Multi-cache vs. Cache

[docbosh]

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.

 

I agree, if the idea of the distance being increased where warranted, perhaps one that is vastly open... I am not arguing that the distance be shortened for the cache that I'm going to end up moving, I'm arguing that since the final stage of a multis is not published online, that the distance could be shorter than between traditionals. That there has to be an effective solution to what appears to be a problem. What the solution is who knows...? That it can be time consuming and a bit tiresome to have to contact a reviewer fbefore every cache placement, doubling the work for the reviewer, is clearly not a good solution. An automated feature that would allow you to check potentially steals the thunder of the multi-caches final stage. Some flexibility seems to be the least intrusive.

 

From the point of looking down from above two items can appear to be touching but be separated by thousands of feet in the vertical is a serious point.

 

That the cache I'm appealing has a unique feature that would be of interest to cachers, is missing about 50m in the horizontal, but if you walked it, it would be nearly on because of the vertical difference between the caches.

 

I wanted some opinions, I got some. Some agree, some don't, still points to a problem.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Let's summarize:

TPTB think that guidelines are there for a good reason. They have establshed the guidelines.

You don't like them, and think that they should be changed to suit yourself. Many others have run into this problem. Most of them say: "Oh, well", acept the guidelines, and comply with them, and move on.

But, you think that guidelines should not apply to you! Your reviewer says that your caches cannot be published because they violate the guidelines. Oh, well. Such is life.

Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue? Maybe that will help?

Or, you could say "Oh, Well. I have learnt a lesson." And move onward, as most cachers here have done. Several posters have told you one way to avoid this problem.

If you want to play the game, play by the guidelines. Or pout, complain, and hold your breath until you turn blue. We all know which way works better.

[docbosh]

Let's summarize:

TPTB think that guidelines are there for a good reason. They have establshed the guidelines.

You don't like them, and think that they should be changed to suit yourself. Many others have run into this problem. Most of them say: "Oh, well", acept the guidelines, and comply with them, and move on.

But, you think that guidelines should not apply to you! Your reviewer says that your caches cannot be published because they violate the guidelines. Oh, well. Such is life.

Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue? Maybe that will help?

Or, you could say "Oh, Well. I have learnt a lesson." And move onward, as most cachers here have done. Several posters have told you one way to avoid this problem.

If you want to play the game, play by the guidelines. Or pout, complain, and hold your breath until you turn blue. We all know which way works better.

 

Clearly you are reading what you want to read. You don't see what I am saying has merit, and obviously of the opinion that there are no reasons to change things, ever. Evolution can and does happen, sometimes for the better and sometimes not, but sometimes it takes the game being played with those changed rules to see if they work or not. Hockey the game we know today has rules, that evolved over time presumably to make the game better, and they are still evolving.

 

The final stage of mulits has an issue tied to it, I have learned that, that doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing.

 

But instead I get more of the same, silly comments, that are plain rude. Maybe it is the thought of evolution that brings out the worst in people. Nothing is worth talking about, it's either my way or the highway.

 

I'm now a pouting frisbee player... you guys are darn creative.

Edited August 7, 2009 by docbosh

[+Kealia]

I think what you should pursue is the answer to this question:

"How can I get visibility into the proximity of nearby puzzles and multis?"

 

I say this because your current question about adjusting the guidelines happens every now and then and the conclusion is the same: It's not going to change. It sounds as if you are not willing to accept this because you have a really cool spot/feature picked out. If that's not your intention to come across that way, it does.

 

The issue with the question I posed, of course, is that any type of tool to give you proximity to puzzles or multis exposes at least part of where they are and can lead to brute-force finds.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

My preference would be the elimination of Multis and Puzzles which eliminate these kinds of issues. Only PMOs would be in contention then.

 

docbosh, it's also important to understand that a cache with "a unique feature that would be of interest to cachers" does not come into play in the review process. The cache either complies with the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines or it doesn't.

 

The "wow" factor doesn't come into play. A lightpole micro is reviewed exactly the same as a cache with a view of some grand feature.

 

Now, if (as you have vaguely alluded) there is a severe physical vertical separation between two conflicting caches, be sure to submit evidence of this (pictures, maps, etc) in your appeal.

