Earthcache Denials

[+Shreklets]

I am just wondering, is anyone else having trouble getting an earthcache published since the decision to do away with Bronze and Silver?

 

I have submitted two earthcaches, one for me and one for my son, so that we could get our silver pins. Both were denied with the only explanation being that it was not earth science related. One was an underground spring that had been tapped and brought to the surface so that people could drink from it. The other was a man-made spillway to control flooding at a man-made lake.

 

Both seem to be earth science related to me and there are several similar earthcaches posted. I even took information from those caches to use in the design of my cache pages. Those were published but mine denied.

 

Is it possible that they are declining them so they don't have to give us our silver pins? If that is the case, it sucks!

[+Matthew 7:7 Too]

They certainly seems to be tightening up their acceptance criteria, as I recently found. But by adding more details of the geological strata affecting the landscape around my cache, and resubmitting it, I got it published. Perhaps you could add details of the rock strata that allow the water to run along underground before emerging?

 

I doubt they ave refused to accept your caches just to reduce the number of people getting their bronze and silver pins, but I expect that this decision has created a huge surge in demand as people all try to beat the deadline!

 

I applied for my bronze pin at the start of July, and the pin has just arrived in the UK. I applied for my silver pin yesterday, having just met its requirements, and hope my application has beaten the deadline. Time will tell...

 

Keep trying to get your caches accepted, and if they turn then down ask for guidance on what you need to do to meet their expectations.

 

Matthew 7:7 Too

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I am just wondering, is anyone else having trouble getting an earthcache published since the decision to do away with Bronze and Silver?

 

I have submitted two earthcaches, one for me and one for my son, so that we could get our silver pins. Both were denied with the only explanation being that it was not earth science related. One was an underground spring that had been tapped and brought to the surface so that people could drink from it. The other was a man-made spillway to control flooding at a man-made lake.

 

Both seem to be earth science related to me and there are several similar earthcaches posted. I even took information from those caches to use in the design of my cache pages. Those were published but mine denied.

 

Is it possible that they are declining them so they don't have to give us our silver pins? If that is the case, it sucks!

I don't think Geoaware would change the standards which would frustrate new ECers just to save a few pins! Maybe the standards have tightened but not to save pins. Maybe the standards needed to be changed.

[+Neos 1]

Words of wisdom from M7:7 and KK as well. I'm pretty sure the GSA has better things to do than deprive one cacher of a pin or two. By all accounts, Geoaware is a busy man. If you're having trouble getting your EC approved, make it a little stronger in the geology department and maybe a little less focus on the man made aspects of your intended site.

 

Without having seen your write up, I don't know what information you included but I have a couple of suggestions. For the spring, have you included information about the aquifer, i.e. size, depth, volume of water, origin, reason for bringing the water to the surface? I'm guessing the other one is on the Savannah River. Have you included fun facts like why the dam is there (I'm guessing flood control, mainly), the drainage area of the river, could you possibly tie the site to the local strata? That would work for either one.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand your frustration. I know of at least one EC in my area that is similar to one of the ideas that you submitted and I wondered myself how it got approved as it is a man made feature. IMHO, the guidelines for EC's could've been tightened a while back and this branch of the game would not have suffered. I hope this helps in your quest to get your EC approved.

[+Shreklets]

Well, three tries later and still no approval. Seems kind of a mute point now. We were trying very hard to get our silver pins and as of this moment the deadline has passed.

 

I cannot express how disappointed I am in EarthCaching. We spent hundreds of dollars in gas to get the EarthCaches we needed to get our pin and to make it all the way up to the deadline fighting to get one lousy cache published to get our pin, only to get smacked down.

 

I think this sucks. I am sorry if that offends anyone, but it really hurts that we tried so hard and failed. My 8 year old is devastated by this. He pushed me and pushed me to go find the caches and then to submit the caches so we could get our pins.

 

Oh well. Guess that about sums it up. Not sure we will even try anymore EarthCaches. What is the point now?

[+mfamilee]

Oh well. Guess that about sums it up. Not sure we will even try anymore EarthCaches. What is the point now?

I can understand being disappointed, but to give up earthcaches just because of a pin?

 

That would be like if GS stopped giving out smilies for logged cache finds. Would you stop finding caches then?

 

I thought the reason behind earthcaches was bringing people to interesting sites to learn more about geology in a fun way... not only about collecting pins.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Oh well. Guess that about sums it up. Not sure we will even try anymore EarthCaches. What is the point now?

