GOF and Bacall Posted December 3, 2009 Share Posted December 3, 2009 DING-DING-DING Hey, that's my job! Just figured I'd give you the night off. But hey, if you want the job back that's fine with me. I'll just kick back and relax. Link to comment
+PLMerry Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Another option that no one seems to have mentioned and seems to fit what you are saying about the location is to make one an earthcache. Earthcaches seem to have a little more latitude when it comes to the saturation limit as there is nothing physical that could be mistaken for another cache. If this location is an old quarry that show the works of 100 years worth of nature then an Earthcache seems to be appropriate. Of course you would have to make the cache educational and explain the area. Link to comment
+Minimike2 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Looking at the map - there is a prior cache that appears closer than .1 mile from yours. Link to comment
+helix149 Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) Looking at the map - there is a prior cache that appears closer than .1 mile from yours. The cache that was published is just a little over .1 miles away from the other cache near this area. However many if not most would find it impossible to travel as the crow flies between them. As I had stated earlier neither of the caches could have been moved further in the directions necessary to make this grouping work in a safe manner either. I was not and am not willing to further argue this point with the original reviewer who didn't in my opinion pay attention to the notes left for them and that is fine they are busy. I moved the unpublished cache just slightly and posted it on another site. If the site had more traffic in this area both would be on the site. I will be placing more on this site as well as that site in the future as they both have their pluses. On another note I do not appreciate the moderators hijacking this thread and in my opinion taking it off topic. My concerns were serious concerns as these were both good caches in great locations using ammo cans as containers. It would have been different if I was trying to place a micro at a mc d's across the street from a micro placed at yet another waffle house. This was not the case and my concerns are valid yet I doubt I will ever see a moderator or a reviewer going to the location to see for themselves as it is there has only been one find since the cache was published. Mods Before you start ranting I know reviewers cannot Physically check every cache that is in question and I am not and did not ask that of the reviewer even though I did Offer it as an option if they wanted to. My original point is while the guideline is ok there is room for improvement and if it is going to be treated like a black and white rule by reviewers it should be called a rule not called a guideline. There was not any discussion in the case of the caches in question. I was simply shot down cold even though it had been recommended that I place them the best I could and leave a note for the reviewer when I voiced concerns about being just outside meeting the guideline in these forums. Edited December 10, 2009 by helix149 Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 My concerns were serious concerns as these were both good caches in great locations using ammo cans as containers. It would have been different if I was trying to place a micro at a mc d's across the street from a micro placed at yet another waffle house. That's what you don't get. Reviewers don't judge the "worth" of caches and give special treatment to some and not to others. Just because you think your cache is "super duper special" is meaningless. All caches are given the same consideration. You have to play by the same guidelines as everyone else. Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 (edited) My concerns were serious concerns as these were both good caches in great locations using ammo cans as containers. It would have been different if I was trying to place a micro at a mc d's across the street from a micro placed at yet another waffle house. That's what you don't get. Reviewers don't judge the "worth" of caches and give special treatment to some and not to others. Just because you think your cache is "super duper special" is meaningless. All caches are given the same consideration. You have to play by the same guidelines as everyone else. Not 100% true. Reviewers can make exceptions to the 528 ft. guideline. These may be rare and only given it a few exceptional cases, but they do exist. My feeling is that this is a bit like a Wow requirement (on virtual caches). Everyone who submitted a virtual thought their virtual was was "Wow" enough to be published. The few virtuals that were published were the ones that the reviewer thought were "Wow". The rest, despite what the person submitting the cache thought, were not "Wow". To the OP, you may think you have a exceptional situation which deserves an exception to the guideline. From everything you told us so far, I would agree with the reviewer. There is nothing exceptional in your case. You found two nice locations for caches which are less than 528 feet apart. Because of the terrain and another existing cache you cannot move either of these caches far enough to avoid the 528. Everyday people pass up placing caches in the perfect location they found because someone already has a cache less than 528 feet away. They know that reviewer isn't going to make an exception in this case. It happens too frequently to be called exceptional. Everyday people will choose one of two locations (or make a multicache if they really want to bring people to both locations). This is too common as well for an exception to be made. Edited December 10, 2009 by tozainamboku Link to comment
+helix149 Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 You must have also missed that due to the terrain you cannot access one cache from the other without traveling further than 528 ft. Caches are approved regularly because of a highway or a water source in between them even though you could grab both caches by moving less then 528 ft swimming/boating or by crossing the highway by foot. This was not the case here even with climbing equipment it is not safe and may not be possible to access both caches without traveling more than the 528 feet required. Link to comment
Motorcycle_Mama Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The part about it "not being safe" does not come into consideration when the cache is reviewed. And can you point out where in the current Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines is states that having an "inaccessible" obstacle between caches is grounds for placing them closer together? I'm not seeing it. Link to comment
+helix149 Posted December 12, 2009 Author Share Posted December 12, 2009 The part about it "not being safe" does not come into consideration when the cache is reviewed. And can you point out where in the current Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines is states that having an "inaccessible" obstacle between caches is grounds for placing them closer together? I'm not seeing it. No I cannot however it is also not in the rules but instead HAS been left as a guideline that caches SHOULD in most cases be .1 miles apart these two would have been if it were not for the circumstances. Link to comment
+Rock Dogz Posted December 13, 2009 Share Posted December 13, 2009 Please don't change the rule... Please don't break it either. I say learn to enjoy multi's, or, it's a big planet - find another interesting place. Link to comment
Recommended Posts