Multi-cache vs. Cache

[docbosh]

I need some opinions people...

 

Yesterday I placed a new cache.

 

Today the volunteer reviewer said he wouldn't publish because it tunrs out my cache is only 14m from the final location of a mulit-cache. There was no way I could have known that unless I did the multi-cache which had a starting point a long way away.

 

I don't think that it is fair that just because the cache turned out to be 14m from the final destination of a multi-cache that my attempt to place a cache should be invalidated. I only find out about being 14m away once I do all the work.

 

I'm sure some of you will agree that it is a considerable amount of work to place some caches. When you take the precaution to see that you aren't putting your cache too close to another cache with published coords only to be told there is an unpublished cache near by what are you supposed to do? How, precisely, am I supposed to know in advance of the existence of an unpublished cache? It took me 3 separate visits plus the work of averaging the coords to decide upon this location. Then the time to build the hidey hole. This cache was nearly the beginning of what was going to be a multi-cache, but then I decided against it. Good thing too because if it isn't published then a lot more work would have been wasted.

 

While I'm fairly new to it, I really like geocaching, and plan to be active on both sides of the hiding and seeking, At this point I'm not sure I would ever place another cache again for fear that I would be wasting my time. The assumption is that you need people who are willing to take the time to hide caches in order for the game to thrive. I believe other geocachers might feel this way too. I want to place new caches as a means to thank others who have already placed caches for me to find.

 

I think the saturation rule of no less than 161m needs to be relaxed when a situation like this arises.

 

Today my guinea pig testers took 20 minutes to find the cache once they got to the coords. I don't think they'd be too happy to hear that the multi-cache gets to trump the location, wasting their time too. I'd never get my testers to help me again if that were the case.

 

What do others think?

[+mrbort]

Situations seem to come up like this one a lot and they're unfortunate. People seem to say that the best thing to do is to contact your reviewer before you place the cache and find out if the location is okay. It's difficult that it's that way but it's a good starting point so that you don't get to the frustrated situation that you're in now.

 

Hope you can rework your cache to keep it within what you wanted to do while also not bumping up against other caches Good luck!

[GOF and Bacall]

This has come up again and again. I don't think anything is going to change. All you can do is find a new location and find any caches near by. Try checking with your reviewer before you put in any major effort.

[+niraD]

If I understand correctly, then the multi-cache was there first. It may seem unfair, but the pre-existing cache trumps the new one, even if the pre-existing cache is the final location for a puzzle or multi-cache, or some other physical stage of a cache. Those are the guidelines you agreed to when you submitted your cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#sat

 

And 14m isn't that far. If the owners coordinates are 7m off, and the seeker's coordinates are 7m off, then they could easily find one cache when they're searching for the other.

 

Anyway, before investing a lot of effort into custom camouflage that won't work anywhere else, send email to your local reviewer with your intended coordinates. The reviewer can quickly and easily check whether the location passes the saturation guidelines. They're glad to do this for us.

[+Stunod]

How about flipping the circumstances around? Would you like it if someone put a cache only 14m from the final of your multi cache? Wouldn't it upset you if the reviewer didn't protect your spot?

[+Stargazer22]

Precisely the reason anyone who expects to put a lot of effort into hiding their cache should check coordinates with a local reviewer prior to putting a lot of work into it.

In my experience the reviewers are very friendly and will help you if you ask.

 

My opinion - no, I don't think the guidelines should be overlooked in these cases.

[+swizzle]

Wow where are you caching that your to close to a cache at 14 miles and you need to be 161 miles from another cache. That's gotta be a really long multi. I tell you one thing for sure if everyones coords were off by 7 miles I'd get right out of geocaching all together. Swizzle

[docbosh]

I don't see why one cache can't peacefully co-exist with the other in this instance. It's not like mine is going to suddenly make theirs reveal itself...

 

The saturation rule might have been initially necessary, and it makes a good guideline, but it probably isn't absolutely fundamental to the activity. I don't see it as being absolutely essential, and in the future it will probably become a big problem, unless the start giving shelf life to caches so that new caches can come into being. While I'd like to say I can travel too try and find as many of the 300k plus caches hidden globally chances are I'm going to do most of what is close to home, what happens once they are all done?

 

In Montreal Mont Royal could almost provide an infinite number of caches, because it is heavily wooded. Is it less intesting of an activity if I can walk to the next cache in 3 minutes?

 

I may end up having to try and hide this some where else, or not at all.

 

My enthusiam for geocaching, which has been at full tilt (rabid dog as my wife describes it) since starting, has taken a serious hit today. 3 caches placed, all three denied.

