Jump to content

Not yet published caches


Manville Possum

Recommended Posts

I have an archived cache that I use to park travelers that I own and don't have a current mission to send them out on. Lots of cachers own a lot of coins and they use otherwise unavailable caches to "store" them as a way of keeping them in the system but off of their personal inventory.

Link to comment

A couple of notes on doing this.

 

The travelers will acquire mileage based on the coordinates of the cache. Something that's actually close to your house will make the most sense.

 

Please don't drop travelers that you don't own in such a storage cache.

 

The cache will work for this if you archive it. You can create it and archive it yourself. That way it won't block another real cache from being placed in the vicinity. or make work for the reviewer, asking if the cache is going to be active at some point.

 

Finally, it isn't necessary to do any of this. If you have coins/TBs of your own, and want them out of your inventory, you can just mark them missing. No mileage issues, and you can "grab" them at any time.

Link to comment
If you have coins/TBs of your own, and want them out of your inventory, you can just mark them missing. No mileage issues, and you can "grab" them at any time.

 

That is the best tip of all.

 

If you "have" a TB/GC in your possession (or "stored" at home), why would one NOT want it to appear on their inventory? I've only seen the unpublished cache method used by geo-thieves to hide stolen property, so I don't really understand the legitimate need to use an unpublished cache for "hiding" bugs/coins from public view.

 

That said, if you really did need to remove some of your own bugs (e.g. they are in a collection and will never travel), then I'd suggest that the puzzle cache is how to go. Make a puzzle cache very close to your residence, such as in the center of a street intersection within a block or so. The "hidden" final coords at your house and the cache listing can be as simple as a quick note explaining the purpose of the cache to as complicated as pictures of your collection. Publish the cache, then archive it. Now it is viewable, yet won't show up on a search. If someone clicks on the link to the current location of one of your bugs, they'll see your archived cache and not get the unpublished cache error. You can still make log entries to drop bugs as often as you see fit and have the inventory of the cache right on the listing.

Link to comment

I haven't encountered the unpublished cache method. I use the archived cache method that you seem to approve of, and for the very reason you state. I have easy access to the inventory any time I want to move something. If I used the move to an unknown location method I would not have a nice and easy way of seeing those trackables. Again, I only use this method for trackables I own. Anything I don't own stays in my normal inventory for me and anyone else to see until I move it along to another cache.

Link to comment
If you "have" a TB/GC in your possession (or "stored" at home), why would one NOT want it to appear on their inventory?

 

If you own a lot of non-traveling coins or bugs, it makes getting to the traveling bugs/coins in drop-down box of held travelers awkward, and increases the risk that you'll simply forget to move one. Dropping your own into an archived or unpublished cache keeps your current inventory to trackables that are moving.

 

I've only seen the unpublished cache method used by geo-thieves to hide stolen property, so I don't really understand the legitimate need to use an unpublished cache for "hiding" bugs/coins from public view.

 

I agree that there really isn't a need, people can mark them missing, but many don't know that and use an unpublished or archived cache instead. One advantage to using a cache page; the trackables can all be seen at once on listing. For people with many travelers both out traveling and held in collection, this may be an advantage. A new site feature of a "folder" of trackables ("my collection") would be great too.

 

That said....I'd suggest that the puzzle cache is how to go. Make a puzzle cache very close to your residence .... The "hidden" final coords at your house and ....

 

The mileage on the travelers in any puzzle cache are to the listed "bogus" coordinates. There's zero advantage to having either a puzzle, or the location of the "hidden" coords. They could be in Timbuktu for all it matters to the trackable mileage.

 

Publish the cache, then archive it.

A reviewer publishes the cache, not you. And you're supposed to be listing a cache for 3 months, minimum. There's no advantage, for travelers you own, to publication. None. And there's no good reason to park travelers you don't own. I do understand that there's an especially obnoxious unpublished cache in your area that may be coloring your perceptions, but for folks just holding their OWN trackables, using an archive unpublished cache will be fine. Marking missing would be fine too.

Link to comment

The cache will work for this if you archive it. You can create it and archive it yourself. That way it won't block another real cache from being placed in the vicinity. or make work for the reviewer, asking if the cache is going to be active at some point.

If you *must* create a cache for this, please read this good advice. Then re-read it. Your reviewers thank you. There are dozens of coin caches in my review territory, and they do indeed create false positives when we run our test for cache saturation.

Link to comment

The cache will work for this if you archive it. You can create it and archive it yourself. That way it won't block another real cache from being placed in the vicinity. or make work for the reviewer, asking if the cache is going to be active at some point.

If you *must* create a cache for this, please read this good advice. Then re-read it. Your reviewers thank you. There are dozens of coin caches in my review territory, and they do indeed create false positives when we run our test for cache saturation.

