What's going on?

[+thekennelat79]

For the second time in 2 months, a new cache has been published which is right on top of an existing one.

 

Back in April, one appeared which was 185' from a waypoint container on one of my multicaches.

I notified the reviewer who had approved the new cache, and suggested that he might like to consider the situation, but no action was ever taken and I have had no response from him.

 

This week, another new one (a traditional) has been published which is only 138' from an existing final cache box of mine.

I have notified the reviewer (of the new cache) of this matter and am waiting for a response.

 

In the past, I have had a new cache submission refused because it lay within 528' of a waypoint on an existing multi. Fair enough, I couldn't argue with that.

 

I know that the 528' / 0.1 mile separation between caches is a guideline, rather than an absolute rule, but this does seem to be pushing things a bit much.

 

Or is it a sign that the reviewers are overloaded with work, and not able to check out cache submissions as well as they used to?

[+keehotee]

Were the existing caches published before the additional waypoints bit was added to the listing requirements?

If they predate that, it might be that the reviewer - especially if they aren't the original reviewer - isn't aware that there are other physical containers there...??

[+thekennelat79]

That's a possibility for the first instance.

But it still doesn't explain why the reviewer did not/would not communicate with me.

 

For this week's instance, the location of my existing cache is clearly visible as a waypoint on the cache page(although shown as a waypoint with no co-ordinates because it's a Puzzle cache).

However, the actual true location of the cache would have been visible to any Reviewer

[+keehotee]

I suppose it's possible that the reviewers use Google maps to show existing cache locations, and the recent glitches with that caused it ??

[+mtn-man]

There would be a published log on the new cache page. Write that reviewer. If your waypoint was entered as an additional waypoint and they missed it, they can retract a listing if it is a problem. I've messed up before and had to do that. It is a stinker, but if it has to be done then it has to be done.

 

In addition, check all of your caches and make sure you have additional waypoints added to them. Even if they are completely hidden, they should be able to check proximity against them.

[+stonefielders]

if i place a new cache within 161 metres of the actual location of a puzzle cache, what happens?

is it rejected or accepted?

sorry if its slightly off subject but I've been meaning to ask this for some time

[+SidAndBob]

Surely reviewers have a tool which tells them if the new cache is within 528' of an existing cache or physical stage? Don't alarms go off and stuff?

Or am I being nieve?

[+thekennelat79]

In answer to Stonefields......

 

"Officially", no cache container can be placed within 528' / 161m / 0.1 miles of any other physical cache container (even if the other one is a waypoint on a multi). The only way that the separation can be reduced is if the other original waypoint is not a physical container, ie some information which needs to be collected from a sign or something.

There is no minimum separation between waypoints on the same multi.

 

I'm sure that the above info is correct, but please let me know if I have misinterpreted things.

 

With regard to my original post.....

 

I have just heard back from the Reviewer who allowed the new cache to be placed on top of my existing one, earlier this week. No Names, No Packdrill

He has been honest enough to admit that he made a genuine error, and he tells me that he will ask for the new cache to be moved.

[+The Blorenges]

I've just had a word with The Big Green Bird and he assures me the arcane black magic spells used when checking caches like this were working fine but there was a slight glitch between the chair and the keyboard resulting in the misinterpretation of the data presented through the graphical user interface.

 

Chris (MrB)

[+MooToo]

It happened close to us earlier this year,we grabbed an FTF then reported it to the reviewer and subsequently it was archived,shame it was better than the other that meant it had to be archived,alls fair in caching and war...... MooToo

[+purple_pineapple]

In answer to Stonefields......

 

"Officially", no cache container can be placed within 528' / 161m / 0.1 miles of any other physical cache container (even if the other one is a waypoint on a multi). The only way that the separation can be reduced is if the other original waypoint is not a physical container, ie some information which needs to be collected from a sign or something.

There is no minimum separation between waypoints on the same multi.

 

I'm sure that the above info is correct, but please let me know if I have misinterpreted things.

 

With regard to my original post.....

 

I have just heard back from the Reviewer who allowed the new cache to be placed on top of my existing one, earlier this week. No Names, No Packdrill

He has been honest enough to admit that he made a genuine error, and he tells me that he will ask for the new cache to be moved.

 

I believe that close caches can also be published if there is a significant physical barrier between the two - ie a river, cliff, or uncrossable railway line. As ever, reviewer discretion applies, but you're on fairly firm ground in these situations!

 

Dave

[+keehotee]

caches can also be published if there is a significant physical barrier between the two - ie a river, cliff, or uncrossable railway line. ............ but you're on fairly firm ground in these situations!

 

... or not, as the case might be

Edited June 9, 2009 by keehotee

[+thekennelat79]

I've just had a word with The Big Green Bird and he assures me the arcane black magic spells used when checking caches like this were working fine but there was a slight glitch between the chair and the keyboard resulting in the misinterpretation of the data presented through the graphical user interface.

