to the forums the same day they posted their latest question. It is the weekend, and many reviewers use that time to actually go caching.

Link to comment

Actually, I have been sending queries since Thurs night. And that is on good authority, as I have an email string. I asked Thurs with coordinates. No answer. Emailed three times yesterday, no response. Posted on my cache today with another request. Just trying to get some guidance on how to proceed, and also, why the system does not fix flaws that even allows screwups like this.

Link to comment

As for communication, it is true that initially I had responses, explaining why it was being denied, and suggesting that I contact the person who had the "work-in-progress". I did, and actually the other cacher was very nice and offered to move his cache so that mine could be listed. I wrote back and thanked him and offered to carry my cache either up or down the trail to help him out. The problem is that I have no idea where these other caches will be, so have no way of knowing where to move mine. That was early Thurs evening and since then, noone will respond to me. I have emailed my reviewer through the geocaching system, made posts, but no response. While it is true that I made a post today and I am on the forum today, this is just from frustration that nobody is letting me know what to do. I can move the cache today, if necessary, but I work most days, including the weekends, and can't hike out there anytime I want to. I just want someone to contact me with some help. Pleeeeaaaaasssseeee.

Link to comment

Actually, I have been sending queries since Thurs night. And that is on good authority, as I have an email string. I asked Thurs with coordinates. No answer. Emailed three times yesterday, no response. Posted on my cache today with another request. Just trying to get some guidance on how to proceed, and also, why the system does not fix flaws that even allows screwups like this.

The reason there is no automated system to check for proximity is that *some* people would use it to triangulate the final locations to puzzles and multis.

 

When placing a multi or a puzzle, you have to go out and find locations then come back home and submit them. One or more of these locations may be too close to other caches so you have to rework your multi to make it fit. Allowing a new cache to be published in that particular area wouldn't be fair, so that's probably why your cache is on hold. Your reviewer can tell you for sure, but he or she has a life outside of volunteer stuff for the website and will answer your question at the earliest opportunity.

Link to comment

I understand. But the geocaching rules specifically state that the cache should not be logged until it is ready to be hunted. So if I follow the rules, I have to find the location, plan and make the cache, hide it, and then wait and find out if there are other, incomplete caches in that area. I understand that puzzle caches need some time to make (which is what I ran into) and you don;t want someone planning one and have their location snapped up, but the rest of us need some warning that the area is claimed before we hide the physical cache, as some are heavy! And if we log it before we hide the cache, we violate the rules posted on the Website! I just don;t know how to stop this from happening again.

 

BTW, the other cacher, "shmair", has contacted me and graciously moved the eventual location of his puzzle cache to allow ours to be listed, so we will just wait for the all clear sign from the reviewer.

 

Also, this is not ment to be a slam at a particular reviewer (that is why I did not use their username). I just wanted some help on an appropriate course of action, as we are relative noobies.

Link to comment

The "work-in-progress" rule that allows cachers to hold a spot probably grew out of reviewers trying to help people putting together just the right cache for the right spot who knew it would take some time to get everything in order and wanted to be sure someone wouldn't grab the spot while there were working. But this rule is not anywhere in the guidelines. I was not aware of it until a reviewer mentioned it here in the forums a few months back. A new geocacher placing their first cache would be very surprised if they had thought they had found a area to place a cache and got told someone has a "work-in-progress" there, because this is not mentioned in the guidelines at all. The reviewers have once again created a new guideline or interpretation of an existing guideline and Groundspeak has not updated the guidelines for placing a cache to reflect this. The guidelines should be updated to explain this procedure for working with the reviewer to hold an area for work in progress as well as to make the reviewers role in verifying if a area is blocked by a work in progress, a puzzle, or stages of a multi official. Most cachers don't frequently come to the forums, so my guess is that most don't have any idea of the processes in place to hold a spot or to pre-confirm a spot is available. The guidelines and in the Guide to Hiding your first cache are the proper places to inform people of this and should be updated appropriately.

Link to comment

Inriguingly it seems that Groundspeak did not provide any detailed advice but common sense won through in the end.

