Distance "Rule" vs Guideline

[+DragonflyTotem]

I was following this other thread regarding how strict they are about the distance "rule" between caches (http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=232356) but then that thread was closed before I got to ask my question. So I'd like to go ahead and ask it here.

 

What I'd like to KINDLY ask however is to not turn this into a debate about the merits of keeping cache distances (I get that, really I do) as I'm simply trying to get an answer related to the following -- who says it's a rule (as apparently it is not) and how did a guideline become a "rule"?

 

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

And the very top of that page begins with -- "These are listing guidelines only."

And if you read the cache saturation section it doesn't say that it is a "rule" and that you cannot do it.

 

How this came up is (as you probably expected) in a cache placement request. Here is a note that I received by a reviewer related to the above, which says the same thing:

 

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

So clearly the above all say the say thing -- this is a "guideline" only. Which then prompts me to ask my question -- how did it get from a "guideline" (which would certainly allow for exceptions) to a supposed "rule" which cannot?

 

I was told that my proposed cache is about 100 feet too close to another. From what I can figure out from the reply in the log I don't even have a way to discuss this with the reviewer (if I've missed that, hints are more than welcome!). But yesterday I was at the site and from an actual GPS walk from point to point, that distance appears to be wrong (or I wouldn't have placed it there). And without wanting to give too much away as I don't want to identify the specifics of where my cache was going to be -- if the concern is in fact to "reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another" let me say that this would be impossible in this situation.

 

The pre-existing cache is located physically in another.....place (not wanting to say what that means, but a place in this case means two separate locations, where you go in to each from a specific location and you wouldn't possibly find yourself accidentially straying into the other "place" -- it isn't going to happen) and the geocacher searching for either would either have to go to one place to find the pre-existing cache or to another place to find mine. There is just no likelihood of there being any confusion and nobody could possibly mistake one for the other. But again, the other issue is that according to the GPS, the distance between my proposed cache and the pre-existing cache isn't correct anyway.

 

So...back to my question if I could -- how did this become a "rule" instead of the "guideline" that it says that it is? There shouldn't be much confusion between a "rule of thumb" or "arbitrary distance" and "guideline" and something which is a "rule." And if it is a guideline, then why is an "arbitrary distance and is just a guideline" being applied this way and without even a process to discuss it with a reviewer to explain what the reviewer might have missed or not know?

 

Thanks!

[+Team Cotati]

Send an email to the reviewer explaining why you feel that the location is worthy of an exception being made.

[+Vater_Araignee]

<snip>

 

So...back to my question if I could -- how did this become a "rule" instead of the "guideline" that it says that it is? There shouldn't be much confusion between a "rule of thumb" or "arbitrary distance" and "guideline" and something which is a "rule." And if it is a guideline, then why is an "arbitrary distance and is just a guideline" being applied this way and without even a process to discuss it with a reviewer to explain what the reviewer might have missed or not know?

 

Thanks!

Did you try e-mailing the reviewer referencing the cache name and id and giving a detailed explanation?

Apparently not.

Let us know how that works out for you.

[+webscouter.]

It is a guideline because there are instances where a smaller distance is allowed. Usually it occurs when there is a barrier that creates no chance for questioning which cache you have found.

 

For instance you could place caches on each side of the Mexico/US border fence. If each cache clearely stated which side of the fence the cache was on they both could potentially be allowed.

 

Note I said potentially because the guideline is one of if not the most followed guidelines.

 

You can always send an e-mail back to your reviewer to explain why the cache should be allowed, if that doesn't work you can send an appeal to contact@Groundspeak.com You will probably find that the guideline will be upheld though.

[knowschad]

I am not a reviewer, but I would think that the guideline is generally interpreted as a rule, as you say, because of distance creep. It really is the only way to fairly go about keeping cache separation. You say your cache is only 100 feet too close (I've had, and heard of caches turned down for 5 feet!). So the next guy that comes along wants to place his cache 110 feet too close. After all, he can see that yours is 428 feet from another cache... why is 418 feet so wrong?

 

 

Exceptions are (anecdotally) *occasionally* made based on extreme geographic situations like cliffs and rivers , but don't count on it.

[+Team Cotati]

I am not a reviewer, but I would think that the guideline is generally interpreted as a rule, as you say, because of distance creep. It really is the only way to fairly go about keeping cache separation. You say your cache is only 100 feet too close (I've had, and heard of caches turned down for 5 feet!). So the next guy that comes along wants to place his cache 110 feet too close. After all, he can see that yours is 428 feet from another cache... why is 418 feet so wrong?

 

 

Exceptions are (anecdotally) *occasionally* made based on extreme geographic situations like cliffs and rivers , but don't count on it.

 

5 feet is completely unreasonable.

[knowschad]

5 feet is completely unreasonable.

 

 

Agreed, and apparently that is no longer happening. The problem that happens when reviewers are that rigid is that hiders will simply leave their cache where it is, and alter the posted coordinates to make the reviewer happy. Result: deliberately "soft" coordinates.

[+DragonflyTotem]

Send an email to the reviewer explaining why you feel that the location is worthy of an exception being made.

 

Thanks for the reply and suggestion. I was planning on that but was going to first go back out and recheck the distances.

[+Team Cotati]

5 feet is completely unreasonable.