 

One because some one placed one the previous day but I only saw it when I got home, one because it is close to the final destination of a multi-cache, and one that I slightly miscalculated the distance and is too close to 2 other caches by a matter of meters each.

 

In the case of the latter I have asked for a review, given that while there is less than the requisite 161m between the others, there is at minimum a 30m difference in elevation that isn't being considered, even if it would take good 4 to 5 minutes hard walking to get between any of them. On a flat without impediment it would take less than 2 minutes to walk 161m, but that is OK.

 

I think that the relevance to the 161m saturation rule may be less so in 2009 than it was in 2000 when this started. As geocaching evolves perhaps certain rules become outmoded.

[docbosh]

How about flipping the circumstances around? Would you like it if someone put a cache only 14m from the final of your multi cache? Wouldn't it upset you if the reviewer didn't protect your spot?

 

Not really, but I guess I'm funny that way...

 

Without full disclosure you didn't perhaps get to hear that it is in a densely wooded park, not the middle of a plantless, rockless desert. In that 50 ft radius are hundreds of trees and rocks.

Edited August 7, 2009 by docbosh

[docbosh]

Wow where are you caching that your to close to a cache at 14 miles and you need to be 161 miles from another cache. That's gotta be a really long multi. I tell you one thing for sure if everyones coords were off by 7 miles I'd get right out of geocaching all together. Swizzle

 

Small "m", even in the States denoted meters, not miles...

[docbosh]

Look, I am willing, though grudingly so, to move it.

 

What I am saying is that if you have to jump through hoops to be able to place caches, contacting reviewers each and everytime you want to place a cache, I see it as too limiting.

Edited August 7, 2009 by docbosh

[+Isonzo Karst]

One of the useful things about the current saturation distance, is that it allows cache owners to move caches. If the distance were to be lowered, I'd suspect an unintended, but necessary consequence, would be that the coords on cache pages would need to be locked.

Every move, or coordinate correction run through a reviewer. This is a Bad Thing.

 

What I am saying is that if you have to jump through hoops to be able to place aches, contacting reviewers each and everytime you want to place a cashe, I see it as too limiting.

 

Whether or not you want to contact a reviewer, you ARE limited by the existence of other caches. You can't simply suppose that any place you want to use is available. It's getting tougher,and tougher, but changing the saturation guideline doesn't help. If it were 100 m instead of 161, you'd still have to know where the other hidden parts of caches were in the area.

 

you have my sympathies on this problem. It used to be possible to have actually found everything around, and save the stage, final and puzzle solution coords in one's own database. That's hardly possible now in many parts of the world.

[+wimseyguy]

I think that the relevance to the 161m saturation rule may be less so in 2009 than it was in 2000 when this started. As geocaching evolves perhaps certain rules become outmoded.

Actually I see it as working the other way. With more and more people out there caching, and many of them drawn to the game simply by the numbers and not the consideration of the cache location itself, I'm beginning to think that 161m/528' is becoming too short a distance.

 

In my experience, most caches do get published without a lot of jumping through hoops nor contacting the reviewer beforehand. Perhaps you are just trying too hard to shoehorn in a few more into an already saturated area?

Edited August 7, 2009 by wimseyguy

[GOF and Bacall]

I think that the relevance to the 161m saturation rule may be less so in 2009 than it was in 2000 when this started. As geocaching evolves perhaps certain rules become outmoded.

 

It is actually even more important now than ever. The more people caching the more caches out there the more likely to be instances of interference. The distance has been set at 528 feet or 161 meters. If they let a couple of meters slide here or a couple of feet go there it won't be long until someone is crying because they let a cache be published that was too close. You just need to learn how to work with the system instead of butting heads with it.

[+ecanderson]

...the final destination of a multi-cache that my attempt to place a cache should be invalidated.

I've asked our reviewer here in Colorado about pre-clearing a set of coordinates, but have had no response ... even after encountering a similar situation. We played this strange back and forth game for a few emails until I managed to locate it at > 1/10 mile.

 

In our area, the problem isn't usually a multi, it's the final for one of a bazillion puzzle caches in the neighborhood. Unless you solve all of the puzzles within a couple miles of your intended cache coordinates (and here, that could easily be 50 or more), you haven't a clue where the minefields are. These can be a real bugger. We had one cache placed not far from where I live that must have taken the guy ages to drag in, only to find out there was a puzzle with an actual GZ within about 100'. He had to drag his large and heavy container out of the woods and relocate it. I'm glad he took the time, as it's still on my Top 10 list.

 

There should be some sort of rule that the admins must give you a hand with pre-clearance on request.

