+user13371 Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 (edited) I placed a cache on Saturday, started the listing for it, and left it unpublished. Went back a couple times to confirm good coords with two different GPS units, then finished the listing and activated it this evening for review. Within a few hours, I got this note from the local reviewer: Upon reviewing your new cache, I'm afraid it is too close to a cache that hasn't been submitted for publication yet. The other cache was started before your cache was, and so it has precedence. I have posted a note onto that cache, and if nothing has been done with it within a month, I will archive it, which will free up the area for your cache. ... I can't give lot of details about the other cache, including its location. Since it hasn't been published yet, the cache owner could move it at will, so I don't really know what location it might end up at.... I have temporarily disabled your cache to allow you to relocate it away from the other cache. ...I know about and understand the 1/10 mile rule -- but this is a bit surprising to me. I'm not sure how I can re-locate mine to avoid blocking if I don't know what direction or how far I'm supposed to move. I sent a note back to the reviewer thanking him for his prompt reply, and asked if it would be okay for me to leave my cache physically in place until he hears back about the other one. Was that the right thing for me to do? Is there any other way to handle this? Edited January 27, 2010 by lee_rimar
+DragonsWest Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Wow. A month! I tried to publish one last year and the reviewer stated a week.
+Casting Crowns Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I've heard of it happening before. Also those darn Mystery caches can get you too....leaving it there should be OK but you do run the risk of it being found if you're REALLY close to the other cache. I have found archived caches before looking for a different cache.
+user13371 Posted January 27, 2010 Author Posted January 27, 2010 ...those darn Mystery caches can get you too...Well, from context I think this is at least a PHYSICAL cache near mine
GOF and Bacall Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 ...those darn Mystery caches can get you too...Well, from context I think this is at least a PHYSICAL cache near mine I'm certain it is. If it wasn't a physical cache or a physical part of a cache it would not be a problem. I don't see a problem with leaving yours in place until you have confirmation the other is going to actually be published or not. Or you can take a guess and move yours a random distance and see if it will fly. Sometimes these things happen. A good location for a cache is a good location.
+brodiebunch Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 We have ten caches, nine are over five years old and one is four plus years old Hiding new ones are just too much hassle. Even maintaining ten can be too much sometimes.
+WRASTRO Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I placed a cache on Saturday, started the listing for it, and left it unpublished. Went back a couple times to confirm good coords with two different GPS units, then finished the listing and activated it this evening for review. Within a few hours, I got this note from the local reviewer: Upon reviewing your new cache, I'm afraid it is too close to a cache that hasn't been submitted for publication yet. The other cache was started before your cache was, and so it has precedence. I have posted a note onto that cache, and if nothing has been done with it within a month, I will archive it, which will free up the area for your cache. ... I can't give lot of details about the other cache, including its location. Since it hasn't been published yet, the cache owner could move it at will, so I don't really know what location it might end up at.... I have temporarily disabled your cache to allow you to relocate it away from the other cache. ...I know about and understand the 1/10 mile rule -- but this is a bit surprising to me. I'm not sure how I can re-locate mine to avoid blocking if I don't know what direction or how far I'm supposed to move. I sent a note back to the reviewer thanking him for his prompt reply, and asked if it would be okay for me to leave my cache physically in place until he hears back about the other one. Was that the right thing for me to do? Is there any other way to handle this? I would respond to the reviewer and ask for a shorter time period. The other cache placer should be able to publish or give up in a week or so in my opinion.
The Bee Keeper Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I would respond to the reviewer and ask for a shorter time period. The other cache placer should be able to publish or give up in a week or so in my opinion. It does happen from time to time. A week can be too short in some circumstances, it may be the other cache owner is away on holiday or called away on business. It may be they have a slight temporary domestic situation that is holding their caching for a brief period. They may be dealing with the bureaucracy of getting permission. There are an awful lot of variables. Just sit tight lee_rimar it is but a month, as you have been caching since 2001 I doubt a few weeks will make a huge difference.
+briansnat Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 It doesn't happen a lot but it happens. Reviewers will let an unpublished cache hold a spot for a reasonable amount of time. The hider could be waiting for a permit, it might be hidden for an upcoming event, he could be working on an involved puzzle, whatever. Out of the hundreds of caches submitted every week, I'd guess this happens maybe once or twice every few weeks. It's rare and nothing but a case of bad luck when it happens. Leave your cache in place and if the other owner doesn't get back to the reviewer by the end of the month the spot will be yours.
+user13371 Posted January 27, 2010 Author Posted January 27, 2010 Thanks to everyone for the reples -- especially Briansnat and BeeKeeper, as the two of you are speaking from experience. I'll let it sit for a month and probably check the locaton from time to time myself to make sure it isn't "accidentally" found. As an aside, and just out of curiosity, how does one get to be a cache reviewer? It doesn't sound like fun.