 

 

Agreed, and apparently that is no longer happening. The problem that happens when reviewers are that rigid is that hiders will simply leave their cache where it is, and alter the posted coordinates to make the reviewer happy. Result: deliberately "soft" coordinates.

 

And most unfortunately, misleading all of your fellow geocachers wrt the cache location.

 

This is not good.

[+DragonflyTotem]

<snip>

 

So...back to my question if I could -- how did this become a "rule" instead of the "guideline" that it says that it is? There shouldn't be much confusion between a "rule of thumb" or "arbitrary distance" and "guideline" and something which is a "rule." And if it is a guideline, then why is an "arbitrary distance and is just a guideline" being applied this way and without even a process to discuss it with a reviewer to explain what the reviewer might have missed or not know?

 

Thanks!

Did you try e-mailing the reviewer referencing the cache name and id and giving a detailed explanation?

Apparently not.

Let us know how that works out for you.

 

I did do that now. I first had to figure out how to do that.

[+DragonflyTotem]

It is a guideline because there are instances where a smaller distance is allowed. Usually it occurs when there is a barrier that creates no chance for questioning which cache you have found.

 

For instance you could place caches on each side of the Mexico/US border fence. If each cache clearely stated which side of the fence the cache was on they both could potentially be allowed.

 

Note I said potentially because the guideline is one of if not the most followed guidelines.

 

You can always send an e-mail back to your reviewer to explain why the cache should be allowed, if that doesn't work you can send an appeal to contact@Groundspeak.com You will probably find that the guideline will be upheld though.

 

Yes, that is the situation with these two particular caches. A fence, in addition to other physical aspects that I'd just rather not go into here which wouldn't allow for anyone to possibly confuse these two.

[+DragonflyTotem]

5 feet is completely unreasonable.

 

 

Agreed, and apparently that is no longer happening. The problem that happens when reviewers are that rigid is that hiders will simply leave their cache where it is, and alter the posted coordinates to make the reviewer happy. Result: deliberately "soft" coordinates.

 

And most unfortunately, misleading all of your fellow geocachers wrt the cache location.

 

This is not good.

 

Yes, which is a good point. And if you start at your proposed cache location, and 528 feet later haven't yet arrived at the actual location of the other cache....that must be a "soft" coordinate I guess. I'm going to go back out there again today and recheck them both.

[GOF and Bacall]

The 528 feet is "as the crow flies" and not how far you travel to walk from one location to the next. Put the coordinates for the existing cache in your GPS. Then go to the site of your proposed new cache. Look at your GPS and see how far it says it is to the existing cache.

[+Dustydew]

Hang in there DrDan!! I can't wait to go find this one!!

 

Dustydew

[+wimseyguy]

Rules are more rigid, rarely broken occasionally bent.

Guidelines offer a little more flex at times when an exception is merited.

 

But you should consider the saturation guideline one of the less flexible ones. Especially with posted coords for traditionals and stage one of multis.

Edited September 28, 2009 by wimseyguy

[CoyoteRed]

5 feet is completely unreasonable.

Agreed, and apparently that is no longer happening. The problem that happens when reviewers are that rigid is that hiders will simply leave their cache where it is, and alter the posted coordinates to make the reviewer happy. Result: deliberately "soft" coordinates.

And most unfortunately, misleading all of your fellow geocachers wrt the cache location.

 

This is not good.

5 feet is the granularity of modern consumer grade handhelds. The reading could have very well been rounded up. Let it sit a minute and the reading could have been 10 above the limit. 5 feet is well under the accepted margin of error. No, not deliberately soft.

[CoyoteRed]

...as I'm simply trying to get an answer related to the following -- who says it's a rule (as apparently it is not) and how did a guideline become a "rule"?

Your reviewer makes it a rule. Regardless of the guidelines, common practices, etc. the person you need to please is the one who is clicking the "publish" button.

[knowschad]

5 feet is completely unreasonable.

Agreed, and apparently that is no longer happening. The problem that happens when reviewers are that rigid is that hiders will simply leave their cache where it is, and alter the posted coordinates to make the reviewer happy. Result: deliberately "soft" coordinates.

And most unfortunately, misleading all of your fellow geocachers wrt the cache location.

 

This is not good.

5 feet is the granularity of modern consumer grade handhelds. The reading could have very well been rounded up. Let it sit a minute and the reading could have been 10 above the limit. 5 feet is well under the accepted margin of error. No, not deliberately soft.

 

 

I you may have misunderstood my post. I was referring to hiders deliberatly adjusting coords after the reviewer denied their hide because of being 5 feet too close to another cache. I can think of three situations that I am personally aware of where this happened (not always as little as 5 feet, but that same sort of situation).

[+StarBrand]

Exceptions are made all the time. It is flexible to some degree. But there has to be a good reason - not just because you want an exception.

 

Rivers, cliffs, highways, significant barriers between caches all create a good reason for an exception. Sometimes a reviewer will grant an exception to prevent revealing a puzzle cache as well.

 

Having said that - exceptions are relitvely rare. As you would expect if the guideline is to have any meaning at all.

[+chrisrayn]

What I'd like to KINDLY ask however is to not turn this into a debate about the merits of keeping cache distances (I get that, really I do) as I'm simply trying to get an answer related to the following -- who says it's a rule (as apparently it is not) and how did a guideline become a "rule"?

 

Yeah I think I'm about to break that, not sure, just wanted to warn.