 

Edit:

 

Due to the aggravation factor, I have become aware that cachers placing multis won't always disclose any of the intermediate waypoints if there aren't physical caches associated with them. Seems fair to me. Why should a set of coordinates derived from a virtual waypoint using existing signage for a calculation interefere with the placement of a traditional inside a 1/10th of a mile? That's silly.

Edited August 7, 2009 by ecanderson

[+chrisrayn]

In your case, docbosh, I agree with you 100%.

 

First of all, you had no idea, as you said, that the last stage of a multi-cache was right next to your cache.

 

In ANY case, multi-caches and unknown/mystery caches are a couple of the least-attempted cache types, with traditionals More than flooding the market, so to receive a bonus just for attempting a multi, and getting a quick freebie right after that (even if yours is Very difficult to search for, mind you) is quite alright with me.

 

It's like this one time I had to park and walk 400 feet to a baseball field to grab a cache, and when I got back into the car to look for where the next closest cache was, it was 40 feet behind me IN THE PARKING LOT. I LOVE little moments like that...finding out that geocaching is such a vast game that you're often standing right in front of one just goes to show how great this "underground" sport is.

 

Second of all, I'm sure the reviewers we all have are more than willing to check coordinates for us...but that is seriously somewhat counterproductive.

 

I'm thinking about a couple of things here. If everybody emailed their reviewer ahead of time to okay a coordinate, then that's really Twice as much work for the reviewer, and he/she shouldn't have to deal with that. Of course, as well, if the reviewer is overloaded with caches being submitted for review constantly, and can't attend to the "making sure these coordinates aren't taken" emails, then he's not going to have time to okay a few coordinates right fast, and that's not at all his fault either.

 

I'm also thinking of situations like you mentioned in which somebody didn't have a cache there a day ago, so you placed one, and then it turned out someone published the night you hid yours. You couldn't have known that. The only way to alleviate problems like that is to hold reviewers responsible for knowing what coordinates they've given the all-clear to through informal request emails, and then put "dibs" on those coordinates for said individual. HOWEVER, if that person has dibs, and another person tries to make the informal request only to find out someone is also interested in the location and they have first dibs, but they end up never actually submitting a cache for review, then the second guy who would have gladly submitted his cache the next day can't place his because he was deterred by knowing this.

 

When I think about the way the system works right now, there really does need to be flexibility. I think there should be a caveat within the system that allows for a small margin of error in the distance between caches that allows, in situations where a cache is to be placed between two caches more than 300m apart, that a cache can exist less than 161m but not to exist any closer than 150m apart. Otherwise, the whole of the united states could get pummelled with caches 320 m apart in a staggered-line pattern (like bowling pins...pins on the lower line are horizontally equidistant from the points on either side of it) and use 100 percent of the space available for geocaches with only a saturation of 54 percent of what could blanket the space (theoretically).

 

Additionally, in situations where there are unpublished coordinates as the unseen stages of multicaches or mystery caches, proximity rules should be null and void for one and only one traditional cache. For example: after you place yours in that location also occupied by a stage of a multicache, that location is unavailable in the future for traditional And multicaches. HOWEVER, multi and mystery caches should ONLY be counted for their original starting coordinates, with stages of the multicache not coming within 161m of existing traditional caches and origin points of multis and mysteries, and new traditional caches not to be placed within 5m of a stage of a multicache (i'm quite certain you could have found a spot 5m away from your current location if given the coordinates to move away from, which you probably would have been glad to comply with in order to keep your cache).

 

I think these rule changes would make the cache submission process much easier for the submitter to deal with, and I'm sure a program or a macro for one could be created which would determine a cache's rule-following in a simple, easy way.

 

I know all that sounds quite crazy...but I think the rules should be 80-85% rigid to allow for silly situations like this that arise, because the informal email system can't protect all situations from injustice.

Edited August 7, 2009 by chrisrayn

[+DanOCan]

Why should a set of coordinates derived from a virtual waypoint using existing signage for a calculation interefere with the placement of a traditional inside a 1/10th of a mile? That's silly.

 

It is silly, which is why cache saturation guidelines do not apply to non-physical stages of multis and puzzles.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Look, I am willing, though grudingly so, to move it.

 

What I am saying is that if you have to jump through hoops to be able to place caches, contacting reviewers each and everytime you want to place a cache, I see it as too limiting.

 

I have hidden over 100 caches. I have contacted the reviewer prior to finalizing maybe 1/4 of them - some due to a unique circumstance, some because the were at the hairy edge of a guideline, and some to verify that they were not too close to stages of caches I had previously done but no longer had the coordinates for.

 

No big deal.

 

And in several cases I had to move my cache because of proximity issues.

 

No big deal.