That's the problem with bringing a complaint like this to the forums - you're only seeing the part that the topic starter posted for you, which is not the complete story. There are bound to be logs posted on the cache page and emails between the reviewer and cache owner that aren't shown here.

Link to comment

snip....The reviewers have once again created a new guideline or interpretation of an existing guideline and Groundspeak has not updated the guidelines for placing a cache to reflect this.

 

I'm not privy to this particular situation expressed by the OP, but I can think of a situation in which I was engaged in that is neither covered by the Guidelines, nor could be anticipated by myself or anyone else.

 

In two caches that I placed, it took me 3-4 months to secure permission from the Land Manager for placement of a cache. I probably would have been a little put out if someone had nipped in ahead of me before I had grinded my way through the process.

 

It seems like common sense to hold a spot in situations like that, and not necessarily a cause to write yet another paragraph in the Guidelines that are already too long :D

Link to comment

snip....The reviewers have once again created a new guideline or interpretation of an existing guideline and Groundspeak has not updated the guidelines for placing a cache to reflect this.

 

I'm not privy to this particular situation expressed by the OP, but I can think of a situation in which I was engaged in that is neither covered by the Guidelines, nor could be anticipated by myself or anyone else.

 

In two caches that I placed, it took me 3-4 months to secure permission from the Land Manager for placement of a cache. I probably would have been a little put out if someone had nipped in ahead of me before I had grinded my way through the process.

 

It seems like common sense to hold a spot in situations like that, and not necessarily a cause to write yet another paragraph in the Guidelines that are already too long :D

 

Actually, if there is a method for "holding" a location, than it SHOULD be in the guidelines. The guidelines state that you should be 528' from any stage or current cache. The proximity rule doesn't mention that you need to be that distance away from any potential caches that may one day appear.

 

While you may have been put out if someone placed a cache there before you, why should you be able to reserve the spot for 3-4 months if I went out and received permission in 2 days and put a cache in place?

 

There may be a few circumstances where a "hold" should be allowed. I agree with Toz that if there are "holds", then hiders should be aware of this fact, so they can always check with a reviewer before placing a cache.

Link to comment

snip....The reviewers have once again created a new guideline or interpretation of an existing guideline and Groundspeak has not updated the guidelines for placing a cache to reflect this.

 

I'm not privy to this particular situation expressed by the OP, but I can think of a situation in which I was engaged in that is neither covered by the Guidelines, nor could be anticipated by myself or anyone else.

 

In two caches that I placed, it took me 3-4 months to secure permission from the Land Manager for placement of a cache. I probably would have been a little put out if someone had nipped in ahead of me before I had grinded my way through the process.

 

It seems like common sense to hold a spot in situations like that, and not necessarily a cause to write yet another paragraph in the Guidelines that are already too long :D

 

Actually, if there is a method for "holding" a location, than it SHOULD be in the guidelines. The guidelines state that you should be 528' from any stage or current cache. The proximity rule doesn't mention that you need to be that distance away from any potential caches that may one day appear.

 

While you may have been put out if someone placed a cache there before you, why should you be able to reserve the spot for 3-4 months if I went out and received permission in 2 days and put a cache in place?

 

There may be a few circumstances where a "hold" should be allowed. I agree with Toz that if there are "holds", then hiders should be aware of this fact, so they can always check with a reviewer before placing a cache.

 

Yes, any practice such as holding should be in the guideline, explaining how long a spot can be held, etc.

 

Further, the cache listing should be published in a HOLD status so that everyone knows that spot is not currently available.

Link to comment

snip....The reviewers have once again created a new guideline or interpretation of an existing guideline and Groundspeak has not updated the guidelines for placing a cache to reflect this.

 

I'm not privy to this particular situation expressed by the OP, but I can think of a situation in which I was engaged in that is neither covered by the Guidelines, nor could be anticipated by myself or anyone else.

 

In two caches that I placed, it took me 3-4 months to secure permission from the Land Manager for placement of a cache. I probably would have been a little put out if someone had nipped in ahead of me before I had grinded my way through the process.

 

It seems like common sense to hold a spot in situations like that, and not necessarily a cause to write yet another paragraph in the Guidelines that are already too long :D

 

Actually, if there is a method for "holding" a location, than it SHOULD be in the guidelines. The guidelines state that you should be 528' from any stage or current cache. The proximity rule doesn't mention that you need to be that distance away from any potential caches that may one day appear.