 

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

And the very top of that page begins with -- "These are listing guidelines only."

And if you read the cache saturation section it doesn't say that it is a "rule" and that you cannot do it.

 

How this came up is (as you probably expected) in a cache placement request. Here is a note that I received by a reviewer related to the above, which says the same thing:

 

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

So clearly the above all say the say thing -- this is a "guideline" only. Which then prompts me to ask my question -- how did it get from a "guideline" (which would certainly allow for exceptions) to a supposed "rule" which cannot?

 

So...back to my question if I could -- how did this become a "rule" instead of the "guideline" that it says that it is? There shouldn't be much confusion between a "rule of thumb" or "arbitrary distance" and "guideline" and something which is a "rule." And if it is a guideline, then why is an "arbitrary distance and is just a guideline" being applied this way and without even a process to discuss it with a reviewer to explain what the reviewer might have missed or not know?

 

Thanks!

 

I just did some rough calculations. Not definitive, mind you, but rough. In the world, there are 57.5 million miles of land area, there abouts. Within that 57.5 million square miles, each cache "should" be no more than 528 feet apart, or .1 miles. I did a little basic geometry and found that if you put caches as close as humanly possible to one another, you could actually fit around 114 caches in a square mile, and maybe a couple more. However, I wanted my math to be on the conservative side.

 

If you do the math, you get that it's roughly 6.555 billion caches you could place in the entire world. Now, you're probably from the U.S., so this could be misleading, since really you're only looking at 3.79 million square miles (which could be false, as could the other mileage figure, since it's from wikipedia). Even wikipedia though probably isn't too far off about this. So if you do the math on how many caches would fit on 3.79 million square miles, you get 432,060,000 caches that are possible.

 

Currently, in the entire world, there are 909,882 caches placed. That leaves, in the United States alone, room for 431,150,178 more caches. However, you probably can't travel the entire United States to place a cache. But since your 3 total finds and 1 hide are from Virginia, let's use that state as a basis. Even if all of the existing caches in the entire world were in Virginia, which has a mere total area of 42,774 square miles, there would still be room for 3,966,354 more caches.

 

3,966,354 more caches IN VIRGINIA ALONE.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE STINKING GUIDELINES AND GO HIDE A CACHE IN ONE OF THE OTHER 3,966,354 PLACES IN YOUR STATE THAT ARE WITHOUT-A-DOUBT STILL AVAILABLE FOR A CACHE.

 

I mean, your post count on the forums isn't even at 10 and they outnumber your hides and you're arguing with CACHE RULES AND PHILOSOPHY. Come on, man, grow up.

 

p.s. I did all the math because I like math it's fun. :-)

Edited September 28, 2009 by chrisrayn

[knowschad]

So, I guess what I'm saying is QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE STINKING GUIDELINES AND GO HIDE A CACHE IN ONE OF THE OTHER 3,966,354 PLACES IN YOUR STATE THAT ARE WITHOUT-A-DOUBT STILL AVAILABLE FOR A CACHE.

 

I mean, your post count on the forums isn't even at 10 and they outnumber your hides and you're arguing with CACHE RULES AND PHILOSOPHY. Come on, man, grow up.

 

I don't think that was fair, based on what we know. You have no idea why the OP wants to place a cache in that spot. It may be the most awesome location in the state! Now, if he simply wants to place a cache there because there isn't one currently... of course your statement holds true.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I just did some rough calculations. Not definitive, mind you, but rough. In the world, there are 57.5 million miles of land area, there abouts. Within that 57.5 million square miles, each cache "should" be no more than 528 feet apart, or .1 miles. I did a little basic geometry and found that if you put caches as close as humanly possible to one another, you could actually fit around 114 caches in a square mile, and maybe a couple more. However, I wanted my math to be on the conservative side.

 

If you do the math, you get that it's roughly 6.555 billion caches you could place in the entire world. Now, you're probably from the U.S., so this could be misleading, since really you're only looking at 3.79 million square miles (which could be false, as could the other mileage figure, since it's from wikipedia). Even wikipedia though probably isn't too far off about this. So if you do the math on how many caches would fit on 3.79 million square miles, you get 432,060,000 caches that are possible.

 

Currently, in the entire world, there are 909,882 caches placed. That leaves, in the United States alone, room for 431,150,178 more caches. However, you probably can't travel the entire United States to place a cache. But since your 3 total finds and 1 hide are from Virginia, let's use that state as a basis. Even if all of the existing caches in the entire world were in Virginia, which has a mere total area of 42,774 square miles, there would still be room for 3,966,354 more caches.

 

3,966,354 more caches IN VIRGINIA ALONE.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE STINKING GUIDELINES AND GO HIDE A CACHE IN ONE OF THE OTHER 3,966,354 PLACES IN YOUR STATE THAT ARE WITHOUT-A-DOUBT STILL AVAILABLE FOR A CACHE.

 

I mean, your post count on the forums isn't even at 10 and they outnumber your hides and you're arguing with CACHE RULES AND PHILOSOPHY. Come on, man, grow up.

 

p.s. I did all the math because I like math it's fun. :-)

I'm only pointing this post out to say to some individuals "I thought you said that this doesn't happen."

They know what I'm talking about, carry on.

[+wimseyguy]

I gotta agree with the canine pal o chad-that was a bit excessive.