 

Chris (MrB)

 

Tell him to Drink More Beer

[Deceangi]

Sorry but I've been so busy not just with being a Carer, but also trying to keep on top of the huge No of cache submissions and Landowner issues that have come in recently that I have a email backlog, which at the moment I'm just not getting on top off.

 

In regards to the issue with

Back in April, one appeared which was 185' from a waypoint container on one of my multicaches.

I notified the reviewer who had approved the new cache, and suggested that he might like to consider the situation, but no action was ever taken and I have had no response from him.

 

I fully and properly Reviewed the new cache submission, the GC System Tool which flags up Proximity Issues, showed that there was no proximity issue for the following reason.

 

Whilst you have posted the coordinates of the Final Container as a hidden Additional Waypoint, you have not posted the coordinates of the Physical Stage which is the one with the Proximity issue as a Additional Waypoint. As such I had no way of knowing that there was a Proximity Issue.

 

Also the owner of the cache causing the Proximity Issue has been relocated since publication, a move which was checked for proximity issues by a Reviewer as part of a standard check on all moves. The cache is not flagging up as being in proximity to any other cache or physical component of another cache.

 

Deci

[+stonefielders]

In answer to Stonefields......

 

"Officially", no cache container can be placed within 528' / 161m / 0.1 miles of any other physical cache container (even if the other one is a waypoint on a multi). The only way that the separation can be reduced is if the other original waypoint is not a physical container, ie some information which needs to be collected from a sign or something.

There is no minimum separation between waypoints on the same multi.

 

I'm sure that the above info is correct, but please let me know if I have misinterpreted things.

 

Thats what I thought

So consider the scene

I place a cache

The reviewer tells me its within 161m of the final for a puzzle. But I don't know where this final is.

Will the reviewer tell me the location of the final? Doubt it

So if I have to relocate it, how do I know whether my cache is more than 161m from this final if I don't know the final coords?

An interesting dilemma.

Over to you reviewers. What do you do?

Edited June 9, 2009 by stonefielders

[+Pharisee]

In answer to Stonefields......

 

"Officially", no cache container can be placed within 528' / 161m / 0.1 miles of any other physical cache container (even if the other one is a waypoint on a multi). The only way that the separation can be reduced is if the other original waypoint is not a physical container, ie some information which needs to be collected from a sign or something.

There is no minimum separation between waypoints on the same multi.

 

I'm sure that the above info is correct, but please let me know if I have misinterpreted things.

 

Thats what I thought

So consider the scene

I place a cache

The reviewer tells me its within 161m of the final for a puzzle. But I don't know where this final is.

Will the reviewer tell me the location of the final? Doubt it

So if I have to relocate it, how do I know whether my cache is more than 161m from this final if I don't know the final coords?

An interesting dilemma.

Over to you reviewers. What do you do?

 

I would think that they would say something along the lines of... "Your new cache is too close to the final location of an existing puzzle cache. Would you please re-locate it at least 100/200/whatever feet north/south/whatever." That would then give the setter of the new cache an idea of which way to move it without giving away the exact location of the puzzle cache.... simples

[Wilting]

Or they might say "As your cache is so close to GCxxxxx, your best bet is to complete that cache and you will then know exactly where the problem container is."

[+purple_pineapple]

Or they might say "As your cache is so close to GCxxxxx, your best bet is to complete that cache and you will then know exactly where the problem container is."

 

i don't think thats common practice, especially round my neck of the woods (puzzleland!) as that sort of information could be significant help in solving the puzzle! Some of my locals have coords that are deliberately many miles from the final, as they can be 'reverse engineered' if you know the approximate area...

 

usual practice follows Pharisee's post I believe...

[+keehotee]

Some of my locals have coords that are deliberately many miles from the final, as they can be 'reverse engineered' if you know the approximate area...

 

 

Surely not...???

 

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

Unless a good reason otherwise can be provided, the posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles (2-3 km) away from the true cache location.

[+Happy Humphrey]

There have been cases where, desperate to find a difficult puzzle cache location, a team has submitted a pattern of new "caches" in the likely area in the hope that ("battleships" style) one of them is refused by the reviewer as being too close to the puzzle cache final location.

 

The reviewer then kindly gives away the location of the offending puzzle cache by suggesting that the new cache is moved a certain distance in a certain direction. At which point the team calculates the position and sets out to find the nagging cache.

 

I seem to recall that reviewers are wise to this kind of technique nowadays and will take care to make such information too vague to be much help!

[+mtn-man]

You are correct sir. I make people go find the cache in question. If they cannot, they have not move on.

 

These two posts are also pretty much spot on. Nice job thekennelat79 and purple_pineapple.