I'm kinda confused

[+goodwrench00]

I was looking for a cache Sunday, GC1DR32, which is very near, GCPRK5, less than 100'

 

actually closer to 50' apart. I found the general area and searched for at least 20 min.

 

without luck. I went to GCPRK5 and looked inside the ammo can (which I had found before)

 

and found a camo'd match container with a log book, which I failed to read, then went

 

back and looked more. As we left we met a couple looking for the same cache, as we were

 

leaving thr area we met them again and they allowed that the match container in GCPRK5

 

was infact the one we were after.

As stated in the other folks log for GC1DR32 the state park confirmed that their cache

 

is inside the other. Not only were the cache's too close as per my understanding of the

 

"rules" but to put one inside of another with out changing the location on the web page

 

just seems uncool.

I took a DNF because I failed to sign the log and didn't feel up to the treck back to

 

the cache. It just seems to me like this is not an alright thing to do, even though the

 

cache is owner by the state park.

I just wanted to vent, sorry for being long winded! I just don't understand how 2 caches

 

can be put that close together, much less moved into another cachers container. I just

 

hope I got all the number right! If not I'm sure someone will let me know......

[greenworldfeather]

I was looking for a cache Sunday, GC1DR32, which is very near, GCPRK5, less than 100'

 

actually closer to 50' apart. I found the general area and searched for at least 20 min.

 

without luck. I went to GCPRK5 and looked inside the ammo can (which I had found before)

 

and found a camo'd match container with a log book, which I failed to read, then went

 

back and looked more. As we left we met a couple looking for the same cache, as we were

 

leaving thr area we met them again and they allowed that the match container in GCPRK5

 

was infact the one we were after.

As stated in the other folks log for GC1DR32 the state park confirmed that their cache

 

is inside the other. Not only were the cache's too close as per my understanding of the

 

"rules" but to put one inside of another with out changing the location on the web page

 

just seems uncool.

I took a DNF because I failed to sign the log and didn't feel up to the treck back to

 

the cache. It just seems to me like this is not an alright thing to do, even though the

 

cache is owner by the state park.

I just wanted to vent, sorry for being long winded! I just don't understand how 2 caches

 

can be put that close together, much less moved into another cachers container. I just

 

hope I got all the number right! If not I'm sure someone will let me know......

\

One of them is probably archived, either that or they are the same geocache. I am planning on one that will be that way sort of. Someone finds a puzzle inside stage one, they solve it and go on to stage 2 which hold the code needed to unlock a container that is inside the first stage container. That container has a lock on it and has the final cache container in it. The final cache containe has log and the usual stuff inside it.

[JustWannaCache]

There are no rules... Only guidelines.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I'd say: Oh, well. You befuzzled me! Ya got me!

Not sure that I'd feel the need to vent over it. "Oh, well" covers it well.

[+Max and 99]

I'm with you, Goodwrench00. I'm confused too! I might just avoid that cache altogether and find others that are more traditional.

[+goodwrench00]

I'd say: Oh, well. You befuzzled me! Ya got me!

Not sure that I'd feel the need to vent over it. "Oh, well" covers it well.

Vent may have been a not so good of a choice of wording.

[+Isonzo Karst]

If you scroll down the cache page, you'll find that the original coords GC1DR32 were over .32 away from the old hide GCPRK5. There are a couple of coordinate change logs. Looks bad coords, and then maybe a move of the cache.

Vent seems okay to me, they've really become confusing. They really ought to be a least a couple of hundred feet apart, so you can tell one from the other.

[+traildad]

It seems to me that if the CO is going to move the cache 1600ft so that it violates the normal distance between caches and actually puts one cache inside the other, some kind of note should be made on the cache page. If it were me I would write to the account email and suggest they explain it in the hint.

[+benh57]

It seems to me that if the CO is going to move the cache 1600ft so that it violates the normal distance between caches and actually puts one cache inside the other, some kind of note should be made on the cache page. If it were me I would write to the account email and suggest they explain it in the hint.

 

Note? The log type you are looking for is 'Should be Archived'.

[+PJPeters]

I'd at least fire off a note to your friendly local cache reviewer. Perhaps even a note to the cache owners, as well, but definitely one to the reviewer. Maybe one's supposed to be on top of a ridge and one at the bottom, or something similar. Who knows...