 

However, it does seem that newer cachers are displaying more of a sense of entitlement to their special place even if it runs afoul of the guidelines even more than ever. Or perhaps they are just quicker to discover the forums?

[+DragonflyTotem]

<snip>

 

So...back to my question if I could -- how did this become a "rule" instead of the "guideline" that it says that it is? There shouldn't be much confusion between a "rule of thumb" or "arbitrary distance" and "guideline" and something which is a "rule." And if it is a guideline, then why is an "arbitrary distance and is just a guideline" being applied this way and without even a process to discuss it with a reviewer to explain what the reviewer might have missed or not know?

 

Thanks!

Did you try e-mailing the reviewer referencing the cache name and id and giving a detailed explanation?

Apparently not.

Let us know how that works out for you.

 

I did hear from the reviewer who agreed to reconsider it based on my offline description of my cache location vs the pre-existing cache and additional things that impact it. But I'd also said that I would go out and recheck all coordinates. I did that and confirmed that the pre-existing cache is in fact further away than is indicated. But I went ahead and moved mine to be more than the 528 feet away. Thanked the reviewer, revised the description and am waiting for approval on this one.

[+DragonflyTotem]

So, I guess what I'm saying is QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE STINKING GUIDELINES AND GO HIDE A CACHE IN ONE OF THE OTHER 3,966,354 PLACES IN YOUR STATE THAT ARE WITHOUT-A-DOUBT STILL AVAILABLE FOR A CACHE.

 

I mean, your post count on the forums isn't even at 10 and they outnumber your hides and you're arguing with CACHE RULES AND PHILOSOPHY. Come on, man, grow up.

 

Thanks for paying closely to that part of my OP that explained that I didn't want to degenerate this into an argument of exactly that sort. I simply asked WHY it is listed as a guideline when it is clearly being treated as a firm rule. If you don't want to address that....please consider picking another thread!

 

Thanks!

[+Rustynails]

Quote:

I just did some rough calculations. Not definitive, mind you, but rough. In the world, there are 57.5 million miles of land area, there abouts. Within that 57.5 million square miles, each cache "should" be no more than 528 feet apart, or .1 miles. I did a little basic geometry and found that if you put caches as close as humanly possible to one another, you could actually fit around 114 caches in a square mile, and maybe a couple more. However, I wanted my math to be on the conservative side.

 

If you do the math, you get that it's roughly 6.555 billion caches you could place in the entire world. Now, you're probably from the U.S., so this could be misleading, since really you're only looking at 3.79 million square miles (which could be false, as could the other mileage figure, since it's from wikipedia). Even wikipedia though probably isn't too far off about this. So if you do the math on how many caches would fit on 3.79 million square miles, you get 432,060,000 caches that are possible.

 

Currently, in the entire world, there are 909,882 caches placed. That leaves, in the United States alone, room for 431,150,178 more caches. However, you probably can't travel the entire United States to place a cache. But since your 3 total finds and 1 hide are from Virginia, let's use that state as a basis. Even if all of the existing caches in the entire world were in Virginia, which has a mere total area of 42,774 square miles, there would still be room for 3,966,354 more caches.

 

3,966,354 more caches IN VIRGINIA ALONE.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE STINKING GUIDELINES AND GO HIDE A CACHE IN ONE OF THE OTHER 3,966,354 PLACES IN YOUR STATE THAT ARE WITHOUT-A-DOUBT STILL AVAILABLE FOR A CACHE.

 

I mean, your post count on the forums isn't even at 10 and they outnumber your hides and you're arguing with CACHE RULES AND PHILOSOPHY. Come on, man, grow up.

 

p.s. I did all the math because I like math it's fun. :-)

 

You will get attacked here.

Edited September 28, 2009 by rustynails.

[+Vater_Araignee]

<snip>

 

So...back to my question if I could -- how did this become a "rule" instead of the "guideline" that it says that it is? There shouldn't be much confusion between a "rule of thumb" or "arbitrary distance" and "guideline" and something which is a "rule." And if it is a guideline, then why is an "arbitrary distance and is just a guideline" being applied this way and without even a process to discuss it with a reviewer to explain what the reviewer might have missed or not know?

 

Thanks!

Did you try e-mailing the reviewer referencing the cache name and id and giving a detailed explanation?

Apparently not.

Let us know how that works out for you.

 

I did hear from the reviewer who agreed to reconsider it based on my offline description of my cache location vs the pre-existing cache and additional things that impact it. But I'd also said that I would go out and recheck all coordinates. I did that and confirmed that the pre-existing cache is in fact further away than is indicated. But I went ahead and moved mine to be more than the 528 feet away. Thanked the reviewer, revised the description and am waiting for approval on this one.

Good job!

I'm also glade to hear that you understand we don't have to pack them in as tight as they can be.

Once published give us the GC ID so we can check it out.

[+chrisrayn]

So, I guess what I'm saying is QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE STINKING GUIDELINES AND GO HIDE A CACHE IN ONE OF THE OTHER 3,966,354 PLACES IN YOUR STATE THAT ARE WITHOUT-A-DOUBT STILL AVAILABLE FOR A CACHE.

 

I mean, your post count on the forums isn't even at 10 and they outnumber your hides and you're arguing with CACHE RULES AND PHILOSOPHY. Come on, man, grow up.