 

While you may have been put out if someone placed a cache there before you, why should you be able to reserve the spot for 3-4 months if I went out and received permission in 2 days and put a cache in place?

 

There may be a few circumstances where a "hold" should be allowed. I agree with Toz that if there are "holds", then hiders should be aware of this fact, so they can always check with a reviewer before placing a cache.

 

Yes, any practice such as holding should be in the guideline, explaining how long a spot can be held, etc.

 

Further, the cache listing should be published in a HOLD status so that everyone knows that spot is not currently available.

The cache doesn't meet the guidelines because of some reason or another, so why would it be published? That doesn't make any sense.

 

The "hold" practice doesn't need to be in the guidelines. As shown in the other thread about this a few weeks ago it isn't an issue. If the first cacher takes too long, they'll get a reminder from the reviewer if and when someone else places a cache in the immediate area. Go find another spot for your cache.

Link to comment

 

The "hold" practice doesn't need to be in the guidelines. As shown in the other thread about this a few weeks ago it isn't an issue. If the first cacher takes too long, they'll get a reminder from the reviewer if and when someone else places a cache in the immediate area. Go find another spot for your cache. [/color]

 

There again we fall into that "Arbitrary" term and its all wide open to each reviewer.

It should be set that you have set amount of time to hold a cache. Say a 2 week period.

I'm sure there are cases in which the reviewer could also allow an extension.

 

I've heard a few other people complain about this, and one forum someone stated they waited 6 months before the reviewer finally gave the spot up. I just don't get why it would take that long PERIOD.

 

There are 2 sides to the story. We all know the frustration of placing a cache only to get the boot on that spot.

We have all had our share.

 

But to say that there isn't any alternative to the situation, that just isn't right either.

Link to comment
And if we log it before we hide the cache, we violate the rules posted on the Website! I just don;t know how to stop this from happening again.

 

I think you're referring to not writing up the cache page until the cache is in place here? You CAN write up the cache and UNCHECK the "this cache is currently active" box. This isn't a response to your overall issue, just an observation about how the website works.

 

It is frustrating to run into other as yet unpublished caches.

 

I see this most often around events. The host and perhaps some friends start placing new hides, sometimes months in advance, and those are on hold for the day of the event. Then nearer the event, other cachers get interested in new placements, and run into those held caches.

 

I generally suggest that they get with the event host to get a feeling for where all the existing held caches are.

Akin to the OP's reviewer suggesting they try to contact the cacher whose unpublished cache is blocking theirs.

Link to comment

Well done to the two geocachers Alwager and Shmair for getting their heads together and resolving the situation.

Inriguingly it seems that Groundspeak did not provide any detailed advice but common sense won through in the end.

But the reviewer *did* provide advice, including in posts to the cache page TODAY prior to it being published by that reviewer TODAY. That is one on-the-ball reviewer.

 

You are only hearing one side of the story. What I see from the archived cache logs is a cooperative effort among the two hiders and the reviewer to work things out.

 

I'm traveling this weekend but I guess I'd better check for unanswered e-mails from Thursday night. :D

Link to comment

 

The "hold" practice doesn't need to be in the guidelines. As shown in the other thread about this a few weeks ago it isn't an issue. If the first cacher takes too long, they'll get a reminder from the reviewer if and when someone else places a cache in the immediate area. Go find another spot for your cache. [/color]

 

There again we fall into that "Arbitrary" term and its all wide open to each reviewer.

It should be set that you have set amount of time to hold a cache. Say a 2 week period.

I'm sure there are cases in which the reviewer could also allow an extension.

And why shouldn't it be? Each situation is reviewed separately (case by case basis). There is no one rule that would cover every possibility.

 

It's first-come, first-served. If you're second, your cache is either denied or placed on hold until the first cacher is done. If you want your cache published sooner, you can find another spot. If you really want the spot that someone beat you to, you can ask them to move instead, but they were there first.

 

How long can someone hold a spot? That's the subject of the other thread; the cache by the starter of this thread wasn't even placed a week ago.