+sssss Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 As an aside, and just out of curiosity, how does one get to be a cache reviewer? It doesn't sound like fun. http://support.Groundspeak.com/Support/ind...&nav=0,5,30
+user13371 Posted January 27, 2010 Author Posted January 27, 2010 Thanks for the pointer sssss -- I had just been in the KB looking for it after it occured to me to ask the question here
+Castle Mischief Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 If I find a particularly good spot that I really want to place a cache in I'll send a message to a reviewer and ask them to scan the area for unpublished caches and/or puzzle/multi legs. Just hang in there.
+user13371 Posted January 27, 2010 Author Posted January 27, 2010 (edited) Yah, I'm thinking in a week or two if I haven't heard anything I'll email him back and ask if he can at least give me a rough idea of an open area near my prefered spot. From his email I don't know if I just need to move just a few metres, or entirely out of the park. Edited January 27, 2010 by lee_rimar
Clan Riffster Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 I'll email him back and ask if he can at least give me at least rough idea Good idea. I ran afoul of an old puzzle final once. The reviewer suggested a vague direction and distance that would resolve my conflict.
ao318 Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 (edited) This same thing happened to me once. I sent an email back to th reviewer, as you did, and he asked me to call him to explain what is going on. As we were speaking, he looked up the date of the unpublished cache that I was too close to and saw that it had been submitted over two years prior to mine. He then archived the other cache and activated mine. Good luck on the cache. edited for spelling Edited January 27, 2010 by ao318
+PokerLuck Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 It seems to me that the precedence should go to the person who submits it first. It's called "getting your act together". Sure, in a situation like this, someone has to lose, but I'd rather see the reward going to the person who did their homework and had their submission complete and ready to go first.
+user13371 Posted January 27, 2010 Author Posted January 27, 2010 (edited) PokerLuck, the phrase "publish or perish" had occured to me too, but I don't want to push this into a conflict. I haven't hidden a cache in a few years and there are lots of folks around here more active in the sport than I am. If the other cache is really close to mine, was there first, and is just waiting for someone to tidy up their notes -- I'm fine with that. I just want to know the best way to identify a cleared location, and a few folks have already commented on that. Edited January 27, 2010 by lee_rimar
jholly Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 It seems to me that the precedence should go to the person who submits it first. It's called "getting your act together". Sure, in a situation like this, someone has to lose, but I'd rather see the reward going to the person who did their homework and had their submission complete and ready to go first. I can think of several reasons why someone would prepare a cache page before publishing. One is to get the camo right for the spot, another they want to take co-ordinate readings over a couple days or they are preparing a special container. I would not like going to this sort of trouble only to find out someone came along and dropped a film can cache. I see no issue or problem with a spot being held for a reasonable period of time, say for four to six weeks.
+tozainamboku Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 It seems to me that the precedence should go to the person who submits it first. It's called "getting your act together". Sure, in a situation like this, someone has to lose, but I'd rather see the reward going to the person who did their homework and had their submission complete and ready to go first. The problem arises when someone is putting together a more involved cache. Perhaps they are building custom camouflage for the location or they are in the process of obtaining permission for their cache before publishing it. They can't check the box saying the cache is ready to be found and submit it for publication but they have selected a location and are actively involved in preparing everything so the cache can be submitted. Perhaps cachers should be required to post a reviewer note to let the review know to hold the place. Perhaps this was the case with this cache. The reviewers and Groundspeak have decided to give precedence to the cache page that was created first (lowest GC number) in order to accomodate those caches that take a little more time to prepare. There are ways this could be abused; I don't know what procedures Groundspeak and the reviewers have to prevent abuse.
ThomasFamily102 Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Just my two cents. He said the cache was already there but wasn't published. Does that mean it is archived but has the potential to get re-published? Personally I think if the cache has been archived for a while then if you want to place a cache in the area, you should have the right. Why wait a long time to see if a cache is gonna get republished.
jholly Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Just my two cents. He said the cache was already there but wasn't published. Does that mean it is archived but has the potential to get re-published? Personally I think if the cache has been archived for a while then if you want to place a cache in the area, you should have the right. Why wait a long time to see if a cache is gonna get republished. It has nothing to do with archived caches. Once a cache is archived it is history and the spot is free. There is no waiting to see if the owner changed his mind and wants to un-archive the cache. For a cache to be un-archived there has to be a very good reason, which rarely happens. The most common reason I have seen for un-archiving a cache is that a land manager suddenly becomes aware of caches on their land and want to asses the situation but don't want folks looking for the caches during this period. GS will archive the caches with the explicit statement that caches found to be okay will be un-archived.