[docbosh]

I think what you should pursue is the answer to this question:

"How can I get visibility into the proximity of nearby puzzles and multis?"

 

I say this because your current question about adjusting the guidelines happens every now and then and the conclusion is the same: It's not going to change. It sounds as if you are not willing to accept this because you have a really cool spot/feature picked out. If that's not your intention to come across that way, it does.

 

The issue with the question I posed, of course, is that any type of tool to give you proximity to puzzles or multis exposes at least part of where they are and can lead to brute-force finds.

 

Well some take it as a personal afront when the topic of change is ever brought up.

 

Many can't see that I have relented on the one cache that was in quashed because of a multis final, I admit I do so grudgingly. To those, they continue to believe I am pouting, whining, moaning and complaining to get my way.

 

I would like to see a problem addressed so that it doesn't happen again. Their solution involves more work for everyone else, the person hiding the cache, the reviewers. It isn't that I abhor work, but that there may need to be a level of flexibility in this sort of instance. I conceed 14m is close and might not work as a definition of wiggle room.I think that in the instance of placing where there is a final stage of a multi maybe there can be an allowance 75m to 100m rather than the requiste, thoroughly arbitrary 161m. Which it is, .1 of a mile, 528 feet, for all we know if the US actually used the metric system they might have easily have chosen .1 of a kilometer or 100m. There is nothing magical or even significant to .1 of a mile other than 10% of a mile sounds like a round number. As others suggested it could easily be 1/4 of a mile, just as arbitrary.

 

One suggested they would like to see more quality caches, which the one I am appealing is. I only mentionned the one I am appealing, not because I think tnat anyone around here will have anything to do with the reviewer changing their mind, but that I was expressing frustration in having 3 caches I placed getting killed, each for a different reason. Ultimately it comes down to the saturation issue in all three cases.

 

One was just bad timing, I placed it when in the morning it was clear, but by the time I went to publish in the afternoon, a new one cropped up 48m away, made me laugh actually, and I am thinking I'd better go see where that one is because mine 48m away has permission from the hospital to be where it is. If the other one is even partially on hospital property, they would need permission.

 

Others suggested that I try placing outside the city, they are always very generous with other people's time. I do intend to place some outside the city 60km away, but the distance I go away from the city will do nothing to change a problem. If I experience the same problem there then you might see why I might consider placing caches as a waste of my time. I am merely trying to reciprocate to the game, I like to think of myself as clever, and I would like to make caches worth looking for and finding.

 

An automated system could work if it just provided a basic, "you are in the zone of another cache", giving no other details, or maybe something like try 50m to the west if possible.

[docbosh]

My preference would be the elimination of Multis and Puzzles which eliminate these kinds of issues. Only PMOs would be in contention then.

 

docbosh, it's also important to understand that a cache with "a unique feature that would be of interest to cachers" does not come into play in the review process. The cache either complies with the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines or it doesn't.

 

The "wow" factor doesn't come into play. A lightpole micro is reviewed exactly the same as a cache with a view of some grand feature.

 

Now, if (as you have vaguely alluded) there is a severe physical vertical separation between two conflicting caches, be sure to submit evidence of this (pictures, maps, etc) in your appeal.

 

I don't think multis should be eliminated, even if they cause problems. One would have to admit as cool as they are, they cause do problems and are more greedy than traditionals. As such to be fairer to other players, that there by a bit of a change in the guidelines. I won't define what that means, because then I get accused of trying to make the rules fit the situation.

 

Nevertheless I think the topic has reached is useful end. I won't bother responding again, unless there is some important point being made.

 

Thanks everyone for your input.

 

Actually in the guidelines when they discuss appeals they kind of do talk about "wow" factor, not in so many words. That there are no other caves on this mountain,a nd that not many people know it, and that it is well hidden are all important factors worth considering. The fact that I can point to two caches with 60m of each other downtown, shows there is some discretion in the guidelines.

Edited August 8, 2009 by docbosh

[GOF and Bacall]

My preference would be the elimination of Multis and Puzzles which eliminate these kinds of issues. Only PMOs would be in contention then.

 

docbosh, it's also important to understand that a cache with "a unique feature that would be of interest to cachers" does not come into play in the review process. The cache either complies with the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines or it doesn't.