Link to comment

What the heck is this "hold" policy? That's what I'm concerned about. This should definitely be in the guidelines because I have not idea what it is and who is allowed such privileged status.

 

Why would you want to keep the caching community in the dark?

 

If it's not published (the "hold"), how can it prevent another from placing a cache there? This stinks....

Link to comment

What the heck is this "hold" policy? That's what I'm concerned about. This should definitely be in the guidelines because I have not idea what it is and who is allowed such privileged status.

 

Why would you want to keep the caching community in the dark?

 

If it's not published (the "hold"), how can it prevent another from placing a cache there? This stinks....

So, cacher A places a cache but there's a problem with it. Suppose he put in a pocket knife, which he wasn't supposed to do, but everything else about the cache is OK. All he needs to do is to go back and remove the knife in order to have his cache published. Cacher B places a cache 50' away the next day not knowing about the other cache. You're saying cacher B should get the spot instead of cacher A?

 

Now suppose cacher A doesn't get back to his cache for (some arbitrary time period). Cacher B contacts the reviewer. The reviewer contacts cacher A who says he just can't get out there to fix the problem. The reviewer publishes cache B instead of cache A.

 

Where's the problem?

Link to comment

We've discussed the "cache in progress" concept here in the forums for years. I answered a question about it in the "Getting Started" forum just within the past week.

 

If you want to look for recognition of the concept in the listing guidelines, look no further than here:

 

If you are placing a large number of caches to be published on the same date (for example, on the day of an event cache), please submit the cache pages for all of the caches at least ten days in advance of the release date. Leave a "note to reviewer" indicating that the cache is to be released on the date specified.

It's quite common to get groups of 10, 20, 50 or more caches all submitted for simultaneous release. And once in awhile, but not too terribly often, some innocent cacher is unaware of those plans, and hides a cache 100 feet from one of the elaborately constructed "clue" caches for the following weekend's event. Do we tell the event organizers, who have been working hard for months, that they need to adjust all their instruction sheets, redirector cards, park permissions, etc.?

 

I'd rather have this forum thread once or twice a year than to have the threads we used to have: "I worked for months on getting permission for this cache and someone threw down a crummy gladware at the edge of the parking lot next to the nature preserve."

Link to comment

What the heck is this "hold" policy? That's what I'm concerned about. This should definitely be in the guidelines because I have not idea what it is and who is allowed such privileged status.

 

Why would you want to keep the caching community in the dark?

 

If it's not published (the "hold"), how can it prevent another from placing a cache there? This stinks....

So, cacher A places a cache but there's a problem with it. Suppose he put in a pocket knife, which he wasn't supposed to do, but everything else about the cache is OK. All he needs to do is to go back and remove the knife in order to have his cache published. Cacher B places a cache 50' away the next day not knowing about the other cache. You're saying cacher B should get the spot instead of cacher A?

 

Now suppose cacher A doesn't get back to his cache for (some arbitrary time period). Cacher B contacts the reviewer. The reviewer contacts cacher A who says he just can't get out there to fix the problem. The reviewer publishes cache B instead of cache A.

 

Where's the problem?

 

Actually that sounds fine. Is that what is happening in this case? Since the hiders in this case (the "holders") say they were willing to change locations, why wouldn't they just "remove the knife," that easy-to-fix hypothetical you provided. Sounds like it might not be the case, and that they were on hold a little longer than a day.

 

In which case....that would be different.

 

You hypothetical seemed to perfect, so reasonable. I'm not sure that's the current situation.

Link to comment

I understand how the hold process works and I don't have a problem with it or with the manner in which any of my caches have been approved or disapproved.

 

However, maybe it should be in the guidelines. Not everybody reads the forums and not everybody has been caching for the years in which it has been discussed on the forums. Cachers shouldn't have to go hunting through the forums to find out about something that could prevent them from placing a cache.

 

Just add it to the guidelines so that people are aware of it. Where could the harm in that be?

Link to comment

Personally, I think we have plenty of guidelines. The last thing we need is to add more.