Dj Storm Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 Regarding the OP's question, this is what I would do: - leave the cache in place, wait for a month, see if the other cacher publishes the cache; - (optional) during this time, start working on the next cache placement; - if the other cache gets published, retrieve the cache and reuse the container/swag for another placement; - if the cache doesn't get published, after a month ask the reviewer for a follow-up. Odds are the reviewer will archive the other cache and publish this one. I see three reasons for holding a location (the case of the other cache): - the cache was ready to be published, but had some issues, and the reviewer asked for some clarification; - the cacher asked that his cache be published on a specific day in the future; - the cache is a custom one and/or a work in progress.
Clan Riffster Posted January 27, 2010 Posted January 27, 2010 On a similar note, I typed up a cache page once, just to play with layout and HTML stuff. This required that I input coords. I included a reviewer note explaining that I was not trying to "save" the spot, and requested that the reviewers feel free to move my unpublished cache about to suit their needs. A few months later, a cacher placed a real cache nearby, which came into conflict with my posted location. The reviewer followed the instructions on my note and moved my coords.
+fizzymagic Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 The problem arises when someone is putting together a more involved cache. <snip>... The reviewers and Groundspeak have decided to give precedence to the cache page that was created first (lowest GC number) in order to accomodate those caches that take a little more time to prepare. I'm not sure that this would be a good policy, in general. A couple of times during the last year I have put together caches that required some significant preparation. I created the cache pages as soon as I had approximate coordinates, but left the cache inactive. I then emailed my local reviewer to (a) check that the coordinates were available, and ( reserve them for a relatively short period while I got the cache together. He responded promptly and everything went fine. Had someone else tried to place a cache too near the spot I had "reserved," I am sure that my local reviewer would have let them know that the spot was taken. However, if I had not written to the reviewer to reserve the spot, I don't think I should have had any expectation that the spot would be reserved for me. If somebody had come and actually placed a cache while I was preparing mine, and I had not contacted my reviewer , then I think I should have been out of luck. I think that given the OP's situation, one of two things should happen: the reviewer should contact the person who has the prior cache page, and if they have not heard back within a week, give up the spot. A month is too long. Or the reviewer should connect the two cachers so that they can work out the issue between themselves.
+DarkZen Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 (edited) I place a lot of caches (around 120 and counting) and this has happened to me a few times. Sometimes the cache placer gets around to enabling and you can't get the spot. Other times they don't follow through in a timely manner and the reviewer will archive the listing and you will be free to publish yours. Somef cachers put in fake coords as they initially write up the cache for convenience sake dropping the correct ones in at a later date when they enable and when that happens the spot will open up. As noted, some cachers place complicated multis and it is imperative for them to know a final is available and will take it as soon as they know it's needed. Sometimes I like to send in a cache to hold the spot but need time to fine tune the coding, etc. When you are filling out the form for a new cache, notice the checked box that reads "Yes, this listing is active (For new listings, if you want to work on this listing before it is reviewed, uncheck this box. Reviewers will only see the listing in the queue when it is checked.)". I always uncheck that box so I can preview for errors before I click the 'Enable" link. If you need time, this is a very prudent thing to do. There are some local cachers who place very tricky (evil) hides and usually require some 'tinkering' to get right. Rather than uncheck the box they disables after the cache is published. This has lead to more than one disgruntled cacher. Here's one out of my area as an example. So holding the spot does make sense for several reasons. I'd just move on and let it resolve itself in time. Edited January 28, 2010 by DarkZen and Beautiful
knowschad Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 As an aside, and just out of curiosity, how does one get to be a cache reviewer? It doesn't sound like fun. You're well on your way!! Keep saying things like that and it just may happen.
knowschad Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 On a similar note, I typed up a cache page once, just to play with layout and HTML stuff. This required that I input coords. I included a reviewer note explaining that I was not trying to "save" the spot, and requested that the reviewers feel free to move my unpublished cache about to suit their needs. A few months later, a cacher placed a real cache nearby, which came into conflict with my posted location. The reviewer followed the instructions on my note and moved my coords. When I have done a "scratch pad" cache in the past, I've used my home coords, just to avoid a situation like that. To speak to the original question, though... a month, plus whatever time had passed before the OP's inquiry does seem like quite a long time to hold onto a spot to me, though.
+user13371 Posted January 28, 2010 Author Posted January 28, 2010 (edited) Hey mods -- this hardly happens, but I'm gonna ask you to close this thread. I got info I was after from a couple of reviewers -- and I'm completely satisfied with that. Thanks all! Edited January 28, 2010 by lee_rimar
Clan Riffster Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 ...yet another argumentative thread about how GS should run things -- from the viewpoint of a lot of folks who don't. Party pooper!
knowschad Posted January 28, 2010 Posted January 28, 2010 ...yet another argumentative thread about how GS should run things -- from the viewpoint of a lot of folks who don't. Party pooper! Yeah!!
Recommended Posts