[+DanOCan]

What I am saying is that if you have to jump through hoops to be able to place caches, contacting reviewers each and everytime you want to place a cache, I see it as too limiting.

 

The entire process of placing caches involves a lot of hoops. Proper permission from land owners, verifying the spot will handle cache traffic, deciding on the type of cache, and making sure the cache meets all of the Geocaching guidelines.

 

And, it doesn't end once the cache is in place. Cache maintenance can often take more work than placing the cache in the first place.

 

If it all seems like too much work and too many hoops, you might want to question whether hiding caches is really for you.

[Clan Riffster]

Two seperate questions:

 

Should an unpublish final destination trump the placement of a new cache?

Absolutely. Someone got there first. Find a new spot. It happens.

 

what are you supposed to do?

If you are placing a cache that requires more than just pulling up to some Burger King shrubbery and plopping out a film can, it pays to do some homework ahead of time. When I place a complicated cache, I have an idea regarding the final location before I ever leave the house. I shoot an e-mail to my local reviewer asking about my chosen spot. They can tell me if there are any active, or inactive puzzles or multis near enough to cause a problem.

 

If something as simple to fix as this is enough to cause you to forgo hiding all together, maybe that's not for you.

Personally, I hope you reconsider. I love multis, and I don't think there are enough of them around.

 

-Sean

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Look, I am willing, though grudingly so, to move it.

 

What I am saying is that if you have to jump through hoops to be able to place caches, contacting reviewers each and everytime you want to place a cache, I see it as too limiting.

 

You're probably not going to get a lot of sympathy here. All of us (at least those of us that had caches) have had to work within these guidelines yet some have managed to hide hundreds of caches (the current records stands at 2130 by King Boreas). As others have suggested, contacting your reviewer before placing a cache can help find a location which adheres to the guidelines. Finding nearby multi and puzzle caches doesn't seem like an unreasonable alternaitve.

 

niraD hit the nail on the head. Seven meters is just way too close. While capturing the coordinates for the final location on a multi I'm going to be placing in a couple of weeks I was in a fairly dense wooded area. I averaged the location for quite awhile but was only able to get down to 20.9' (6.3 meters). Even if someone looking for that cache managed to get down to 0' accuracy (which is unlikely due to the tree cover) the odds that someone would find (and possibly log as your cache if it wasn't labeled) another cache that was 7 meters away from mine would be very high.

 

In another response you wrote:

 

"My enthusiam for geocaching, which has been at full tilt (rabid dog as my wife describes it) since starting, has taken a serious hit today. 3 caches placed, all three denied." [due to proximity issues]

 

What that tells me is that just maybe the area where you're trying to place caches already *has* enough caches. Looking at your profile I can see that the caches that you found are in a very cache rich area. Instead of placing your cache in an area which already has over 1800 caches in a 10 mile radius why not head out of town a bit and place a cache in location to give cachers a new place to discover?

[+BruceS]

How about flipping the circumstances around? Would you like it if someone put a cache only 14m from the final of your multi cache? Wouldn't it upset you if the reviewer didn't protect your spot?

 

Not really, but I guess I'm funny that way...

 

Without full disclosure you didn't perhaps get to hear that it is in a densely wooded park, not the middle of a plantless, rockless desert. In that 50 ft radius are hundreds of trees and rocks.

 

With it be a densely wooded park it is even more important that the 161 m distance is maintained. A distance of 14 meters in a densely forested area is often within the error of gps devices. I am sure you when you go back to check the logs of those logging your cache you would be really upset if it appeared that many people did not sign your logbook only to find out they had unknowingly signed the final of the near by multi.

Edited August 7, 2009 by BruceS

[+Lil Devil]

I think that the relevance to the 161m saturation rule may be less so in 2009 than it was in 2000 when this started. As geocaching evolves perhaps certain rules become outmoded.

You are absolutely right! I think they should increase the limit to 1/4 mile (402 meters).

[docbosh]

What I am saying is that if you have to jump through hoops to be able to place caches, contacting reviewers each and everytime you want to place a cache, I see it as too limiting.

 

The entire process of placing caches involves a lot of hoops. Proper permission from land owners, verifying the spot will handle cache traffic, deciding on the type of cache, and making sure the cache meets all of the Geocaching guidelines.

 

And, it doesn't end once the cache is in place. Cache maintenance can often take more work than placing the cache in the first place.

 

If it all seems like too much work and too many hoops, you might want to question whether hiding caches is really for you.

 

Yes but if this becomes problematic, then there will be less new caches to do at some point on horizon. Geocaching has done well so far due to its constant growth, but when it hits the wall, and the guidelines (which is an important word) are applied to stringently you will find there are less people willing to hide caches, and then the growth will be curtailed and drop off.