 

We know it can be difficult getting an EarthCache approved but please don't give up. The pin is not worth you giving up the fun of finding and placing ECs.

[+Shreklets]

We were just frustrated. I know you guys can understand.

 

We will continue to hunt EarthCaches, but I will have to give placing one some thought.

 

Thanks for all the support.

[+Shreklets]

It seems that the lag time to get a response from EarthCache.org has increased. I have not heard a word on my submission from last Friday. It was about 2 days to get a response.

 

Greg

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

It seems that the lag time to get a response from EarthCache.org has increased. I have not heard a word on my submission from last Friday. It was about 2 days to get a response.

 

Greg

Hang in there.

While Marge and I have gotten a handful of ECs approved, sometimes it takes several days. I think like everything else, EC submittals go up and they go down and with a limited staff, Geoaware can get swamped with them.

Above all, don't give up.

[+Tank and Spaz]

Dont worry to much, I created one, filed for the Silver status, and got the web icon. I tried before, it got kicked. So I resubmitted, changed a few things and its approved. Now I wait for geocaching to approve it.... its been sitting for a week now....

[+danieloliveira]

Dont worry to much, I created one, filed for the Silver status, and got the web icon. I tried before, it got kicked. So I resubmitted, changed a few things and its approved. Now I wait for geocaching to approve it.... its been sitting for a week now....

 

I've waited up to 3 weeks for replies in some cases. We should all remember that in July the record for submissions of EC's was broken. I have the data from the Facebook group:

Quoting: "Friends, it's official. July 2009 has blown wide the record number for EarthCaches in one month with a whopping 498 submissions received. Our previous record of 342 was set last August. Thank you all for your hard work!

Cache on, ......"

 

Imagine having to go through all those. Be patient.

[+Carbon Hunter]

Yes - and the once or twice I have had some comments on my caches - geoaware has helped.

[+MsJules]

Two of my three EarthCaches were approved the day after I submitted them. I had to work with geoaware on the other to move my coordinates away from a Virtual that is in the area, but that's it. I may be in the minority, I know they are swamped right now.

 

It's all about working within the guidelines and making sure you are focusing on the geologic features of an area. A lot of my friends gave me ideas for EarthCaches that were marshlands, wildlife areas, reservoirs, etc. that had no geological significance, and I had to keep telling them to focus on the geology, not the ecology or biology of an area. Just my two cents.

[gorfou]

I don't think that the acceptance criteria are tightening , I am wondering if the GSA team are able to keep up approving earthcache with the large number of submissions they receive. I have visited an earthcache that has been published in the last few days. Apart from being on the very same subject of at least two other earthcache in the vicinity, the description is written in the local language only (french) ! I thought that every earthcache description has to be written at the very least in english ? I am disappointed to see that GSA are approving poor earthcache but even more earthcaches that does not fulfill the requirements. I think it is important to keep at least a minimum standard on earthcache to make sure that earthcache stay there for a long time.

 

gorfou

 

P.S. Sorry for my english! but this is worth mentionning!

[+Cav Scout]

Nevermind...

Edited September 30, 2009 by Cav Scout

[+Cav Scout]

Anyone else having problems getting their recent earthcache listings published?

[+Carbon Hunter]

Anyone else having problems getting their recent earthcache listings published?

 

Yep - the reason for one of mine was that it was more GEOGRAPHY orientated rather than GEOLOGY orientated.

 

Does this mean a shift in the criteria? I thought Earth Science in the broader sense included Physical Geogrpahy - landforms, fluvial systems, erosion, depostion etc.?

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Currently, I am not having any trouble getting any approved but I don't have any ECs submitted.

As a matter of fact, I am not motivated to submit future ECs. With the recent so-called TOP TEN list and the very significant emphasis on the write up and very little attention to the actual location, I am just not enthusiastic about doing more ECs!

The guidelines call for the EC page to be the that of a 14 year olds comprehension level but we are led to believe that our EC should follow the examples of the so-called top ten! Please, TOP TEN owners, your ECs are great and keep it up but they are not at a 14 year olds comprehension level! I have no quarrel with you! I repeat, I have no quarrel with the 10 ECs or their owners but I don't like a significant deviation from the suggested guidelines being thrown in our faces!