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

First, there are no rules, and rather only guidelines. Second, and I am EXTREMELY surprised that no one has noticed this and mentioned it yet, there appears to be a very relevant factor about one of the caches which is not only very obvious but which also likely explains why the reviewer(s) allowed the cache to be eventually moved so close to the other cache which was a pre-existing placement not far away. Can anyone guess the factor?

 

(I will give you a hint: the CO of GC1DR32 is the land manager, and therefore is often granted far greater latitude over placement choices than seen in other situations.)

 

In any case, this situation of one cache ending up inside another, while rather harmless and rather funny, is a great example of one good reason why allowing a reasonable minimum distance between caches is largely a good idea!

 

As far as the current situation, where it appears that the two caches eventually ended up very close to each other and then finally once cache decided to jump inside the other, well, it appears to me almost as if an occult hand had reached down from above and moved the players like pawns upon some giant chessboard.

 

.

[+wimseyguy]

Yup, what Vinny said in one of his more lucid posts.

 

The small cache is owned by the Arkansas State Parks, and quite likely the reviewer gave them a little more slack with the saturation guideline when it was moved. I don't see any record of it being moved into the ammo can though.

 

The older cache has been there, with permission, for 3.5 years. It would be a good idea for someone to move the smaller cache out of the ammo can and find a spot a few hundred feet away. I'm surprised someone hasn't grabbed it as trade swag already.

 

Normally I would not suggest moving someone's cache, but this is an unusual situation. I'll bet if the next person to plan a hike out there would contact the park and volunteer to help with that they might accept the offer.

[+Star*Hopper]

I ran into one of these "too close for guidelines" situations last month.

 

Arrived at sis's house to find they were about to go out on a short caching run. Didn't have 'Ol Blue' with me, but joined 'em anyway! We drove to another community's park & started searching for something named "Battle Rattle". GPSrs left us standing near a walking trail, well away from any logical hiding spot. We thoroughly searched around a couple trees some 25-30' off the path, then a bit farther....zilch!

 

Bro-in-law had just gotten a new Colorado for Xmas. We got online to get a hint & THEN found the location we were searching was the BOGUS COORDS of a Multi-Puzzle!! Did I mention they're noobs? Total waste of time!

 

We proceeded on to another, fairly new cache...."Old Bluffs" or something like that. Got there just before dark, an NC Civil War Trails site, so I walked straight to the 'usual' place for these hides. BINGO! Pulled out the magnetic nano, & opened 'er up to sign. Instead of a log, I found a strip of paper bearing: "Final Coordinates for Battle Rattle are: ##° ##.### -###° ##.###" (with real numbers in place of #'s).

 

WTH??!?!??

 

I didn't have ANY info on the 2(?) caches we'd gone after....didn't know what Sis & B-I-L had planned....I's just along for the ride. I wuz even less prepared than a Load-'n-Goer. Didn't even know until later the 2nd WASN'T a stage of the first we'd tried....not even that it had the different "Old Bluffs" name.

 

After I got back home, next day I of course looked 'em up on Groundspeak to try & make sense of this fiasco.

 

First thing that became obvious: for SOME reason, a new cache had been allowed to be placed "illegally-near" a prior cache. Now, being one who actually HAS read the Guidelines, I know the reasoning underlying the 'oversaturation rule' is to prevent someone accidentally finding one (the wrong) cache while looking for another, which is exactly what we'd done. So how did this 'exception' legitimately occur?

 

Then it hit me. Figured it out yet? Like Vinny, I'll let you play awhile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer:

The old "mystery coordinates" bugaboo strikes again! The "Battle Rattle" multi was about 3 years old -- i.e., grandfathered, from before when all stages of a multi's true coords were made a requirement on the cache-filing. The newer "Old Bluffs" cache placement was allowed (it's only ~30' away!) becuz the NC Reviewer has no knowledge of the exact coords for that "Battle Rattle" stage's coords, it being a puzzle.

 

Wish they could do something about those dang things. Meanwhile, live & learn!

~*

Edited March 10, 2009 by Star*Hopper

[+traildad]

It seems to me that if the CO is going to move the cache 1600ft so that it violates the normal distance between caches and actually puts one cache inside the other, some kind of note should be made on the cache page. If it were me I would write to the account email and suggest they explain it in the hint.

 

Note? The log type you are looking for is 'Should be Archived'.

I don't mean a note log. I mean they should explain it on the cache page. If it was really a problem, it would not need to be archived, just fix the problem.

[+DanOCan]

Ah heck, I'd log the Find on both caches, thanks the owners for the 2 for 1 special and then never give it a second thought.