To the OP: While your situation was certainly frustrating for you, there is a way to avoid it in the future. If you are going to hide a cache, and you know it's gonna take a significant amount of effort on your behalf to get it done, (such as lugging a 70 lb log around when suffering from fairly severe neuropathy), you should check your coords with your reviewer prior to doing anything physical. These folks love publishing caches, and will typically be more than willing to work with you to get your cache listed.

 

I'm glad to see you were able to resolve the issue. :D

Link to comment

Sounds like it might not be the case, and that they were on hold a little longer than a day.

The key words being "sounds like." In truth, the cache was submitted on Thursday the 21st, received a prompt review the same day, and was published on the 23rd after the proximity conflict was resolved through some back-and-forth messaging. Pretty good, considering that our service standard is to provide an initial review within three days.

Link to comment

 

The "hold" practice doesn't need to be in the guidelines. As shown in the other thread about this a few weeks ago it isn't an issue. If the first cacher takes too long, they'll get a reminder from the reviewer if and when someone else places a cache in the immediate area. Go find another spot for your cache. [/color]

 

There again we fall into that "Arbitrary" term and its all wide open to each reviewer.

It should be set that you have set amount of time to hold a cache. Say a 2 week period.

I'm sure there are cases in which the reviewer could also allow an extension.

And why shouldn't it be? Each situation is reviewed separately (case by case basis). There is no one rule that would cover every possibility.

 

It's first-come, first-served. If you're second, your cache is either denied or placed on hold until the first cacher is done. If you want your cache published sooner, you can find another spot. If you really want the spot that someone beat you to, you can ask them to move instead, but they were there first.

 

How long can someone hold a spot? That's the subject of the other thread; the cache by the starter of this thread wasn't even placed a week ago.

 

I believe your missing the point here.

In the same line of thought of "beating you to it", by submitting the cache to the reviewer to be published, the cache owner beat the other person to it. Its nothing more then "he said he said. The same stuff.

Don't dance around the "Arbitrary issue" because it does have merit.

 

You can say just because his cache was placed a week ago. There are other examples of a site being held for longer then months, as this was just mentioned a while back.

The point is, your blocking a legit cache from being published by holding it for a legit cache that isn't ready. Who was there first? How do you know someone didn't get grab the coords from Google earth and put them in the uncheck cache page?

 

Long story, but any way you go, its the same distance...!

Link to comment

Sounds like it might not be the case, and that they were on hold a little longer than a day.

The key words being "sounds like." In truth, the cache was submitted on Thursday the 21st, received a prompt review the same day, and was published on the 23rd after the proximity conflict was resolved through some back-and-forth messaging. Pretty good, considering that our service standard is to provide an initial review within three days.

 

Sorry, I meant the in-progress caches.

 

If there is another step in hiding a cache, contacting the reviewer about the coords even if you clear every multi and unknown cache in the area, it needs to be documented somewhere. I admit I've never run into this situation personally (seems like an uncommon situation), but I would like to know more about the process of "saving a spot" if I happen to want to release 50 caches in a day.

 

Not a conspiracy, just an undocumented process.

Link to comment
I would like to know more about the process of "saving a spot" if I happen to want to release 50 caches in a day....

 

As Keystone has already pointed out, this is already a part of the listing guidelines, "If you are placing a large number of caches to be published on the same date (for example, on the day of an event cache), please submit the cache pages for all of the caches at least ten days in advance of the release date. Leave a "note to reviewer" indicating that the cache is to be released on the date specified. " The seventh paragraph of Guidelines that Apply to all Caches

 

Also implied here is the notion that any given new cache placement might encounter an unpublished cache on hold.

Link to comment

Personally, I think we have plenty of guidelines. The last thing we need is to add more.

It's not a question of adding yet another guideline. The guideline exists; it is enforced; it's just not posted. The issue here is that if a guideline exists, and is followed by reviewers, then include it in the guidelines page.

 

So many times someone comes to the forums asking about placing their first cache, and so often they are told "Just read the guidelines and follow them and you'll be fine." That's only going to be true if the guidelines are complete.