 

2 out of 3 of the caches I hide yesterday I would grudgingly move, one more readily than the other. The 3rd I am appealing based on the fact that Mont Royal is a big draw for geocahers, it is a fair big area, yet already the dozen or so caches that are there are kind of crowding out the possibility of more caches based on current saturation, and yet being very familiar with the mountain, and it's steep slopes and roads and pathways that zig zag, I say it would not be a problem to have 2 to 3 times the number of caches that are there. But not with stringently applied guidelines. One badly placed cache voids out a huge area, and for what a keychain with no view, no special feature?? Mine is hidden in a "cave" few people know of it, and it is unique feature to the mountain. And I suspect would provide a firm challenge to some geocachers to find, as it is well hidden. There is a belevedere here that provides a view upto 50 miles away.

 

Nevertheless, I will certainly try to make sure there are no overlaps with mine to some one elses in future, but suspect in an urban setting that will be more difficult than it sounds Unless we all want to be looking for caches in the front of peoples houses instead of in the few wooded oasis' we have. If we have already hit 100% saturation, then we have to examine the idea of cache shelf life, or a shelf life on the exclusivity of an area (the old cache could remain in place but a new cache would be allowed nearby after 1 year, for example).

[+flask]

i've been caching on the mont-royal and i don't think it's especially in need of greater saturation.

 

when i am placing a cache for which i am not certain if there might be a nearby stage of a multi or the final for a puzzle, i send my reviewer a quick note ahead of time.

 

if your rampant enthusiasm for the sport is dampened by having to adhere to the placement guidelines, perhaps your boom swings too quickly and you might be better off playing frisbee.

[docbosh]

How about flipping the circumstances around? Would you like it if someone put a cache only 14m from the final of your multi cache? Wouldn't it upset you if the reviewer didn't protect your spot?

 

Not really, but I guess I'm funny that way...

 

Without full disclosure you didn't perhaps get to hear that it is in a densely wooded park, not the middle of a plantless, rockless desert. In that 50 ft radius are hundreds of trees and rocks.

 

With it be a densely wooded park it is even more important that the 161 m distance is maintained. A distance of 14 meters in a densely forested area is often within the error of gps devices. I am sure you when you go back to check the logs of those logging your cache you would be really upset if it appeared that many people did not sign your logbook only to find out they had unknowingly signed the final of the near by multi.

 

I clearly ID what the name of the cache is and who placed it on the cache itself, and again in the logbook.

[+flask]

 

 

I clearly ID what the name of the cache is and who placed it on the cache itself, and again in the logbook.

 

and yet, ESPECIALLY on the mont-royal reception can be very, very bad and over-saturation of caches is a bad idea.

 

when you are looking for a cache you can't find and come upon a letterbox, it is no consolation. when you are looking for a cache and accidentally come across a stage to a multi, you will have shorted the multi and as a CO i would prefer it if my multis were protected from easy shortcuts.

 

if you can short some stages through force of will or the sheer power of you mind, good for you.

 

if you short my multi because some bozo put a cache on top of some of my stages, i will be TOASTED.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Should an unpublish final destination trump the placement of a new cache?

What if it was a traditional cache but for member's only? You wouldn't be able to see if it was there unless you paid $3/mo. Should that cache "not count" too?

 

Sorry, but the other cache was there first. You're gonna have to move yours.

[+DragonsWest]

Near where I live we have had a virtual explosion of caches. (Visit beautiful Capitola for the Beaches, stay for the caches!) Cachers are clearly bumping into each other here as we find the area approaching saturation.

 

A good and a bad thing. Bad because not many new caches at some point, good because anyone who comes to this area will be able to pack in a lot of caching.

 

Along the shore is pretty well booked up, but there's still some places within a quarter mile which are still patiently waiting.

 

Now I have my order to pore over I'm plotting what should be an utterly hilarious cache. I just need a really strong and small magnet, which I have. So... print up a log tonight and plant it in the wee hours of the morning, under the pale moon light.

Edited August 7, 2009 by DragonsWest

[docbosh]

i've been caching on the mont-royal and i don't think it's especially in need of greater saturation.

 

when i am placing a cache for which i am not certain if there might be a nearby stage of a multi or the final for a puzzle, i send my reviewer a quick note ahead of time.

 

if your rampant enthusiasm for the sport is dampened by having to adhere to the placement guidelines, perhaps your boom swings too quickly and you might be better off playing frisbee.

 

16 caches in a park with 21.5 million square feet of space is oversaturated?

 

I admit to learning curves, but if you can't understand how after doing the leg work to find that the last stage of a multi kills your work, then may be I should take up frisbee, cause the last thing I need when I am spending time to enhance a game is a lack of understanding from the other players.