 

Thanks for paying closely to that part of my OP that explained that I didn't want to degenerate this into an argument of exactly that sort. I simply asked WHY it is listed as a guideline when it is clearly being treated as a firm rule. If you don't want to address that....please consider picking another thread!

 

Thanks!

 

I mentioned that at the beginning of my post...

 

Chris 1, You 0 :-D

[+DragonflyTotem]

I don't think that was fair, based on what we know. You have no idea why the OP wants to place a cache in that spot. It may be the most awesome location in the state! Now, if he simply wants to place a cache there because there isn't one currently... of course your statement holds true.

 

Exactly, thank you. I had a reason for that exact spot that I provided to the reviewer who agreed that was in fact an issue. I'm not going to detail that but it has to do with the available camouflage in other areas not fitting with the camouflage of the cache. I spent about four hours wandering through this park to find a perfect match of the surroundings to my camouflage and had found none there that fit it (with the exception of some spots that were then too close to yet another cache in the other direction). So today I moved the cache from the perfect spot for it based on an exact match to my camouflage to a spot that is less than that. It's okay, but that's a shame. But I think that the reviewer well understood why the original spot was the perfect spot. And that was the point.

 

Thanks!

[+Crow-T-Robot]

So, I guess what I'm saying is QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE STINKING GUIDELINES AND GO HIDE A CACHE IN ONE OF THE OTHER 3,966,354 PLACES IN YOUR STATE THAT ARE WITHOUT-A-DOUBT STILL AVAILABLE FOR A CACHE.

 

You make it sound like you can place a cache anywhere you wish to place one, as long as it's 528 feet from another. It's nice you did all that math and came up with these fantastic numbers, but now go back and redo the math, adding into the equation on how much of that land is private or off-limits to caching. When you've done that, go back again and find out how much of that available space would be a good spot for a cache and not just some concrete space behind a store. We already have a plethora of film cans behind dumpsters and in bushes at the drive-thru.

 

Personally, I equate the 528 foot guideline to the zero-tolerance rules in place at schools. As long as its in place, reviewers don't need to give your placement any serious deliberation. Is it at least 528 feet from another cache? No? Not going to get published. Next. That's not a bad thing, mind you. With the rate that geocaches get submitted, reviewers NEED a rigid guideline in place or they'd never have time to sift through all the different scenarios and exceptions that people would ultimately try to get away with. At the same time, I've seen alot of very cool locations, without a cache, that are blocked off by a film can hidden in a bush on a street corner 300 feet away. There isn't much you can do but go find another cool location and hope that it's available.

 

Bruce

[+DragonflyTotem]

So, I guess what I'm saying is QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE STINKING GUIDELINES AND GO HIDE A CACHE IN ONE OF THE OTHER 3,966,354 PLACES IN YOUR STATE THAT ARE WITHOUT-A-DOUBT STILL AVAILABLE FOR A CACHE.

 

I mean, your post count on the forums isn't even at 10 and they outnumber your hides and you're arguing with CACHE RULES AND PHILOSOPHY. Come on, man, grow up.

 

Thanks for paying closely to that part of my OP that explained that I didn't want to degenerate this into an argument of exactly that sort. I simply asked WHY it is listed as a guideline when it is clearly being treated as a firm rule. If you don't want to address that....please consider picking another thread!

 

Thanks!

 

I mentioned that at the beginning of my post...

 

Chris 1, You 0 :-D

 

If so, then anything else was a waste of time as it has nothing to do with the question.

 

Thanks!

Edited September 28, 2009 by drdan01

[+StarBrand]

.... I simply asked WHY it is listed as a guideline when it is clearly being treated as a firm rule. If you don't want to address that....

But it isn't a "firm" rule. See my post above.

[GOF and Bacall]

In this application guideline doesn't mean close is close enough. It means this is the minimum distance unless you have a compelling reason you should be allowed to place one closer.

[+DragonflyTotem]

In this application guideline doesn't mean close is close enough. It means this is the minimum distance unless you have a compelling reason you should be allowed to place one closer.

 

But that's not what the language appears to say.

 

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

The above says that:

1) It is a "rule of thumb" (Wikipedia: "A rule of thumb is a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation.")

2) It is an arbitrary distance" (Wikipedia: Arbitrary -- Based on individual discretion or judgment; Determined by impulse rather than reason.)

3) Goal stated is "to reduce...number of caches hidden in a particular area" and to "reduce confusion...when one cache is found while looking for another" (Implication: increasing the number of caches in ANY area must therefore lead to an increase in confusion, and decreasing the density must therefore be positively correlated to a lack of confusion.)

 

And from that it seems pretty clear that nowhere is it said that "close is close enough" or that it is a "minimum distance" or that you need a "compelling reason" to place one closer.

 

Which brings me back to my original question -- how did this then become a rule? If, as it seems to be clearly indicated by past experiences detailed here and other threads, that there appears to be no variation of the "guideline" then it is in fact no longer "arbitrary" or a "rule of thumb."

 

The point that I'm trying (hard) to make here has nothing to do with arguing the merits of preventing cache density nor is it whining. It instead has to do with that it appears that (by the very words in the guidelines) an arbitrary decision has been made that regardless of the circumstances that there must be a standard minimum distance between any two caches or else assumed confusion exists.

