Cache Listing Guidelines

[+NeecesandNephews]

There is a cache here locally that is well within the proximity described to a railroad track. The track is an industrial siding, not a main rail, but even a previous finder noted the train cars made a good cover for the cache.

 

I even took pictures in which you can see the hiding spot with the rail cars in the pic.

 

I didn't realize such a restriction existed.

[+Touchstone]

I didn't realize such a restriction existed.

 

Since it doesn't appear that you've hidden any caches yet, I'm assuming you haven't read the Guidelines for cache placements yet, but for reference, here is the portion of the Guidelines that addresses the railroad issue:

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not exhaustive):

 

....

 

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

 

Link to Off Limit Cache Placements

[Clan Riffster]

And to address the OPs concerns about the guidelines being counterproductive,

I saw this little note on the Geocaching .com homepage:

There are 990,589 active geocaches around the world.

Seems they work just fine...

[CoyoteRed]

And to address the OPs concerns about the guidelines being counterproductive,

I saw this little note on the Geocaching .com homepage:

There are 990,589 active geocaches around the world.

Seems they work just fine...

I think he was talking about counterproductive to placing interesting adventures versus trache. Take away the easy-to-hide parking lot micro traditionals and of that 990K plus you are left with, what, a few thousand?

 

Exaggeration, yes, I know.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I went back and forth with the reviewer for over a week and appreciate that they are a volunteer doing a difficult job but think that holding to a hard and fast rule that does not account for the actual geographical, topographical, etc. features is counterproductive to creative hides. I like to incorporate hiking with purpose into my caching and series make it really fun but it means you have to have some freedom to work within the confines of the area. Mine was bordered by a canal, a reservoir, and two roadways and had no previous caches inside the boundaries. Fortunately, I salvaged some of it, but shorter with less caches. sigh....kind of zapped my motivation for next time. I would hope the guidelines have the potential to evolve with time.

 

Look at it this way. We are all playing by the same set of guidelines (for the most part) and if one exception is made, then there will have to be another and another, and so on.

 

It's too bad that you feel slighted by the guidelines but, as I said, we are all playing by the same set.

 

Yes, we are all playing by the same set of rules but there are exceptions to this. A reviewer will make an exception if he or she feels it is warranted. I don't think there is a steadfast set of things that will influence a reviewer to grant an exception but this is a list of things that I think have helped others in the past.

 

1. Information and documentation. Remember your reviewer is probably unfamiliar with the specific area you are wanting an exception with. Demonstrate your request with tangible data that he or she can understand. Such as Google Map mock-ups. Photos of the area.

2. Reputation. Pretty subjective but good geo-citizens can catch a break from time to time when others might not. If you are active in trying to help make geocaching a better activity, at some level it becomes apparent to everyone paying attention. Even reviewers

3. Respect. Understand that you are asking for an exception to a rule that most everyone follows. It is up the individual reviewer and they have a responsibility to follow the rules. If you have presented the best case you can for the exception and still get denied, move on.

4. Learn. This is really part b of number 3 but don't spend your energy asking for similar exceptions. Repetition is annoying and generally not cool.

5. Be creative. Ask yourself, " Have I absolutely exhausted the possibilities to achieve the intent of the cache I want to place? Am I a little too focused on that one spot? Actually.. I'd move this up to number one and suggest it before even asking.

Edited February 21, 2010 by Team GeoBlast

[+Team GeoBlast]

There is a cache here locally that is well within the proximity described to a railroad track. The track is an industrial siding, not a main rail, but even a previous finder noted the train cars made a good cover for the cache.

 

I even took pictures in which you can see the hiding spot with the rail cars in the pic.

 

I didn't realize such a restriction existed.

 

No offense intended but did you have fun doing this? Would you classify it as recreation? Did you ask yourself "why do I care so much about this?"

[+Team GeoBlast]

As far as RR tracks go, I can point to one cache I KNOW is 15 feet from active RR tracks. I measured it. Exactly FIFTEEN feet from the cache to the rail.

 

In my area, RR tracks can be right along the road. We have buildings that are within 30 feet of active rail lines. It's not 150 feet here because of ROW.

 

Having said that, when the reviewer said my cache was too close to the tracks, I moved it.

 

That sounds like a blast! I am bringing my tape measure next time I go caching. Holy moly...