[+TEAM HARTSOCK]

Look, I am willing, though grudingly so, to move it.

 

What I am saying is that if you have to jump through hoops to be able to place caches, contacting reviewers each and everytime you want to place a cache, I see it as too limiting.

 

I have hidden over 100 caches. I have contacted the reviewer prior to finalizing maybe 1/4 of them - some due to a unique circumstance, some because the were at the hairy edge of a guideline, and some to verify that they were not too close to stages of caches I had previously done but no longer had the coordinates for.

 

No big deal.

 

And in several cases I had to move my cache because of proximity issues.

 

No big deal.

 

Agreed. A few weeks ago I put a series of caches out while staying at our camp. A couple were the classic "micro on the iron bridge" type ones. One of the was on PA-route 53. All were approved but this one. I got an email from the reviewer who showed me the guideline that states no caches will be approved on bridges, (and other things...) along major routes due to terroristic type concerns. Okay, fine. No problem at all, now I have a cache already made, a log ready to go and a listing with a cache number already in place. All I gotta do is go find a place for it to go. One of these days I will. No big deal, can reuse it again.

 

I personally fell the proximity guidelines are good and should be kept in place. Maybe areas that are being over saturated with micros every 1/10 of a mile should be examined and areas be kept open for traditional caches?? I dunno, but take it in stride, it shouldn't make you lose love for the game, there are still plenty of caches to find and with a little looking you can find a place to hide a cache anywhere.

[+flask]

 

16 caches in a park with 21.5 million square feet of space is oversaturated?

 

I admit to learning curves, but if you can't understand how after doing the leg work to find that the last stage of a multi kills your work, then may be I should take up frisbee, cause the last thing I need when I am spending time to enhance a game is a lack of understanding from the other players.

 

i do not have a failure to understand you; i have a failure to agree with you.

 

can you not understand how after doing the leg work to place a properly approved cache i would not want to find that you have killed my work by placing a new cache on one or more stages of my multi?

 

there are reasons for the guidelines and usually people trying to get around them are not enhancing the game any.

 

if you went out and did a lot of work without first doing proper research, you have hopefully learned a lesson.

 

while you have perfect right to be disappointed that your effort didn't pan out, and you have a certain right to complain all you want even about unfounded concerns, you will find very little sympathy here.

 

before you go storming into a game it is best to learn the rules and practices.

[+TEAM HARTSOCK]

 

if your rampant enthusiasm for the sport is dampened by having to adhere to the placement guidelines, perhaps your boom swings too quickly and you might be better off playing frisbee.

 

 

Sorry, had to laugh on that one; but what happens if you have so many caches in an area that you end up missing the frisbee and it lands near the next to a last stage of a multi and you get a real bonus of a short cut???

 

 

One question for the OP...if the mount royal is so big and has so little caches, what's the big deal with moving your cache (just a little, like o say a tenth of a mile) so it falls within guidelines?

[+bittsen]

I understand what you are saying. You aren't able to hide a cache where you want because of a "ghost" cache. Isn't that really what the final of a multi is, as far as the map is concerned?

 

I think it sucks too but the rules are there and we can't change them. I am sure many will run into this situation and many will be just as upset.

 

It would be nice if there was a way to check the coords without having to contact a reviewer. That way we wouldn't have to wait for the reviewer to "get back to us". Maybe someday.

 

Personally, I don't think cache saturation should apply here. And if it must, then a smaller difference, say 100ft, are in order.

 

JMO

[docbosh]

 

16 caches in a park with 21.5 million square feet of space is oversaturated?

 

I admit to learning curves, but if you can't understand how after doing the leg work to find that the last stage of a multi kills your work, then may be I should take up frisbee, cause the last thing I need when I am spending time to enhance a game is a lack of understanding from the other players.

 

i do not have a failure to understand you; i have a failure to agree with you.

 

can you not understand how after doing the leg work to place a properly approved cache i would not want to find that you have killed my work by placing a new cache on one or more stages of my multi?

 

there are reasons for the guidelines and usually people trying to get around them are not enhancing the game any.

 

if you went out and did a lot of work without first doing proper research, you have hopefully learned a lesson.

 

while you have perfect right to be disappointed that your effort didn't pan out, and you have a certain right to complain all you want even about unfounded concerns, you will find very little sympathy here.

 

before you go storming into a game it is best to learn the rules and practices.

 

Poh-tay-toe, po-tat-oh

 

I am fortunate to see that some people actually agree there is some is a need for flexibility. I also remember those who were unable to share with others from when I was younger in life.