 

But if the confusion doesn't come to play, and nobody is complaining about caches being too close (I searched and didn't find a post that complained about that) then this is no longer a rule of thumb (because it is applied in every situation) and is not an arbitrary distance (because everyone uses the same distance by practice) and it doesn't address confusion (because none was established and/or it cannot be proven that confusion was mitigated by that distance).

 

It is a clearly then a rule. Hence my question. If it is no longer a rule of thumb or arbitrary, then perhaps it should be said that:

 

"The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

If in fact that is the intent or the actual application. And that would lead to less confusion.

[+bittsen]

I love watching people argue for the sake of arguing.

[+DragonflyTotem]

I love watching people argue for the sake of arguing.

 

That wasn't the point of my post -- to argue. I think that I've gotten my answer in that it is a rule and apparently has been one since some long ago time. And I got my answer in that a reviewer will apparently answer you and discuss it (and I appreciated that very much!).

 

I'll move along then and won't be following the thread any more. Thanks much for all that left useful answers and comments!

[+wimseyguy]

Perhaps you should look for a wikipedia definition of 'kinder gentler language' vs. iron clad language?

 

Rule of thumb is a nice gentle colloquial term, because that is the tone that geocaching.com chooses to use with its guidelines.

 

The word arbitrary is used because it is just that. At some point a line had to be drawn in the sand. .1 mile aka 528' seemed like a good idea to a US based entity. Had they been in a country that used metric, they might have chosen 150 meters. Instead everyone outside the USA is wondering what is so special about 160 meters.

 

Also consider that a guideline need not always flex inwards. There might be times when .1 is still too close, and a reviewer might ask for .25 or even .5 miles of separation. Sound outrageous? It's already an established policy for several land management areas that have lots of room and plenty of geocaches. And then we have other area that simply ban our activity because too many cachers couldn't follow the simple guidelines we already have in place.

[GOF and Bacall]

I love watching people argue for the sake of arguing.

 

That wasn't the point of my post -- to argue. I think that I've gotten my answer in that it is a rule and apparently has been one since some long ago time. And I got my answer in that a reviewer will apparently answer you and discuss it (and I appreciated that very much!).

 

I'll move along then and won't be following the thread any more. Thanks much for all that left useful answers and comments!

 

You have stated how YOU interpret that guideline and most everyone else has tried to explain how Groundspeak applies it. You speak from how you understand the words you read. We speak from practical experience having seen how the guideline is applied time and time again. The only reason for you to continue is to argue for the sake of argument.

 

If it helps you to get a handle on it feel free to think of it as a rule. One thing though, when you come in here to bitch about someone who manages to get a cache published 515 feet from one of yours someone will probably point out that it is in fact just a guideline.

[+chrisrayn]

So, I guess what I'm saying is QUIT WHINING ABOUT THE STINKING GUIDELINES AND GO HIDE A CACHE IN ONE OF THE OTHER 3,966,354 PLACES IN YOUR STATE THAT ARE WITHOUT-A-DOUBT STILL AVAILABLE FOR A CACHE.

 

I mean, your post count on the forums isn't even at 10 and they outnumber your hides and you're arguing with CACHE RULES AND PHILOSOPHY. Come on, man, grow up.

 

Thanks for paying closely to that part of my OP that explained that I didn't want to degenerate this into an argument of exactly that sort. I simply asked WHY it is listed as a guideline when it is clearly being treated as a firm rule. If you don't want to address that....please consider picking another thread!

 

Thanks!

 

I mentioned that at the beginning of my post...

 

Chris 1, You 0 :-D

 

If so, then anything else was a waste of time as it has nothing to do with the question.

 

Thanks!

 

I just reread over what I wrote this morning and, man, I'm sorry. I mean, my opinion on the matter doesn't change, but that was no way to go about it. You kindly asked people not to debate on the philosophy of all this and I just openly ignored that request and then turned it into an outright bashfest.

 

Sorry you had to put up with my crap, man. Good luck caching in the future. :-)

Edited September 28, 2009 by chrisrayn

[+DragonflyTotem]

Perhaps you should look for a wikipedia definition of 'kinder gentler language' vs. iron clad language?

 

Rule of thumb is a nice gentle colloquial term, because that is the tone that geocaching.com chooses to use with its guidelines.

 

The word arbitrary is used because it is just that. At some point a line had to be drawn in the sand. .1 mile aka 528' seemed like a good idea to a US based entity. Had they been in a country that used metric, they might have chosen 150 meters. Instead everyone outside the USA is wondering what is so special about 160 meters.

 

Also consider that a guideline need not always flex inwards. There might be times when .1 is still too close, and a reviewer might ask for .25 or even .5 miles of separation. Sound outrageous? It's already an established policy for several land management areas that have lots of room and plenty of geocaches. And then we have other area that simply ban our activity because too many cachers couldn't follow the simple guidelines we already have in place.

 

Since I can't yet figure out how to unsubscribe....

 

All of what you say makes sense and I personally am okay with it. I simply asked a question so that I could understand the process that is used and to understand if the language taken as it seems to imply means that you can ask for a waiver or not. I'm not here to fight. Honest.

 

Thanks for the comment!

[+DragonflyTotem]

I love watching people argue for the sake of arguing.

 

That wasn't the point of my post -- to argue. I think that I've gotten my answer in that it is a rule and apparently has been one since some long ago time. And I got my answer in that a reviewer will apparently answer you and discuss it (and I appreciated that very much!).

 

I'll move along then and won't be following the thread any more. Thanks much for all that left useful answers and comments!