 

(The reasoning for not posting them, which appears to be that there are so many guidelines that if they were all listed the page would be way too long and no one would read it, reminds me of the current evolution of Garmin's user manuals. The manual for my Vista C is 96 pages, and includes just about everytihng I have ever needed to look up. They have since "simplified" the manuals, and now the combined manual for the Venture HC / Legend HCx / Vista HCx is only 50-something pages. And it's nearly useless -- half of the necessary stuff has been stripped out. But hey, it's simpler!)

Link to comment

Personally I'd rather have as little in the guidelines as possible so that they can be made as flexible as possible for each situation. If the guidelines stated that a spot can be held for up to a week, then somebody is going to be very upset if it took them 8 days to get back to the cache to remove the pocket knife, and on the 8th day the mean old reviewer published a cache 100ft from their spot.

 

The number of times there are proximity issues with unpublished works in progress is fairly small. It is much easier to deal with them on a case by case basis.

 

If you have a cache that is very involved and difficult to set up, it is always best to ask your reviewer about the spot before you invest time into it. Besides having problems with work in progress caches, the more likely problem people have are problems with intermediate/final points of multis, or final points of mystery caches.

 

So if you're just dropping a box of stuff in the woods then go ahead drop it, and submit the cache. If you have a complex set up with 20 parts and special equipment, do yourself a favor and ask the reviewer ahead of time. Especially if there are lots of mystery/multis around you haven't done.

Link to comment

I'm glad it all worked out in the end, and I think you owe the other cacher a HUGE thank you.

 

Just how different is your situation if that had been an already published puzzle that started two miles away? What if it had been a 10 stage multi that started 10 miles away?

The fact that your child is upset, made a special cache, created a heavy hard to move container etc. is really pretty irrelevant. The fact that you spent some quality time creating something special with your son should be the focus-not the bad website or mean reviewer.

 

Sheesh, just more 21st century entitlement at it's finest. :D

 

" Our cache has been denied as it is too close to a cache that is "a work in progress" according to the reviewer. Worse, she states that there are a number of these "works in progress" around this area so there is no room for our cache."

Link to comment

What the heck is this "hold" policy? That's what I'm concerned about. This should definitely be in the guidelines because I have not idea what it is and who is allowed such privileged status.

 

Why would you want to keep the caching community in the dark?

 

If it's not published (the "hold"), how can it prevent another from placing a cache there? This stinks....

 

It's not a hold policy per se. It's more like there is a cache in the review queue ahead of yours for that same area. These conflicts can happen if the person submitted his cache a month ahead of the other and it can't be published right away for whatever reason and it can happen when two people hide a cache in the same spot on the same day (this happens more than you realize). The cache that was submitted first takes precedence.

 

When you are hiding caches once in a while you might get bitten by one of these, or sometimes by a puzzle cache or multi you don't know about. Sure it can be frustrating if it happens to you, but it's rare enough that I don't see it as a major issue. In 230+ cache hides it has yet to happen to me, yet some unlucky newbie might get caught by it on the first try. That's life.

Link to comment

What the heck is this "hold" policy? That's what I'm concerned about. This should definitely be in the guidelines because I have not idea what it is and who is allowed such privileged status.

 

Why would you want to keep the caching community in the dark?

 

If it's not published (the "hold"), how can it prevent another from placing a cache there? This stinks....

So, cacher A places a cache but there's a problem with it. Suppose he put in a pocket knife, which he wasn't supposed to do, but everything else about the cache is OK. All he needs to do is to go back and remove the knife in order to have his cache published. Cacher B places a cache 50' away the next day not knowing about the other cache. You're saying cacher B should get the spot instead of cacher A?

 

Now suppose cacher A doesn't get back to his cache for (some arbitrary time period). Cacher B contacts the reviewer. The reviewer contacts cacher A who says he just can't get out there to fix the problem. The reviewer publishes cache B instead of cache A.

 

Where's the problem?

 

If cacher A put the knife in the cache then it means that he either didn't read the guidelines or chose not to follow them. IMO, that cache should be taken out of the queue completely and have to be resubmitted by the owner after he fixes the problem.

Link to comment

Personally I'd rather have as little in the guidelines as possible so that they can be made as flexible as possible for each situation. If the guidelines stated that a spot can be held for up to a week, then somebody is going to be very upset if it took them 8 days to get back to the cache to remove the pocket knife, and on the 8th day the mean old reviewer published a cache 100ft from their spot.