I have between a Masters and a PhD and it is obviously not in geology, but I have always tried to write at the suggested level or not much higher. Repeated refusals to publish have 'pushed' me to learn more geology and that is good. But, more lines of information doesn't necessarily mean a better EarthCache. Sometimes it just more lines of information! Obviously, our emphasis has been on location, but I guess that's is not what is the most important. It looks some refusals are based on something other than the guidelines.

I repeat the question that was posed earlier: What is an EarthCache? Is it the write up or is it the ACTUAL geological phenomena (location)?

Maybe some of each.....please?

[+Cav Scout]

I'm patiently waiting to hear from geoaware on this one.

 

I look at earthcaching as a guide to take me to interesting locations. Earths natural wonders have been here much longer than the lessons/science/guesses learned from geology. No matter what you tell me or what I read, seeing the actual location is what impresses me the most.

 

I can write up a stupendous listing about water falls, add pretty pictures, charts, diagrams, and make you think you are actually going to a real water fall, but in reality I may only take you to a man made waterfall in front of a shopping mall. But hey the write up was good, wasnt it!

 

Earthcaches are about the location, something found for all to share. If earthcaches are going to focus on "WHO" wrote them up and not the regular geocacher who has been encouraged to do a "SIMPLE" write up, then I agree with Konnarock Kid and will stop wasting my time submitting more earthcaches. Maybe this is what geoaware wants...

 

Currently, I am not having any trouble getting any approved but I don't have any ECs submitted.

As a matter of fact, I am not motivated to submit future ECs. With the recent so-called TOP TEN list and the very significant emphasis on the write up and very little attention to the actual location, I am just not enthusiastic about doing more ECs!

The guidelines call for the EC page to be the that of a 14 year olds comprehension level but we are led to believe that our EC should follow the examples of the so-called top ten! Please, TOP TEN owners, your ECs are great and keep it up but they are not at a 14 year olds comprehension level! I have no quarrel with you! I repeat, I have no quarrel with the 10 ECs or their owners but I don't like a significant deviation from the suggested guidelines being thrown in our faces!

I have between a Masters and a PhD and it is obviously not in geology, but I have always tried to write at the suggested level or not much higher. Repeated refusals to publish have 'pushed' me to learn more geology and that is good. But, more lines of information doesn't necessarily mean a better EarthCache. Sometimes it just more lines of information! Obviously, our emphasis has been on location, but I guess that's is not what is the most important. It looks some refusals are based on something other than the guidelines.

I repeat the question that was posed earlier: What is an EarthCache? Is it the write up or is it the ACTUAL geological phenomena (location)?

Maybe some of each.....please?

Edited October 9, 2009 by Cav Scout

[+Geoextreme87]

Anyone else having problems getting their recent earthcache listings published?

 

Yep - the reason for one of mine was that it was more GEOGRAPHY orientated rather than GEOLOGY orientated.

 

Does this mean a shift in the criteria? I thought Earth Science in the broader sense included Physical Geogrpahy - landforms, fluvial systems, erosion, depostion etc.?

 

Everything that you have listed are geology topics and perhaps the problem deals more about lack of the geology info for that actual site itself (ie. rock formations of that area and how they correlate to landforms seen)? Without seeing your write up I would not really know.

 

As for the physical geography request at first I would say they are different as geography is putting a relationship with the human interaction with the natural processes. However after more thought there is a broad area that they both cover and there are ECs out there (Not to mention fully published geologic papers) that successfully hit this criteria (ie. Iron Age Forts, Dams, etc). So I guess try to see if more of an emphasis can be lead on the physical properties of the local rocks themselves.

 

Hope that is of some help

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I totally agree with Cav Scout.

Second thoughts and trying to remember the "Golden Rule" has caused me the drastically edit this post and to remove some of the harshness!

If I have offended anyone, that was not my desire.

My plea is simple: my opinion and mine only, I want to see EarthCaching to be for All EarthCachers and hopefully we can strike a balance between the accuracy and style of the write up and the WOW factor of the actual EarthCache. In other words, you (we) non-geologists step it up a bit and take the time to learn a little bit about geology. For the geologists, remember that your readers are by-and-large non-geologists and are not interested it seeking an advanced degree in geology!

I want all EarthCachers to be treated equally and while the educational experience of visiting an EarthCache is critical, experiencing what Mother Nature has created is also important! Thanks.

 

 

I'm patiently waiting to hear from geoaware on this one.