 

You have stated how YOU interpret that guideline and most everyone else has tried to explain how Groundspeak applies it. You speak from how you understand the words you read. We speak from practical experience having seen how the guideline is applied time and time again. The only reason for you to continue is to argue for the sake of argument.

 

If it helps you to get a handle on it feel free to think of it as a rule. One thing though, when you come in here to bitch about someone who manages to get a cache published 515 feet from one of yours someone will probably point out that it is in fact just a guideline.

 

Yes, but how we each interpret the guidelines is kind of important if the bigger "we" hope to see things done in a consistent manner that supports all that this community is supposedly about. I've previously served as a leader in a community consisting of more than 70 million volunteers (yes, not a typo) but that community seemed to have fairly well defined and understood rules and processes and there are things here that leave me definitely feeling a little bit lost.

 

As I said I'm NOT here to argue -- I simply was trying to understand something that was unclear to me. I will think of it as a rule and so won't bother to even think about asking for an exception or whatever and can guarantee that I won't ever "come in here to bitch about someone" who has placed a cache near or not near one of mine. Promise.

 

I had other questions that as a newbie to this community I had thought about asking but had seen some of the responses in other threads to what seemed to me to be innocent questions and I had hoped that there were other "issues" ongoing behind the thread that prompted the kind of responses received...but at this point I think that I've already learned the single most important lesson of this community.

[+DragonflyTotem]

I just reread over what I wrote this morning and, man, I'm sorry. I mean, my opinion on the matter doesn't change, but that was no way to go about it. You kindly asked people not to debate on the philosophy of all this and I just openly ignored that request and then turned it into an outright bashfest.

 

Sorry you had to put up with my crap, man. Good luck caching in the future. :-)

 

Accepted kindly and thanks for that.

[GOF and Bacall]

I love watching people argue for the sake of arguing.

 

That wasn't the point of my post -- to argue. I think that I've gotten my answer in that it is a rule and apparently has been one since some long ago time. And I got my answer in that a reviewer will apparently answer you and discuss it (and I appreciated that very much!).

 

I'll move along then and won't be following the thread any more. Thanks much for all that left useful answers and comments!

 

You have stated how YOU interpret that guideline and most everyone else has tried to explain how Groundspeak applies it. You speak from how you understand the words you read. We speak from practical experience having seen how the guideline is applied time and time again. The only reason for you to continue is to argue for the sake of argument.

 

If it helps you to get a handle on it feel free to think of it as a rule. One thing though, when you come in here to bitch about someone who manages to get a cache published 515 feet from one of yours someone will probably point out that it is in fact just a guideline.

 

Yes, but how we each interpret the guidelines is kind of important if the bigger "we" hope to see things done in a consistent manner that supports all that this community is supposedly about. I've previously served as a leader in a community consisting of more than 70 million volunteers (yes, not a typo) but that community seemed to have fairly well defined and understood rules and processes and there are things here that leave me definitely feeling a little bit lost.

 

As I said I'm NOT here to argue -- I simply was trying to understand something that was unclear to me. I will think of it as a rule and so won't bother to even think about asking for an exception or whatever and can guarantee that I won't ever "come in here to bitch about someone" who has placed a cache near or not near one of mine. Promise.

 

I had other questions that as a newbie to this community I had thought about asking but had seen some of the responses in other threads to what seemed to me to be innocent questions and I had hoped that there were other "issues" ongoing behind the thread that prompted the kind of responses received...but at this point I think that I've already learned the single most important lesson of this community.

 

I am sorry you feel put upon. The simple fact is you asked a question and the proceeded to deny the validity of the answer given. If GS chooses to explain their choice of wording that is up to them. All we can do is let you know the practical application as we see it through our experience. Call it what you will, guideline or rule, it does not matter. What matters is how The Powers That Be and their representatives apply it. that application has been explained.

[knowschad]

Since I can't yet figure out how to unsubscribe....

 

As the one that started this thread, you can request a moderator to close it.

[+StarBrand]

Really, seriously - did you read my post above???

 

Really, seriously - exceptions are granted all the time. It isn't a rule. It has flexability. Sorry you refuse to concede that fact.

[+fizzymagic]

Exceptions are made all the time. It is flexible to some degree. But there has to be a good reason - not just because you want an exception.

...

Having said that - exceptions are relitvely rare. As you would expect if the guideline is to have any meaning at all.

Since you seem to be relying on this post a great deal, and you seem to be speaking from authority, why don't you quantify this for us?

• How often are exceptions granted?
  
• What percentage of requested exceptions are granted?
  

If you can't answer the above, then I don't understand why you consider your post to be so definitive. Fuzzy terms like "all the time" and "relatively rare" don't really mean much.

 

IMO, the distance guideline is a rule. Exceptions can be made, but only under extraordinary circumstances.

 

That pretty much goes for the other guidelines as well; I fail to understand why they aren't just called the rules, because that's what they are.

[+StarBrand]

I have personal knowledge of a number of occasions where exceptions were granted and the reasons why.

 

I have personal knowledge of several cachers that asked for an exception and were not granted one - and I know why.

 

I can conclude from my personal knowledge as well as discussion with reviewers that 1- Exceptions are indeed granted and 2- that more often the exception is not granted. Beyond that, you must forgive my use of unquantifiable terminology. I was merely pointing out that the guideline is indeed flexible and not a rigid rule as has been asserted.