 

I regularly have issue with those who see things only in black and white, with rigid cartesian logic. That a cache could be within 161m of another in the x and y, but more than 161m away when you consider the z. I can demonstrate if necessay.

 

With steep impassable slopes some of the distances straightline might not be 161m, but when you factor the walking that is required in a bent line, they are more likely to be 300m away.

 

That there are going to be times when there is a cache hidden without the coords up front for me to see beforehand is the lesson I learned, and I will take more caution on that.

 

Believe it or not I reread the guidelines for a third time and I can't see anything that suggested what happened might happen, then again I wear glasses for myopia so it could be there.

 

I'll try to storm less, if you try to be less an arbitor on who should and shouldn't play the game based on a singlemindness of "the rules". There would never be evolution in anything in the rules never change. I hope you never pulled the its my bat and my ball and if you don't like the rules I'm leaving stunt...

[docbosh]

 

if your rampant enthusiasm for the sport is dampened by having to adhere to the placement guidelines, perhaps your boom swings too quickly and you might be better off playing frisbee.

 

 

Sorry, had to laugh on that one; but what happens if you have so many caches in an area that you end up missing the frisbee and it lands near the next to a last stage of a multi and you get a real bonus of a short cut???

 

 

One question for the OP...if the mount royal is so big and has so little caches, what's the big deal with moving your cache (just a little, like o say a tenth of a mile) so it falls within guidelines?

 

A unique feature on the mountain that is not as movable as the cache is why...

[+Kealia]

I admit to learning curves, but if you can't understand how after doing the leg work to find that the last stage of a multi kills your work, then may be I should take up frisbee, cause the last thing I need when I am spending time to enhance a game is a lack of understanding from the other players.

 

It's isn't a lack of understanding it's a lack of agreement. I would venture to say that a good majority of people who have placed caches have run into this at some point.

 

Does it suck that you put in all that work? Yes.

Does that require the guidelines to be changed? Nope.

 

I've hiked 7 miles round-trip with over 1,000 feet of elevation gain to place a new cache only to get home and find out that when I ran my PQ it didn't include the area I was in. I placed my cache within 15 feet of another and had to go back and hike it again to retrieve the cache and move it elsewhere.

Was I upset at the person who had their cache their first? Nope, that would be silly.

 

Lest you feel that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison I have run into the exact same situation as you are, too. You just have to accept that it happens sometimes.

 

You've gotten good advice in this thread (contract reviewers first, etc.). Heed it an move on. Oh yeah, have some fun.

[+ecanderson]

Why should a set of coordinates derived from a virtual waypoint using existing signage for a calculation interefere with the placement of a traditional inside a 1/10th of a mile? That's silly.

 

It is silly, which is why cache saturation guidelines do not apply to non-physical stages of multis and puzzles.

 

Believe me, it's happened out here in Mile High territory. Don't ask me why. Ask "spammer" who was the victim of his own multi. We never figured it out, and pointing out the illogic didn't help. Edited August 7, 2009 by ecanderson

[+BruceS]

 

I clearly ID what the name of the cache is and who placed it on the cache itself, and again in the logbook.

 

Is the other cache so clearly identified? Cachers are looking for a box in about that location, they will log the one they find for the cache they are looking for. Most cachers don't read much in a log book, they are looking for the next blank spot to sign the log.

[+BruceS]

 

A unique feature on the mountain that is not as movable as the cache is why...

 

Maybe that is exactly why the person who placed the multi picked it as the location of their final

[docbosh]

[quote

 

I've hiked 7 miles round-trip with over 1,000 feet of elevation gain to place a new cache only to get home and find out that when I ran my PQ it didn't include the area I was in. I placed my cache within 15 feet of another and had to go back and hike it again to retrieve the cache and move it elsewhere.

Was I upset at the person who had their cache their first? Nope, that would be silly.

 

Lest you feel that this is not an apples-to-apples comparison I have run into the exact same situation as you are, too. You just have to accept that it happens sometimes.

 

You've gotten good advice in this thread (contract reviewers first, etc.). Heed it an move on. Oh yeah, have some fun.

 

Just as a quick note so that you don't get a misunderstanding... 3 caches, all three came back with issues, each one different than the next. 2 of them I will grudgingly move, and take my lumps. It is the third, which falls about 50m (in the x y) short of the guidelines which I am appealling, the one with the unique feature

 

That there should be some flexibility when it comes to un-published coords because they are clearly going to cause problems from time to time. If mutli-caches cause problems perhaps they shouldn't exist, but I am not suggest that they don't, as people do seem to enjoy them, and I am sure I will too once I do one (hide or seek), but if there is a known problem with the multis that there be some wriggle room, ya I think so, but that is of course just my opinion, some agree, some don't. Then others feel the need to be rude.