I don't understand "false positives". Can you explain it to me real slow? I don't want anyone to see the listing or cord.s to cache/moonshine still site. Is there any other way to make my own coin locker? Seems like this is the way hard core cachers, 5000+ finds are doing it. It's on my property and no other cache can be placed near it.

Link to comment

When a new cache is submitted, the reviewers use special site features to compare the cache's coordinates to all other possibly conflicting waypoints. If the test says "no errors," then we move on to the next phase of the review process within a matter of seconds. If there is a cache or a "stages of a multicache" additional waypoint or a "final cache" additional waypoint within 528 feet of the new cache (or any of its additional waypoints), then the procedure throws an error message. The reviewer then has to investigate the error message. If the source of the error message was someone's unpublished coin vault, the reviewer needs to load several pages and read the coin vault's cache description, all to determine that this was a false positive -- an error flag that the reviewer didn't really need to worry about. This takes time. When there are dozens of caches to be reviewed and dozens of extra page loads and the website is being slow, this can make your reviewer cranky.

 

It may not be a big issue out in the middle of nowhere, but for geocachers who choose to put their coin vault smack in the middle of town, it can be a pain. A small pain, but a pain nevertheless.

Link to comment

When a new cache is submitted, the reviewers use special site features to compare the cache's coordinates to all other possibly conflicting waypoints. If the test says "no errors," then we move on to the next phase of the review process within a matter of seconds. If there is a cache or a "stages of a multicache" additional waypoint or a "final cache" additional waypoint within 528 feet of the new cache (or any of its additional waypoints), then the procedure throws an error message. The reviewer then has to investigate the error message. If the source of the error message was someone's unpublished coin vault, the reviewer needs to load several pages and read the coin vault's cache description, all to determine that this was a false positive -- an error flag that the reviewer didn't really need to worry about. This takes time. When there are dozens of caches to be reviewed and dozens of extra page loads and the website is being slow, this can make your reviewer cranky.

 

It may not be a big issue out in the middle of nowhere, but for geocachers who choose to put their coin vault smack in the middle of town, it can be a pain. A small pain, but a pain nevertheless.

Sounds like the middle of an ocean would be good coordinates for these, if people really think they need to do this.

Link to comment

 

Sounds like the middle of an ocean would be good coordinates for these, if people really think they need to do this.

 

Probably, but if you ever pull one out and set it free the mileage is sure mucked up. Well, maybe starting out with a really good mileage. Lets see, Pacific Northwest, hmmm, yep southern Indian Ocean, got it. ;)

 

Jim

Link to comment

 

Sounds like the middle of an ocean would be good coordinates for these, if people really think they need to do this.

 

Probably, but if you ever pull one out and set it free the mileage is sure mucked up. Well, maybe starting out with a really good mileage. Lets see, Pacific Northwest, hmmm, yep southern Indian Ocean, got it. ;)

 

Jim

I wouldn't imagine people who move their trackables in and out of a bogus cache don't care too much about accurate mileage, since they bork it up every time they do so.

Link to comment

They check against cache listings that were never 'checked' as 'Yes, this cache is currently active'?

Sounds like the procedure could use some modifications.

 

When a new cache is submitted, the reviewers use special site features to compare the cache's coordinates to all other possibly conflicting waypoints. If the test says "no errors," then we move on to the next phase of the review process within a matter of seconds. If there is a cache or a "stages of a multicache" additional waypoint or a "final cache" additional waypoint within 528 feet of the new cache (or any of its additional waypoints), then the procedure throws an error message. The reviewer then has to investigate the error message. If the source of the error message was someone's unpublished coin vault, the reviewer needs to load several pages and read the coin vault's cache description, all to determine that this was a false positive -- an error flag that the reviewer didn't really need to worry about. This takes time. When there are dozens of caches to be reviewed and dozens of extra page loads and the website is being slow, this can make your reviewer cranky.

 

It may not be a big issue out in the middle of nowhere, but for geocachers who choose to put their coin vault smack in the middle of town, it can be a pain. A small pain, but a pain nevertheless.

Edited by BWidget
Link to comment

They check against cache listings that were never 'checked' as 'Yes, this cache is currently active'?

Sounds like the procedure could use some modifications.

Examples of why we need to check against disabled caches:

 

Awaiting a land manager permit (this can take months, such as for a Pennsylvania State Forest)

Timing the release of a "Tribute" cache for when the honoree reaches 1,000 finds

Timing the release of 10 caches, hidden over three weeks, to be published on the day of an event cache

Owner does a "coordinate check" and goes to hide the cache two weeks later after getting an OK for the spot

 

There are many other examples. We see these week-in and week-out.

 

Imagine you were the hider in one of the above examples. Would you like it if someone swooped in and stole your spot with a hastily planted cache in the nature center's parking lot that messed up your elaborate multi that you were almost ready to submit?

Link to comment

They check against cache listings that were never 'checked' as 'Yes, this cache is currently active'?

Sounds like the procedure could use some modifications.