 

I look at earthcaching as a guide to take me to interesting locations. Earths natural wonders have been here much longer than the lessons/science/guesses learned from geology. No matter what you tell me or what I read, seeing the actual location is what impresses me the most.

 

I can write up a stupendous listing about water falls, add pretty pictures, charts, diagrams, and make you think you are actually going to a real water fall, but in reality I may only take you to a man made waterfall in front of a shopping mall. But hey the write up was good, wasnt it!

 

Earthcaches are about the location, something found for all to share. If earthcaches are going to focus on "WHO" wrote them up and not the regular geocacher who has been encouraged to do a "SIMPLE" write up, then I agree with Konnarock Kid and will stop wasting my time submitting more earthcaches. Maybe this is what geoaware wants...

 

Currently, I am not having any trouble getting any approved but I don't have any ECs submitted.

The guidelines call for the EC page to be the that of a 14 year olds comprehension level. The write up is important but without the actual location, there would be no need for a write up!

I repeat the question that was posed earlier: What is an EarthCache? Is it the write up or is it the ACTUAL geological phenomena (location)?

Maybe some of each.....please?

Edited October 10, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+geoaware]

I honestly don't know why some people think there is some hidden guidelines for EarthCaches? The only guidelines we use are those published. Most of the delay issues we have are people not getting the appropriate permissions prior to submitting....that along with over 500 submitals a month.

 

While I understand and appreciate the comments on what makes an EarthCache, at the end of the day the Earth has millions of WOW sites just waiting to become EarthCaches - and they need to be explained for people so they understand at what they are seeing. In some cases, these require just a few words. In other instances the explanation needs to be longer. Either way, you need to have some basic understanding of Earth science principals to educate others - but this does not put a limit on anyone as the understanding only needs to be basic and, for most sites, can be found out doing a simple web search.

 

In my opinion, many EarthCaches contain too much information that is not required for the site. But if that is what the developers wants, we let it through.

 

I am more concerned that people want EarthCaches to be turned into just WOW sites, and not places where people will learn about our planet!

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I honestly don't know why some people think there is some hidden guidelines for EarthCaches? The only guidelines we use are those published. Most of the delay issues we have are people not getting the appropriate permissions prior to submitting....that along with over 500 submitals a month.

 

While I understand and appreciate the comments on what makes an EarthCache, at the end of the day the Earth has millions of WOW sites just waiting to become EarthCaches - and they need to be explained for people so they understand at what they are seeing. In some cases, these require just a few words. In other instances the explanation needs to be longer. Either way, you need to have some basic understanding of Earth science principals to educate others - but this does not put a limit on anyone as the understanding only needs to be basic and, for most sites, can be found out doing a simple web search.

 

In my opinion, many EarthCaches contain too much information that is not required for the site. But if that is what the developers wants, we let it through.

 

I am more concerned that people want EarthCaches to be turned into just WOW sites, and not places where people will learn about our planet!

 

Thank you for the reply!

[+Indotguy]

I honestly don't know why some people think there is some hidden guidelines for EarthCaches? The only guidelines we use are those published. Most of the delay issues we have are people not getting the appropriate permissions prior to submitting....that along with over 500 submitals a month.

 

While I understand and appreciate the comments on what makes an EarthCache, at the end of the day the Earth has millions of WOW sites just waiting to become EarthCaches - and they need to be explained for people so they understand at what they are seeing. In some cases, these require just a few words. In other instances the explanation needs to be longer. Either way, you need to have some basic understanding of Earth science principals to educate others - but this does not put a limit on anyone as the understanding only needs to be basic and, for most sites, can be found out doing a simple web search.

 

In my opinion, many EarthCaches contain too much information that is not required for the site. But if that is what the developers wants, we let it through.

 

I am more concerned that people want EarthCaches to be turned into just WOW sites, and not places where people will learn about our planet!

 

In my opinion, creating an award system which included the number of published ECs as a requirement tended to stress quantity over quality. This requirement most likely resulted in an increase of EC submittals approved and in turn, more submittals denied. It would be interesting to know how many players (with little or no interest in the subject) submitted ECs for approval simply to earn a 'pin' who otherwise would not have.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I honestly don't know why some people think there is some hidden guidelines for EarthCaches? The only guidelines we use are those published. Most of the delay issues we have are people not getting the appropriate permissions prior to submitting....that along with over 500 submitals a month.