[+bittsen]

As far as RR tracks go, I can point to one cache I KNOW is 15 feet from active RR tracks. I measured it. Exactly FIFTEEN feet from the cache to the rail.

 

In my area, RR tracks can be right along the road. We have buildings that are within 30 feet of active rail lines. It's not 150 feet here because of ROW.

 

Having said that, when the reviewer said my cache was too close to the tracks, I moved it.

 

That sounds like a blast! I am bringing my tape measure next time I go caching. Holy moly...

 

You don't need a tape measure when your boot is exactly 12 inches in length. Heel to toe, heel to toe. Count to fifteen if you can.

 

[+The VanDucks]

It's very disappointing to plan out a cache and have it be turned down because there's another cache too close by; it's happened to us a few times, also. Once it was the final of a puzzle cache which we were not able to solve, so we had no idea it was where we tried to place our cache.

 

But placing a cache means being creative, and there's usually another way to set up your cache, especially if it's a multi. Rather than taking it personally, realize it happens to all of us, and just work out your cache plans a bit differently.

 

Your cache is a gift to your fellow cachers. This game will only work if we all cooperate and work together within the guidelines, which are necessary for any endeavor involving thousands of participants all around the world!

Edited February 21, 2010 by The VanDucks

[+Team GeoBlast]

As far as RR tracks go, I can point to one cache I KNOW is 15 feet from active RR tracks. I measured it. Exactly FIFTEEN feet from the cache to the rail.

 

In my area, RR tracks can be right along the road. We have buildings that are within 30 feet of active rail lines. It's not 150 feet here because of ROW.

 

Having said that, when the reviewer said my cache was too close to the tracks, I moved it.

 

That sounds like a blast! I am bringing my tape measure next time I go caching. Holy moly...

 

You don't need a tape measure when your boot is exactly 12 inches in length. Heel to toe, heel to toe. Count to fifteen if you can.

 

 

You are missing the point. You measured.

[+bittsen]

That sounds like a blast! I am bringing my tape measure next time I go caching. Holy moly...

 

You don't need a tape measure when your boot is exactly 12 inches in length. Heel to toe, heel to toe. Count to fifteen if you can.

 

 

You are missing the point. You measured.

And you naturally assume you know why I measured??

[+wimseyguy]

What other reason could there possibly be other than to share the knowledge in here and elsewhere?

[+bittsen]

What other reason could there possibly be other than to share the knowledge in here and elsewhere?

 

Since you asked...

 

My caching friend and I constantly banter things. Yeah, I know, it's hard to imagine me arguing with anyone but I do. Have you ever seen siblings argue? That's how we are, like siblings even though we aren't related.

Anyhow, the argument was that the cache was closer to 16 feet away (my argument) and 12 feet (his argument). So I measured. And I won the argument with fact. BTW, this is also why later on I was told I needed to measure the exact length of my footwear.

[+NeecesandNephews]

There is a cache here locally that is well within the proximity described to a railroad track. The track is an industrial siding, not a main rail, but even a previous finder noted the train cars made a good cover for the cache.

 

I even took pictures in which you can see the hiding spot with the rail cars in the pic.

 

I didn't realize such a restriction existed.

 

No offense intended but did you have fun doing this? Would you classify it as recreation? Did you ask yourself "why do I care so much about this?"

 

 

Just as an offhanded observation... if you have to start a sentence with "no offense intended" you might rethink what you are about to say, and more, why are you saying it?

 

Was I complaining?

 

Did I not state I found it?

 

Was it pertinent to previous comments about railroad tracks?

 

Did I somehow wrong you in some way in another life??

 

Previous posts brought up railroad tracks, I made a comment about one in my area.

 

I'm really getting tired of people making pissy comments (like this one) that contribute absolutely nothing to the thread.

 

Obviously if I was not aware of the restriction I posted to learn something. What was the intended purpose of your post?? ... Something?? ... Anything???

 

Jesus wept!

[+prayerwalker]

I recently designed an elaborate series in a rural location that got submarined because there was a cache too close to my route.

What strikes me is that you blame the other, older cache for your problems. You knew full well that the older cache was there, but you chose to ignore it and hide your series of caches anyways. When you submitted your series, you had to check a box saying you read and understood the guidelines. Then, when the reviewer declined to publish your non-conforming cache(s), you feigned surprise, and came here to the forums to complain about the other cache, the guidelines, and the reviewer. I think you need to grow up and take responsibility for your own actions, and stop blaming others.