 

The "wow" factor doesn't come into play. A lightpole micro is reviewed exactly the same as a cache with a view of some grand feature.

 

Now, if (as you have vaguely alluded) there is a severe physical vertical separation between two conflicting caches, be sure to submit evidence of this (pictures, maps, etc) in your appeal.

 

I don't think multis should be eliminated, even if they cause problems. One would have to admit as cool as they are, they cause do problems and are more greedy than traditionals. As such to be fairer to other players, that there by a bit of a change in the guidelines. I won't define what that means, because then I get accused of trying to make the rules fit the situation.

 

Nevertheless I think the topic has reached is useful end. I won't bother responding again, unless there is some important point being made.

 

Thanks everyone for your input.

 

Actually in the guidelines when they discuss appeals they kind of do talk about "wow" factor, not in so many words. That there are no other caves on this mountain,a nd that not many people know it, and that it is well hidden are all important factors worth considering. The fact that I can point to two caches with 60m of each other downtown, shows there is some discretion in the guidelines.

 

First-Isn't this thread all about your trying to make the rules fit the situation?

 

Second- Only proves that mistakes can be made.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I still don't get how taking coordinates and emailing them to a reviewer to see if they would cause proximity issues is any more work than submitting a cache for review...only to have the reviewer respond back that there are proximity issues. By emailing the coords to the local reviewer, you get your answer before you go about setting up the actual cache. Saves headaches and work on both ends.

 

Bruce

[AZcachemeister]

First come, first served.

It's unfortunate that your carefully chosen location has already been taken.

How would you feel if the location were 'given' to you, only to have a newcomer 'bump you out' next year?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

First come, first served.

It's unfortunate that your carefully chosen location has already been taken.

How would you feel if the location were 'given' to you, only to have a newcomer 'bump you out' next year?

 

Very true. Earlier in the thread, the OP stated he'd like to see a time limit on caches...after a year, you'd lose "rights" to the spot. Of course, that means that after a year, your unique and interesting spot is going to be given to someone else if they want it and you'd have no say in the matter. Your existing cache would just be archived and you'd have to retrieve the geo-litter. Is that really what you want?

 

Bruce

[+SUV2003]

I have had this happen to me before. If it is in an area where i would still like to place a cache, I use google earth and plug in the coords of the exsisting cache, then i use the measuring tool and span out .1 mile

(your case 161 m) usually i can still find a suitable location for my cache.

[+DanOCan]

The fact that I can point to two caches with 60m of each other downtown, shows there is some discretion in the guidelines.

 

The important thing to remember there is that Geocaching is not a court of law and thus citing precedent doesn't work.

From the guidelines:

"First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache."

 

The other thing to remember is that one of those caches might be very old and placed when different guidelines were in place. You talk about how no one wants to change and evolve the game, but the guidelines have changed many times over the years. Perhaps the owner of one of those caches moved the container after it had been approved in another place -- I seem to recall owners used to be able to update coordinates and move things much further than they can now. I could be wrong though, it has happened to me before.

[+paleolith]

We do have to consider how the game is going to change when the popular areas are mostly saturated. Clearly some places have reached that point. Others will, as more people join the game. The number has roughly doubled since I joined 2-1/2 years ago.

 

And most cachers like placing caches as well as finding them. But when large areas are saturated, something has to give: people will have to settle for only finding and not hiding, or a time limit will be set on caches, or people will watch closely when caches are in danger rather than helping those caches along. What will the new balance be? I don't know; I just know that it will be different from the current situation.

 

At that point, saying to go farther away will cease to be a reasonable response. A lot of people don't want to drive 20 or 50 miles for a day trip. And that's a lot more difficult or expensive in some places than in others. Players often want to play near home -- and in this game that means hiding as well as finding.

 

I could see a larger separation requirement for puzzle/mystery caches where the final coordinates are not published, and for multis and letterbox hybrids. Say, perhaps, a mile. The problem mentioned by one poster of having about 50 puzzles with unpublished coordinates in a small area sounds like it calls for some limits on such caches.

 

BTW, really great features that no one knows about often turn out to be known to a lot more people than you realize, and caches disappear from these "unknown" places. Generally it's better to place a cache so that people go past or near the feature rather than placing the cache right there.