 

While I understand and appreciate the comments on what makes an EarthCache, at the end of the day the Earth has millions of WOW sites just waiting to become EarthCaches - and they need to be explained for people so they understand at what they are seeing. In some cases, these require just a few words. In other instances the explanation needs to be longer. Either way, you need to have some basic understanding of Earth science principals to educate others - but this does not put a limit on anyone as the understanding only needs to be basic and, for most sites, can be found out doing a simple web search.

 

In my opinion, many EarthCaches contain too much information that is not required for the site. But if that is what the developers wants, we let it through.

 

I am more concerned that people want EarthCaches to be turned into just WOW sites, and not places where people will learn about our planet!

 

In my opinion, creating an award system which included the number of published ECs as a requirement tended to stress quantity over quality. This requirement most likely resulted in an increase of EC submittal approved and in turn, more submittal denied. It would be interesting to know how many players (with little or no interest in the subject) submitted ECs for approval simply to earn a 'pin' who otherwise would not have.

 

While your thesis that the award system MAY have increased the number of submittals may be correct, I don't see a correlation between increased quanity at the expense of quality. After all, the control point is Geoaware! He may have more work but each cache is either approved or not approved. I don't see a lessening of quality.

As I have stated before: the more the ECs, the more the merrier!

[+Carbon Hunter]

Anyone else having problems getting their recent earthcache listings published?

 

Yep - the reason for one of mine was that it was more GEOGRAPHY orientated rather than GEOLOGY orientated.

 

Does this mean a shift in the criteria? I thought Earth Science in the broader sense included Physical Geogrpahy - landforms, fluvial systems, erosion, depostion etc.?

 

Everything that you have listed are geology topics and perhaps the problem deals more about lack of the geology info for that actual site itself (ie. rock formations of that area and how they correlate to landforms seen)? Without seeing your write up I would not really know.

 

As for the physical geography request at first I would say they are different as geography is putting a relationship with the human interaction with the natural processes. However after more thought there is a broad area that they both cover and there are ECs out there (Not to mention fully published geologic papers) that successfully hit this criteria (ie. Iron Age Forts, Dams, etc). So I guess try to see if more of an emphasis can be lead on the physical properties of the local rocks themselves.

 

Hope that is of some help

 

Thank you Geoextreme87 - definitely helpful.

 

I must admit that the comments back from Geoaware have been helpful in getting my ECs approved finally.

 

I suppose my fault has been adding more info rather than streamlining and adding less.

 

I keep on submitting and trusting that I will get more good quality ECs for fellow cachers.

[+Sioneva]

<snip>

 

It would be interesting to know how many players (with little or no interest in the subject) submitted ECs for approval simply to earn a 'pin' who otherwise would not have.

 

And then there is the subset of the above who DEVELOPED an interest in the subject while working to get their pins and kept it after they earned the pins.

 

Like me.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

<snip>

 

It would be interesting to know how many players (with little or no interest in the subject) submitted ECs for approval simply to earn a 'pin' who otherwise would not have.

 

And then there is the subset of the above who DEVELOPED an interest in the subject while working to get their pins and kept it after they earned the pins.

 

Like me.

 

Very well said. Obtaining each of the four levels for us created a certain momentum that spurred our interest to 1. learn more about geology in order to 2. develop more ECs and to 3. find and appreciate more ECs. If anything, speaking rather immodestly, we have done far better on later ECs than the early ones we developed. Geologists of the World don't drop dead or anything but we have actually learned the difference between the three major rock groups and an example or two of each! Just kidding! Maybe only one example!

Now, knowing full well I have changed my mind on this subject, hint, hint, is there gonna be a life after Platinum? Hope, hope!

[+Sioneva]

<snip>

 

It would be interesting to know how many players (with little or no interest in the subject) submitted ECs for approval simply to earn a 'pin' who otherwise would not have.

 

And then there is the subset of the above who DEVELOPED an interest in the subject while working to get their pins and kept it after they earned the pins.

 

Like me.

 

Very well said. Obtaining each of the four levels for us created a certain momentum that spurred our interest to 1. learn more about geology in order to 2. develop more ECs and to 3. find and appreciate more ECs. If anything, speaking rather immodestly, we have done far better on later ECs than the early ones we developed. Geologists of the World don't drop dead or anything but we have actually learned the difference between the three major rock groups and an example or two of each! Just kidding! Maybe only one example!

Now, knowing full well I have changed my mind on this subject, hint, hint, is there gonna be a life after Platinum? Hope, hope!