 

The number of times there are proximity issues with unpublished works in progress is fairly small. It is much easier to deal with them on a case by case basis.

 

If you have a cache that is very involved and difficult to set up, it is always best to ask your reviewer about the spot before you invest time into it. Besides having problems with work in progress caches, the more likely problem people have are problems with intermediate/final points of multis, or final points of mystery caches.

 

So if you're just dropping a box of stuff in the woods then go ahead drop it, and submit the cache. If you have a complex set up with 20 parts and special equipment, do yourself a favor and ask the reviewer ahead of time. Especially if there are lots of mystery/multis around you haven't done.

 

And where should a person look to find out that they should "pre-verify" coordinates with a reviewer?

 

I'd rather not see new guidelines created, but it would be very helpful if the guidelines used were published. You don't need to say "a spot can be held a week"....just say something along the lines that "caches in the review queue could also cause proximity violations. Reviewers will determine how long a cache may be held in the queue as 'in progress'".

Link to comment

It seems the reviewers may not want this guideline because it is clear that they don't yet agree among themselves what it is. One finds a phrase about submitting caches before an event and says the you can submit the cache to reviewer queue with a note to hold up approval. Another says it for when there are problems with the cache and the cache owner is actively working these issues with the reviewer. Some seem to say it may apply in cases where the cache owner has not checked the box saying the cache is ready (and therefore it has not gone to the reviewer queue) but since the cache owner prepared the page before someone else, he gets dibs on the location in spite of the fact that the other cache was the first in the reviewer queue. I know I had a page prepared and was waiting for the owner of the previously archived cache to let me know if he wanted to reuse the spot, when I got a note from my reviewer that a third person has submitted a cache nearby. I wrote the reviewer back to say I was OK with the other cache being approved and I would move my cache someplace else. I hadn't checked the box saying it was ready yet but it seemed to be blocking someone else's cache until I responded that I would give up the location.

 

So which is it? Perhaps the reviewers need to discuss this with Groundspeak in their forum and reach a consensus that can be added to the guidelines. As it stands now, for all I know, I could create a bunch of cache pages that I never plan to place a cache at, just to keep some locations reserved.

 

The people who come to the forums may know that their reviewer will pre-check coordinates for you and may even keep a spot opened for you for a reasonable period while you place your cache. But the general geocaching community does not know this because it is not in the guidelines or in the instructions for placing a cache. Reviewers and Groundspeak - please come up with a description and publish it. I'm a bit tired of the excuse that "It's already there" Reviewers believe it is there because they discuss these things in the reviewers forum. They get to the point where they can't distinguish what is written down from the interpretations that they have agreed (or not agreed) on. At the risk of getting another suspension, I think the refusal to update the guidelines as needed shows laziness on the part of Groundspeak. If in fact the plan is to update the guidelines about this issue and the delay is because there are some details in how to word it in order to get consensus of the reviewers then I apologize. Take as much time as needed to get the wording right.

Link to comment

Just think how much angst would be avoided if there was a simple location where you could submit coordinates and see they conflict with anything in the system. Take that work off the reviewers.

 

And, to head it off at the pass, I don't buy the argument that people would abuse it for solving puzzle caches. Who cares? If someone wants to go through that effort to solve a puzzle of mine they are free to do so. Heck, simply limit the number of queries to three per day or something and you've got the problem licked.

Link to comment

It seems the reviewers may not want this guideline because it is clear that they don't yet agree among themselves what it is.

I disagree. Groundspeak has provided instructions for the reviewers to follow in these situations which, as previously noted, are rather rare. The reviewer in this example followed those instructions to the letter, as I would have done. Any reviewer who "disagrees" with giving the earlier cache-in-progress priority is not doing as our Frog Masters have asked us to do.

Link to comment
And where should a person look to find out that they should "pre-verify" coordinates with a reviewer?

Why would any one need to look anywhere for such advice? I'd think anyone brighter than a bag of hammers would realize after playing this game for more than 5 seconds that not every single cache sits at the posted coords. Logic would therefor indicate that there are caches out there whose locations are not easily discernible through a simple mouse click. Ergo, if you're going to place a cache, and its placement will require substantial effort, why not check the spot first, before expending all that energy?