[docbosh]

 

A unique feature on the mountain that is not as movable as the cache is why...

 

Maybe that is exactly why the person who placed the multi picked it as the location of their final

 

You're not following... 3 separate caches are being discussed. The multis final stage has nothing to do with the unique feature, thoroughly different cache separated by a kilometer or more from that one.

Edited August 7, 2009 by docbosh

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Near where I live we have had a virtual explosion of caches. (Visit beautiful Capitola for the Beaches, stay for the caches!) Cachers are clearly bumping into each other here as we find the area approaching saturation.

 

A good and a bad thing. Bad because not many new caches at some point, good because anyone who comes to this area will be able to pack in a lot of caching.

 

That's good to know. I'll be in Monterey in October and will have a day free to do some caching.

 

Maybe it's me, but if I thought an area was approaching saturation I'd try to find somewhere else to place a cache rather than try to squeeze in one more.

 

I understand that lots of people cache of different reasons but one of the most common reason I hear is that they enjoy the fact that geocaching brings them to new and interesting places. In a heavily saturated city (I realize that Capitola could hardly be classified as a city...I used to live over the hill in Los Gatos) finding a spot where you can place a cache will often not bring cachers to a new and interesting place, but will most likely just be a spot where a cache has not been previously hidden.

 

Rather than look for a gap where you could place a cache based on the proximity of other caches why not get out of town a little ways and place some cachers in area less frequently visited?

[+BruceS]

 

A unique feature on the mountain that is not as movable as the cache is why...

 

Maybe that is exactly why the person who placed the multi picked it as the location of their final

 

Your not following... 3 separate caches are being discussed. The multis final stage has nothing to do with the unique feature, thoroughly different cache separated by a kilometer or more from that one.

 

In a convoluted thread that started with you discussing one cache in conflict with a multi... hard to realized there are now three

[docbosh]

 

A unique feature on the mountain that is not as movable as the cache is why...

 

Maybe that is exactly why the person who placed the multi picked it as the location of their final

 

Your not following... 3 separate caches are being discussed. The multis final stage has nothing to do with the unique feature, thoroughly different cache separated by a kilometer or more from that one.

 

In a convoluted thread that started with you discussing one cache in conflict with a multi... hard to realized there are now three

 

Sorry about that...

[+DanOCan]

Yes but if this becomes problematic, then there will be less new caches to do at some point on horizon. Geocaching has done well so far due to its constant growth, but when it hits the wall, and the guidelines (which is an important word) are applied to stringently you will find there are less people willing to hide caches, and then the growth will be curtailed and drop off.

 

Actually, it's funny, but many long time cachers think the number of new caches being placed actually hurts the hobby. I admit I would much rather have one or two new really amazing caches placed every month around here rather than 15 or 20 parking lot micros every week.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I'm always interested when people argue that the cache saturation distance should be flexible. By and large, they almost always argue that the distance should be shortened for their particular situation.

 

Wouldn't it be equally plausible that there are situations where the cache saturation distance should be increased? Couldn't the argument be made that a particular situation or location merits a greater separation and less cache density?

 

And although it's understandably frustrating to put work into a cache only to have its publication denied for not complying with the guidelines, you have to agree that it's a BIG, BIG world out there. There are LOTS of places to hide things.

[+DanOCan]

I think that the relevance to the 161m saturation rule may be less so in 2009 than it was in 2000 when this started. As geocaching evolves perhaps certain rules become outmoded.

You are absolutely right! I think they should increase the limit to 1/4 mile (402 meters).

I would support that idea. Once I found four caches in the parking lot of the same Wally World I completely got on the side of "increase the distance".

[+flask]

 

I would support that idea. Once I found four caches in the parking lot of the same Wally World I completely got on the side of "increase the distance".

 

see, now, i wouldn't mind that.

 

once you're already getting a smilie for a lame parking lot cache, you might as well pick up the maximum number of smilies for the space. the experience ought to be worth SOMETHING.

[+DanOCan]

It would be nice if there was a way to check the coords without having to contact a reviewer. That way we wouldn't have to wait for the reviewer to "get back to us". Maybe someday.

 

I agree. I hate bothering my reviewer with "Can you check these coordinates?" emails. They are volunteers and I hate wasting their time with repeat mundane questions when a simple automated tool could fill that role.

 

And, yes, I already know the reasons why this gets shot down every time it comes up.

- "There are other reasons why a location might not be suitable such as a school or railway tracks."

- "People will use this tool to brute force the solution to puzzles."

 

Those factors were considered before I developed my opinion.