 

Working on platinum, here - I just got official permission for my 3rd earthcache!

[+Jeep_Dog]

It has taken 15 days for a response on a recent submission.

 

This is what I got in reply:

 

" I am sorry to inform you that we cannot publish an EarthCache where there is

an existing cache. "

 

Please note that the "existing cache is a virtual. Also note that since the earthcache guidelines state nothing about saturation, that the GC guidelines probably then apply? Just guessing here.

 

So, my reply back -

 

Please help me understand since your guidelines state abstolutely no requirements about these situations. What do I need to change to get this approved - perhaps modify the coordinates to .10 from the "existing cache" (virtual) is located? Nearby is a virtual cache, no physical cache. Even on geocaching.com a cache can be placed at the same spot as a virtual. So, earthcache is willing to let a geological spot to be usurped by a virtual that will eventually be archived on gc.com? You have got to be kidding. Would have been nice to have received an email about these circumstances before the "I'm sorry" not, so please reconsider or at the very least offer up some suggestion to fill in the void of an area which your guidelines provide no insight.

 

Also, please note that IAW with both GC.COM and earthcache guidelines, cache requires permission. When I obtained permission to place this - and understand the land manager was VERY EXCITED to have this earthcache established at this location, I had learned that the virtual already in place had no permission. I secured permission for that cache as well - so, should I perhaps get "mean" and have that one archived by asking the permission to be removed? Or, perhaps, should you offer suggestions to get my request approved?

 

Currently, my assessment of trying to establish a quality earthcache is a pain in the rock.

 

j_d

[+Carbon Hunter]

It has taken 15 days for a response on a recent submission.

 

This is what I got in reply:

 

" I am sorry to inform you that we cannot publish an EarthCache where there is

an existing cache. "

 

Please note that the "existing cache is a virtual. Also note that since the earthcache guidelines state nothing about saturation, that the GC guidelines probably then apply? Just guessing here.

 

So, my reply back -

 

Please help me understand since your guidelines state abstolutely no requirements about these situations. What do I need to change to get this approved - perhaps modify the coordinates to .10 from the "existing cache" (virtual) is located? Nearby is a virtual cache, no physical cache. Even on geocaching.com a cache can be placed at the same spot as a virtual. So, earthcache is willing to let a geological spot to be usurped by a virtual that will eventually be archived on gc.com? You have got to be kidding. Would have been nice to have received an email about these circumstances before the "I'm sorry" not, so please reconsider or at the very least offer up some suggestion to fill in the void of an area which your guidelines provide no insight.

 

Also, please note that IAW with both GC.COM and earthcache guidelines, cache requires permission. When I obtained permission to place this - and understand the land manager was VERY EXCITED to have this earthcache established at this location, I had learned that the virtual already in place had no permission. I secured permission for that cache as well - so, should I perhaps get "mean" and have that one archived by asking the permission to be removed? Or, perhaps, should you offer suggestions to get my request approved?

 

Currently, my assessment of trying to establish a quality earthcache is a pain in the rock.

 

j_d

If possible do the following:

 

1) Is it possible to relocate your cache to the minimum distance from the other existing cache. We should always take cognisence of other's caches that were there before ours - whether they are virtual, actual, have permission or not. that I do not believe is for us to judge. Just get the correct permissions for your cache.

2) You can approcacc the existing cache owner to inform them that you are about to place an EC - I think that is good form too.

3)Perhaps use the current cache location as a waypoint - or child point - and have the actual cache 160m away as is required as the minimum guideline?

 

I hope these help and that both caches can still exist together. I do not believe one should be taken away in preference for another.

[+Carbon Hunter]

BTW: I have submitted 3 ECs recently.

 

The 2 that got approved without question went through very quickly. Within 2 weeks - I was expecting longer.

 

however, the one I was asked to add additional info on - has taken almost as long for the review.

 

So I assume it goes to the bottom of the pile again (I suppose that is fair0 - but I am itching to see if my changes were good enough (I certainly hope so).

[+geodarts]

" I am sorry to inform you that we cannot publish an EarthCache where there is

an existing cache. "

 

In a separate thread last May, Geoaware stated that the only requirement was that earthcaches not have the same coordinates as existing caches. I have developed some earthcaches near virtuals, and some near traditional caches, and have found several earthcaches in the same general location as other types of caches (in some cases within a few feet of each other). Since earthcaches have a different focus, and provide a unique educational experience, I have never thought that these were duplicative. And as a cacher who loves both earthcaches and virtuals, it gives me one added impetus to go to a particular location. I have even found separate earthcaches within a few feet of each other (focusing on separate geological features).

