+barddzen Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 I'd like to get some opinions here to see if I'm getting frustrated for no reason... I took considerable time to place a cache this past weekend only to find out that some hidden stage of a multi-stage is too close. When I look on the web site, the closest starting point for any cache is at least 950 feet away. Yes, the rules state "any stage of a multi", but how is one to know where these are in relation to a cache I'm trying to post? All I see are the caches in the area and their published coords which I use to validate whether I'm too close or not. IMO there needs to be some up front warning message before I go through the trouble of building and placing a cache only to find out there is some hidden way point that is too close. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 To summarize the many prior discussions of this subject: 1. A warning flag would facilitate cheating on multi's and puzzles. 2. Short of doing all the puzzle and multicaches in the area, the best way to guard against surprises is to ask your reviewer in advance if there's any hidden waypoints near the area you've targeted for a cache placement. Quote Link to comment
+wimseyguy Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 3. If you are planning to hide a cache, and see that there are puzzles and multis nearby, it might be wise to find them and save the waypoints before placing your hide to avoid said frustration. Quote Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 By nearby - I would assume that any puzzle or multi within 2 miles of your proposed spot is a possibility of having a stage nearby. Solve them or ask - best you can do. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 ...Thoughts? If you can't get your cache listed here and there isn't any likelyhood of confusion with the other cache's final location, list it somewhere else. You have already invested the time in placing what hopefully is a worthy cache. Quote Link to comment
+Star*Hopper Posted March 30, 2009 Share Posted March 30, 2009 Asked & well answered - but it's just an unfortunate by-product or consequence of the Guidelines, so don't let it get ya down. Some of the longest baseballs I've ever hit landed in foul territory. Happened to you....it's happened to me....it happens to the best of us....and the worst. "It" happens. I for one, & I'm sure many others, wish TPTB could find some viable other way..... but at least by asking in here, you've learned the present best workaround. Good luck with your cache - wherever it finally lands! ~* Quote Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 By nearby - I would assume that any puzzle or multi within 2 miles of your proposed spot is a possibility of having a stage nearby. Solve them or ask - best you can do. Puzzle, yes. But there's no telling with multis. The vast majority of multis have all stages with a half mile of the start. But a few go farther, and some go extreme distances - across states and countries. Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 When I am contemplating a new hide, my first look will be at Google Earth. This gives me a fairly general idea concerning what is in the area. If I see the posted coords for any puzzles or multis within a couple miles, and I can't determine where the final or stages are, I'll send a note to my local reviewer asking about the coords for my potential hide. They've always been quite helpful. While this is not a perfect solution, it's the best I can come up with. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 IMO there needs to be some up front warning message before I go through the trouble of building and placing a cache only to find out there is some hidden way point that is too close. What did you have in mind for an up front warning message? The guidelines are pretty clear The cache saturation guideline applies to all physical stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, as well as any other stages entered as "stages of a multicache." Since you checked a box that you read an understood the guidelines I say this serves as a warning that even if you checked there were no traditional caches within .1 miles of where you are placing your cache, your cache might still not be published. True that if you are really trying to make sure you've met all the guidelines this seems to be the only one that can only be checked by the reviewer who has access to all of the relevant waypoints. So it may seem unfair. You can tell if there are active railroad tracks nearby or if you are too close to an elementary school, but short of solving all the puzzles and multis in the area you are rolling the dice when you submit a cache to be published. Now the reviewers see it differently. For every cache they turn down for being too close to a multicache stage or the final of a mystery/puzzle cache, they turn down many more where the person didn't even check the guidelines they could easily check - like how close it is to an existing traditional cache. The reviewers see the problem with people not following the guidelines, not with people who try to follow the guidelines but get caught because of a multicache or puzzle. It happens so rarely (as far as reviewers are concerned) as to not be a problem. Instead the reviewers are happy to help you out if you're in doubt about whether there are hidden waypoints you need to be concerned about. You can ask in advance before placing your cache, or you can wait till your cache is turned down and then work with your reviewer to find a place you can move it to. As far as an automated system to do this so you don't have to bother your reviewer, I haven't