 

Edward

[+NYPaddleCacher]

At that point, saying to go farther away will cease to be a reasonable response. A lot of people don't want to drive 20 or 50 miles for a day trip. And that's a lot more difficult or expensive in some places than in others. Players often want to play near home -- and in this game that means hiding as well as finding.

 

Edward

 

A lot of people don't have the luxury of alwasys playing close to home. When looking at the area where the OP wanted to place I found that there were over 1800 caches within a 10 mile radius. There are only about 200 caches within 10 miles of where I live (I've found all of them but three relatively new ones) so driving 20-50 miles to go geocaching is very common for me. In fact, 48% of the caches that I have found are over 30 miles away.

[+J-Way]

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?

It happens. It's seriously annoying to those of us who try to keep our online logs accurate. I found the final to an old multi (placed before additional waypoints were required). Then, based on old logs, the actions of another geocacher I met that day, and an email with the other cache owner, I thought I had made a mistake and found another (traditional) cache by mistake. The other cache was placed a very close by... probably within 40-50 ft. Later it was confirmed that I really did find the correct cache after all.

 

Here's my log.

Edited August 8, 2009 by J-Way

[+niraD]

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.

Exceptions to the guideline are sometimes granted for physical obstacles like that. But keep in mind that they are exceptions, and that you shouldn't presume that an exception will be granted.

 

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've suggested in another thread that the guidelines be expanded/clarified on this point. The information is there, but it may not be obvious at first glance:

Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). A physical stage is defined as any stage that contains a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a tag with the next set of coordinates or a container. Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

There you go. If your cache container or physical stage is within 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m) of any stage that contains a physical element placed by another geocache owner, such as a tag with the next set of coordinates or a container, then your cache container or physical stage violates the saturation guidelines.

 

The main thing that is not obvious to newcomers is there are physical stages that count against the saturation guidelines, but that are not published. You have to read the sections on multi-caches and mystery/puzzle caches to see that they will have additional waypoints, some of which will count against the saturation guidelines even if they are hidden from you.

 

It's easier to understand if you're familiar with this knowledgebase article:

http://support.Groundspeak.com/Support/ind...kbarticleid=325

[+niraD]

An automated system could work if it just provided a basic, "you are in the zone of another cache", giving no other details, or maybe something like try 50m to the west if possible.

Yes, it would work very effectively... very effectively for brute-forcing the locations of puzzle caches and multi-cache finals. That's why there isn't an automated system.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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?

It happens. It's seriously annoying to those of us who try to keep our online logs accurate. I found the final to an old multi (placed before additional waypoints were required). Then, based on old logs, the actions of another geocacher I met that day, and an email with the other cache owner, I thought I had made a mistake and found another (traditional) cache by mistake. The other cache was placed a very close by... probably within 40-50 ft. Later it was confirmed that I really did find the correct cache after all.

 

Here's my log.

 

I could have caused even more confusion if you had dropped a TB or Geocoin into the cache and logged it into the wrong cache. Then subsequent finders of cache you thought you found wouldn't see the TB and might even suggest to the owner that it be marked as missing.

[+fegan]

My preference would be the elimination of Multis and Puzzles which eliminate these kinds of issues.

 

I actually enjoy puzzles and would hate for them to go away.

[Rhialto]

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.

Welcome into the club! See my story over a year ago... 4 pages long discussion!

[+Geometeacher]

I need some opinions people...

 

What do others think?

 

1) If you are going to get upset at other people responding to your post, then don't open with "I need some opinions people..."

or end with "What do others think?"

 

2) First come first serve is the only fair way

 

3) No one is forcing you to place caches, if you don't want to , then don't.

 

4) You have gotten very good advice and lots of good responses, but you continue to argue your point. If you want to avoid the negativity, then just move on and stop trying to convince others that you are correct and the guidelines are wrong.

 

5) Good luck finding another spot for your cache.

[+mrbort]

4) You have gotten very good advice and lots of good responses, but you continue to argue your point. If you want to avoid the negativity, then just move on and stop trying to convince others that you are correct and the guidelines are wrong.

 

Just to note: it's been more than 24 hours since the OP posted in this thread. I believe he said what he wanted to say, responded to the replies and moved on.... seems strange to advise moving on after (based on the activity in the thread) he already has...