 

Although it is a good idea to let the cache owners for existing caches to know about your plans to develop an earthcache at the location, geoaware also said that this was no longer required.

 

Has there been a change in policy?

Edited November 17, 2009 by Erickson

[+Jeep_Dog]

" I am sorry to inform you that we cannot publish an EarthCache where there is

an existing cache. "

 

Although it is a good idea to let the cache owners for existing caches to know about your plans to develop an earthcache at the location, geoaware also said that this was no longer required.

 

Has there been a change in policy?

 

Apparently there has been a change in policy, since the coordinates were offset 100 feet both LAT/LON from the virtual, and I still got this message. Not sure how I, or anyone else, should know since I've heard nothing back on my queries. Which brings me to the point that perhaps the most frustrating part of this experience is the lack of communication about this process; the EC reviewer has yet to reply one what it is that I need to do to remain within the non-specific (or even specified at all, for that matter) promimity guidelines.

 

I was turning into a huge earthcache fan - but am probably going to be content with just finding them, as opposed to applying my academic knowledge into interesting earthcache sites.

[+geodarts]

Which brings me to the point that perhaps the most frustrating part of this experience is the lack of communication about this process; the EC reviewer has yet to reply one what it is that I need to do to remain within the non-specific (or even specified at all, for that matter) promimity guidelines.

 

I know that geoaware is very busy. After submitting a recent earthcache I got an email from an assistant explaining that it would be awhile before the submission could be reviewed. But he has always responded to my specific questions so I trust he will be addressing your concerns.

 

However, it would be good to know if there are now proximity requirements that are not stated on the earthcache.org submission guidelines. Perhaps that can be clarified here.

[+Jeep_Dog]

... reply with quotes frustration, post deleted.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Jeep_Dog

[+Jeep_Dog]

Which brings me to the point that perhaps the most frustrating part of this experience is the lack of communication about this process; the EC reviewer has yet to reply one what it is that I need to do to remain within the non-specific (or even specified at all, for that matter) promimity guidelines.

 

I know that geoaware is very busy. After submitting a recent earthcache I got an email from an assistant explaining that it would be awhile before the submission could be reviewed. But he has always responded to my specific questions so I trust he will be addressing your concerns.

 

However, it would be good to know if there are now proximity requirements that are not stated on the earthcache.org submission guidelines. Perhaps that can be clarified here.

 

Yes, very busy indeed, as I can only imagine. And, of course, appreciate the wonderful work that he is doing.

 

Please understand that the logic which I am about to lay out in what follows is not a personal attack or disgruntlement - just that which I've learned here in two weeks.

 

So, through this process, I can only share that it seems to me that there are indeed proximity requirements that are not stated on the earthcache.org submission guidelines.

 

First, in the other disuccusion to which you already linked:

 

From Geoware: "GSA no longer requires the permission for the nearby cache owner (but feel that it is common courtesy to contact them). There has never been a 30 foot rule (and to be honest, we wonder where that idea even came from??????)"

 

Our only requirement is that it must not have the same coordinates as an existing cache.

 

After reading the above, I was quite confused as to why the cache which I had submitted was denied due to proximity of a virtual cache. The coordinates were not exact, and were indeed offset. So, as I stated earlier in this discussion, was quite confused as to why my cache was not approved.

 

In a reply to the query, this is what I received:

 

Email from Geoware: The offset of these coordinates is smaller than the reasonable error of most GPS receivers (within 30 feet or so).

 

It seems to me that there is indeed a 30' rule.

 

Update on my cache (for those remotely interested) - it has been pushed to GC.COM, I've adpoted, and still awaiting approval. For what, I am not certain - since the coordinates are definitely "larger than the reasonable error of most GPS receivers (and outside 30 feet or so).

 

Not sure I'm tracking the issue even with the nearby virtual - the virtual takes visitors to one of two atomic cannons ever built. The earthcache takes a look at the 300'+ of bedrock in the bluff upon which the cannon sits. Quite frankly, the coordinates could be spattered here and there along the bluff, but these provide an obvious official trail up the bluff and minimizing geocacher damage/erosion to the bluff (and a VERY small park and area in which permission can be gained).

Edited November 20, 2009 by Jeep_Dog