 

Heck, I can assure you that I am not brighter than a bag of hammers, and I managed to figure this out. :)

Link to comment

Just think how much angst would be avoided if there was a simple location where you could submit coordinates and see they conflict with anything in the system. Take that work off the reviewers.

 

And, to head it off at the pass, I don't buy the argument that people would abuse it for solving puzzle caches. Who cares? If someone wants to go through that effort to solve a puzzle of mine they are free to do so. Heck, simply limit the number of queries to three per day or something and you've got the problem licked.

But how is this any different (or better) than preparing the cache page (unchecking the "ready to go" box) and submitting it for reviewer approval. If you do that, the reviewer will advise you of prox issues before you haul your cache out there and will also alert you of other issues. My local reviewer is more than happy to proceed this way and encourages hiders to submit coordinates through this method for prox issue checking.

 

The only downside I can see is that you may end up archiving an unpublished cache due to unresolvable prox issues, but that is a minor complaint as far as I am concerned.

 

The advantages are that you get a date stamp on your efforts to secure the location, you get a head start of making the cache page, and you bring your reviewer into the loop on new caches.

 

Miles/..

Link to comment

What the heck is this "hold" policy? That's what I'm concerned about. This should definitely be in the guidelines because I have not idea what it is and who is allowed such privileged status.

 

Why would you want to keep the caching community in the dark?

 

If it's not published (the "hold"), how can it prevent another from placing a cache there? This stinks....

So, cacher A places a cache but there's a problem with it. Suppose he put in a pocket knife, which he wasn't supposed to do, but everything else about the cache is OK. All he needs to do is to go back and remove the knife in order to have his cache published. Cacher B places a cache 50' away the next day not knowing about the other cache. You're saying cacher B should get the spot instead of cacher A?

 

Now suppose cacher A doesn't get back to his cache for (some arbitrary time period). Cacher B contacts the reviewer. The reviewer contacts cacher A who says he just can't get out there to fix the problem. The reviewer publishes cache B instead of cache A.

 

Where's the problem?

 

If cacher A put the knife in the cache then it means that he either didn't read the guidelines or chose not to follow them. IMO, that cache should be taken out of the queue completely and have to be resubmitted by the owner after he fixes the problem.

That's pretty harsh to essentially archive the cache for something that can be easily fixed and make them resubmit it.

 

What if it was a more subjective guideline...perhaps the reviewer put the cache on hold because the description appeared to be advertising or had an agenda? Should that cache be archived just so a new description can be written, even if only one sentence was in question?

Link to comment

I wonder if the "how to place a cache" blurb was modified to include: "The first cacher to enter a coord into the online form, reserves that coord even if you don't ask for it to be published" (my words) would not just cause MORE of these type issues to pop up, by encouraging people to "save" coords while they think about placing a cache?

 

There have been recent threads, were reviewers have demonstrated the ability to resolve these issues for the most part.

 

IMO the guide *could* be modified to say that your reviewer will check your proposed coords for you if your placement will require considerable effort to place.

Link to comment

....Our cache has been denied as it is too close to a cache that is "a work in progress"...

 

A work in progress is a new thing. I know of one cache where the owner worked with the National Park Service to get a Virtual set with their blessing. They ran it up the flagpole, permission came back down and they helped come up wiht the question to be answered point out some facts to bring out and the cache was ultimatly listed. You would think that this is the perfect example of a work in progress from the time the question of permission came up to when it was answered. Nope. A another cacher listed their virutal first (while this was in progress) got it approved and then complained about the other cache and got it archived.

 

I don't see that "work in progreess" has any real bearing or meaning until it's in the guidelines that reviewers can hold an area for a set number of days.

 

You have some options.

List it somewhere else.

Complain about the other caches that are not yet listed when in fact your is and get them archived when they are listed like the example above.

Sign up with the land manage for exclusive permission, or permission such that the other caches can't interfer wtih yours as a condition of their approval.

Find out the name of theo ther cacher and explain your work and find out if their spot is mission critical or if 28' over which allows your's to be approved works.

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...