heard of a reviewer who feels this is outside of their job. They'd much prefer to work with cachers who are trying to follow the guidelines than those who just check the box and haven't even looked at the guidelines. It has been pointed out the an automated system could be abused to find the locations of puzzles with out having to solve them. Any attempts to make it hard to use for this purpose would also make it hard to use for the purpose of checking for OK locations for placing a cache. In addition, the .1 mile distance is a rule of thumb. Reviewers will often grant exceptions - particularly if they are aware of a physical obstacle between your cache and the existing cache. And they may even require a greater distance if the park manager has stricter cache placement guidelines. If we had an automated check system people would complain when a reviewer didn't publish a cache that the system said was OK or if a person saw a location that the system said was not OK and the reviewer published anyway. Quote Link to comment
+undertree Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 On occasion I have sent reviewers emails about proposed locations and have had it ignored completely. I have also sent the email about a new spot and received almost instant replies. Asking a reviewer is a very good way to go. I have to ask about most of my new caches because there are several puzzles that I can not solve near my house. I also wish there was an automated system that would give you an idea if your spot is acceptable. One way to cut down on the abuse of those who would take the time to triangulate a puzzle is to only allow one request per day or per 12 hour period. But I ain't holdin my breath. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 One way to cut down on the abuse of those who would take the time to triangulate a puzzle is to only allow one request per day or per 12 hour period. Keystone's months-long "Battleship" story is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as fully as if set forth in its entirety within this posting. Quote Link to comment
jholly Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 (edited) I also wish there was an automated system that would give you an idea if your spot is acceptable. One way to cut down on the abuse of those who would take the time to triangulate a puzzle is to only allow one request per day or per 12 hour period. But I ain't holdin my breath. Lets see, you send your reviewer an email. About a day later you get an email in return. Seems like the 24 hour waiting period is all ready there. At least with a review they can figure out your playing battleships and approve a cache just to screw you over. With an automated system there is no checks. And why do you think someone would be deterred just because it takes them a few days to triangulate? Yes, don't hold your breath, it ain't going to happen. Jim Edited March 31, 2009 by jholly Quote Link to comment
+Kit Fox Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 Keystone's months-long "Battleship" story is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as fully as if set forth in its entirety within this posting. That was one of the best stories you posted on the forum. A great ending to an "epic battle." Quote Link to comment
+undertree Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 I also wish there was an automated system that would give you an idea if your spot is acceptable. One way to cut down on the abuse of those who would take the time to triangulate a puzzle is to only allow one request per day or per 12 hour period. But I ain't holdin my breath. Lets see, you send your reviewer an email. About a day later you get an email in return. Seems like the 24 hour waiting period is all ready there. At least with a review they can figure out your playing battleships and approve a cache just to screw you over. With an automated system there is no checks. And why do you think someone would be deterred just because it takes them a few days to triangulate? Yes, don't hold your breath, it ain't going to happen. Jim Yes that is fine. What about the requests that I have sent more than once that were never answered? I finally figured that I was not going to get an answer on those. Win some Lose some I suppose. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 One way to cut down on the abuse of those who would take the time to triangulate a puzzle is to only allow one request per day or per 12 hour period. Keystone's months-long "Battleship" story is hereby incorporated herein by this reference as fully as if set forth in its entirety within this posting. Someone forgot to take his lawyer cap off. Quote Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 What about the requests that I have sent more than once that were never answered? Can you elaborate? You are asking on a public forum about requests you've sent in private. While we might guess at an answer, without knowing who you sent the requests to, and the actual content of those requests, speculation is the best you're gonna get. Quote Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted April 1, 2009 Share Posted April 1, 2009 What about the requests that I have sent more than once that were never answered? Can you elaborate? You are asking on a public forum about requests you've sent in private. While we might guess at an answer, without knowing who you sent the requests to, and the actual content of those requests, speculation is the best you're gonna get. Just a guess, but I'd bet the poster forgot to check the "include my email address" box. So the reviewer's reply went to the bit bucket. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.