Examples of why we need to check against disabled caches:

 

Awaiting a land manager permit (this can take months, such as for a Pennsylvania State Forest)

Timing the release of a "Tribute" cache for when the honoree reaches 1,000 finds

Timing the release of 10 caches, hidden over three weeks, to be published on the day of an event cache

Owner does a "coordinate check" and goes to hide the cache two weeks later after getting an OK for the spot

 

There are many other examples. We see these week-in and week-out.

 

Imagine you were the hider in one of the above examples. Would you like it if someone swooped in and stole your spot with a hastily planted cache in the nature center's parking lot that messed up your elaborate multi that you were almost ready to submit?

A quick check shows this person has geocoins in unlisted caches also. Practice what you preach.

Link to comment

What exactly was I trying to preach? I said that I thought the review process needed change, not that people should not have their 'own' pages for their coins. I also stated earlier that I had an unpublished cache that a reviewer recently archived.

 

They check against cache listings that were never 'checked' as 'Yes, this cache is currently active'?

Sounds like the procedure could use some modifications.

Examples of why we need to check against disabled caches:

 

Awaiting a land manager permit (this can take months, such as for a Pennsylvania State Forest)

Timing the release of a "Tribute" cache for when the honoree reaches 1,000 finds

Timing the release of 10 caches, hidden over three weeks, to be published on the day of an event cache

Owner does a "coordinate check" and goes to hide the cache two weeks later after getting an OK for the spot

 

There are many other examples. We see these week-in and week-out.

 

Imagine you were the hider in one of the above examples. Would you like it if someone swooped in and stole your spot with a hastily planted cache in the nature center's parking lot that messed up your elaborate multi that you were almost ready to submit?

A quick check shows this person has geocoins in unlisted caches also. Practice what you preach.

Link to comment

What exactly was I trying to preach? I said that I thought the review process needed change, not that people should not have their 'own' pages for their coins. I also stated earlier that I had an unpublished cache that a reviewer recently archived.

 

They check against cache listings that were never 'checked' as 'Yes, this cache is currently active'?

Sounds like the procedure could use some modifications.

Examples of why we need to check against disabled caches:

 

Awaiting a land manager permit (this can take months, such as for a Pennsylvania State Forest)

Timing the release of a "Tribute" cache for when the honoree reaches 1,000 finds

Timing the release of 10 caches, hidden over three weeks, to be published on the day of an event cache

Owner does a "coordinate check" and goes to hide the cache two weeks later after getting an OK for the spot

 

There are many other examples. We see these week-in and week-out.

 

Imagine you were the hider in one of the above examples. Would you like it if someone swooped in and stole your spot with a hastily planted cache in the nature center's parking lot that messed up your elaborate multi that you were almost ready to submit?

A quick check shows this person has geocoins in unlisted caches also. Practice what you preach.

I was not talking about you, but a reviewer.

Link to comment

My apologies, I now see my mistake.

 

What exactly was I trying to preach? I said that I thought the review process needed change, not that people should not have their 'own' pages for their coins. I also stated earlier that I had an unpublished cache that a reviewer recently archived.

 

I was not talking about you, but a reviewer.

Link to comment

They check against cache listings that were never 'checked' as 'Yes, this cache is currently active'?

Sounds like the procedure could use some modifications.

Examples of why we need to check against disabled caches:

 

Awaiting a land manager permit (this can take months, such as for a Pennsylvania State Forest)

Timing the release of a "Tribute" cache for when the honoree reaches 1,000 finds

Timing the release of 10 caches, hidden over three weeks, to be published on the day of an event cache

Owner does a "coordinate check" and goes to hide the cache two weeks later after getting an OK for the spot

 

There are many other examples. We see these week-in and week-out.

 

Imagine you were the hider in one of the above examples. Would you like it if someone swooped in and stole your spot with a hastily planted cache in the nature center's parking lot that messed up your elaborate multi that you were almost ready to submit?

A quick check shows this person has geocoins in unlisted caches also. Practice what you preach.

 

Keystone only said that he prefers that people who use this method do so with an archived cache, rather than one that is simply not enabled.

 

This would be a good time to remind you to be familiar with the forum guidelines, particularly the section that

reads "1. Forum courtesy: Please treat Groundspeak, its employees, volunteers, fellow community members, and guests on these boards with courtesy and respect"

Link to comment

Since I'm the only reviewer who has posted to this thread, I can only assume that the OP's misplaced allegation is directed at me. For the record, I have not hidden any other player's trackable item in an unpublished cache, under any account I own. Never have, never will. I was posting to this thread in an effort to be helpful.

Link to comment
A quick check shows this person has geocoins in unlisted caches also. Practice what you preach.

You can't see this so I will help you out. While Keystone does own coins that are in unpublished caches, these cache is not his.

 

If you look at the coins, they were given/traded/etc to cachers. The coin is in their possession and they can do with it as they please.

 

Read the info on one of these example and you'll understand.

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...