 

The differences between the exceptions and the enforcement of the guideline is as varied as the experience most cachers enjoy.

[+tozainamboku]

My take is that is a guideline. Reviewers are given quite a bit of leeway on the publishing caches that are closer that 528 ft. There has to be a "good" reason for it however. There are some reasons that have been shared by reviewers in the forums. The most common one is the barrier between caches - for example a cliff with no direct path from top to bottom or a river with no bridge or place to ford nearby. We are not given specifics as to what constitutes a barrier or just how close two cache can be to one another if there is a barrier between them. We are told there may be other exceptions, but what these are we don't know for sure. We are told reviewers will look at these on case by case basis. What may be a significant barrier in one case might not be considered significant in another. This seems to up to a reviewer to decide.

 

The 528 feet is a "rule-of-thumb". Yes that means it doesn't have to be applied in every case. But in reality, this gives a good starting point to the reviewers. More than 528 feet, and unless one cacher is putting out a bunch of caches all at once, the reviewer can safely say the cache meets the guidelines. Significantly less than 528 feet and the reviewer will likely not publish the cache unless the cache owner has a really good reason why this cache should get an exception. If the cache is just short of the 528 feet, the reviewer has a tough time deciding if the might be a reason to allow the higher density. A cache owner could provided additional information in a reviewer note to help with this decision, but they should also realize that many reviewers will still initially not approve the cache. Most cache owners will go back and move there cache slightly to get it published, so why should the reviewer make an exception that someone will later no doubt use to argue that the review is inconsistent.

 

I'm wary of posts like OP who want to argue the semantics of the guidelines. Especially the saturation guideline which has been one of the most argued and discussed guidelines in forums. Almost everyone understands that you need to have 528 feet between your cache an the next and that exceptions are given but rarely. What happens when someone either didn't read the guidelines or read them and decided that their cache was so special that it was obvious it should get an exception? They come to the forum and start to argue that the guidelines are written wrong. Mostly everyone else seems to understand innately not put out cache within 528 feet of another cache without arguing is this a "guideline" or a "rule". They knows that exceptions are made sometimes so it is a guideline, but they don't expect exceptions will be made just because they found the "best" spot for their cache and another cache already exists with 528 of that location. If they have a situation where they want to place a cache closer than 528 of another cache, they know to contact the reviewer first, and often the owner of the other cache as well, to work out the details and see if an exception can be made. At the very least they will provide detailed information in a reviewer note as to why their cache should be approved, and it if isn't they will accept that reviewer is just doing their job and will try to find a different place for the cache. Guidelines work best when they are treated like rules. But unlike hard rules, a guideline can be stretched a bit without risking the argument that we might as well not have any rules because the reviewers don't apply them 100% of the time. If you believe a reviewer is acting unfairly giving exceptions to friends while denying other caches with the same situation, you can appeal to Groundspeak.

[Keystone]

It is a guideline, not a rule. Reviewers are encouraged to be flexible in applying the Cache Saturation guideline. (Hint: someone really ought to look at the exact text of that guideline, which I haven't seen in this thread.)

 

One reason why the guideline might appear to some as a "rule" -- especially to forum veterans -- is that you very rarely see a forum post from someone trumpeting the fact that their cache was published as an exception to the listing guidelines. You only see the complaint threads.

 

I grant so many exceptions to this guideline that I've developed a form letter:

 

Hello, I am a volunteer for Geocaching.com and I have just reviewed your new cache submission. I will be publishing it shortly, but before doing so I wanted to mention an issue I saw during the review.

 

Your cache is placed just {FEET} feet from another existing cache: {OTHER CACHE NAME}, GC{GC CODE}. Our general guideline for cache density is that caches must be at least .1 miles apart. See the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines on this subject here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#sat

 

Since {FEET} feet is so close to 528 feet, I am going to grant an exception to the listing guidelines in this case. In the future, please make sure that your caches are separated by the minimum required distance.

 

Enjoy the logs on your new cache!

 

Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

[knowschad]

It is a guideline, not a rule. Reviewers are encouraged to be flexible in applying the Cache Saturation guideline. (Hint: someone really ought to look at the exact text of that guideline, which I haven't seen in this thread.)

 

One reason why the guideline might appear to some as a "rule" -- especially to forum veterans -- is that you very rarely see a forum post from someone trumpeting the fact that their cache was published as an exception to the listing guidelines. You only see the complaint threads.

 

I grant so many exceptions to this guideline that I've developed a form letter:

 

Hello, I am a volunteer for Geocaching.com and I have just reviewed your new cache submission. I will be publishing it shortly, but before doing so I wanted to mention an issue I saw during the review.

 

Your cache is placed just {FEET} feet from another existing cache: {OTHER CACHE NAME}, GC{GC CODE}. Our general guideline for cache density is that caches must be at least .1 miles apart. See the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines on this subject here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#sat

 

Since {FEET} feet is so close to 528 feet, I am going to grant an exception to the listing guidelines in this case. In the future, please make sure that your caches are separated by the minimum required distance.

Enjoy the logs on your new cache!

Hey, Keystone

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Keystone: would you mind please completing the following?

{FEET}

{OTHER CACHE NAME}

and

{GC CODE}

 

Thanks.

Knowschad.

 

Edited September 29, 2009 by knowschad