 

As I said, I appreciate that reviewers volunteer and have a hard job, but this took me by surprise as one of my former caches was within the 500+ feet and allowed because a river canyon stood between them. (Yeah, I know, precedents don't count.) This one was 320+ feet away counting the canal but this canal flows through a protected wetland so no construction allowed for bridge and there is the one mile plus walk between them. Not a huge deal to me as I still have a series of 9 that cachers are loving but just seems like it would better serve the sport if there could be exception for natural barriers--especially if the saturation thing is mainly to keep people from getting confused. I would just like to think that we could encourage flexibility within the guidelines to get the optimum fun for everyone out there. Guess submarined was an inflammatory word choice, eh? This is a great sport and if we can help it evolve to be even better, we all win. And thanks guys for the multi cache suggestion! Not being experienced with those, I never thought to use that option.

[Clan Riffster]

This one was 320+ feet away counting the canal

Ya know, considering the distance, and the canal, you might be able to make this work. Go back out there and take lots of pictures, demonstrating that the canal is an impassable barrier, and see if TPTB at Groundspeak would grant you an exception. The worst thing they can tell you is "No".

[+Too Tall John]

. . . but just seems like it would better serve the sport if there could be exception for natural barriers--especially if the saturation thing is mainly to keep people from getting confused. I would just like to think that we could encourage flexibility within the guidelines to get the optimum fun for everyone out there.

While confusion may be a part of the reason for this guideline, it is also, to my understanding, to keep landowners from freaking out when they see an area that has caches every 200 feet. The impact of that many caches might turn some land managers off.

Guess submarined was an inflammatory word choice, eh?

Let's not forget the title of the thread:

Cache Listing Guidelines, Counterproductive and Legalistic?

Edited February 23, 2010 by Too Tall John

[+briansnat]

This one was 320+ feet away counting the canal

Ya know, considering the distance, and the canal, you might be able to make this work. Go back out there and take lots of pictures, demonstrating that the canal is an impassable barrier, and see if TPTB at Groundspeak would grant you an exception. The worst thing they can tell you is "No".

 

Best idea of all.

[+thedeadpirate]

This one was 320+ feet away counting the canal

Ya know, considering the distance, and the canal, you might be able to make this work. Go back out there and take lots of pictures, demonstrating that the canal is an impassable barrier, and see if TPTB at Groundspeak would grant you an exception. The worst thing they can tell you is "No".

 

Best idea of all.

 

Something else to keep in mind is that the more information you provide to the reviewer up front when listing the cache, the smoother everything will go. When the reviewer has to point out the proximity guidelines, railroad ROW guidelines, etc., they may question your understanding of the guidelines and whether or not you actually read them.

 

When you come to the reviewer with information demonstrating that you understand the guidelines and still think an exception should be made because of the canal, the 320' distance, the 1 mile hike to get to the other side, pictures, etc, then your reviewer may feel much more comfortable making that exception if it makes sense.

[+tozainamboku]

. . . but just seems like it would better serve the sport if there could be exception for natural barriers--especially if the saturation thing is mainly to keep people from getting confused. I would just like to think that we could encourage flexibility within the guidelines to get the optimum fun for everyone out there.

While confusion may be a part of the reason for this guideline, it is also, to my understanding, to keep landowners from freaking out when they see an area that has caches every 200 feet. The impact of that many caches might turn some land managers off.

The saturation guideline is one where they actually tell you the purpose of the guideline

The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider.

Exceptions are granted but if you read the sentence above you might understand why an exception was not given in this case. The OP place nine other caches in the area on this side of the canal. There was one cache that was too close to a cache on the other side of the canal. There was no reason to grant an exception for the OP to place one more cache. The reviewer clearly felt that nine new caches by the OP in the area were enough and used the guidelines to achieve the goal it was meant for. Had there been no room for nine other caches on this side of the canal, the reviewer may have ruled differently.

[+wimseyguy]

I recently designed an elaborate series in a rural location that got submarined because there was a cache too close to my route.

What strikes me is that you blame the other, older cache for your problems. You knew full well that the older cache was there, but you chose to ignore it and hide your series of caches anyways. When you submitted your series, you had to check a box saying you read and understood the guidelines. Then, when the reviewer declined to publish your non-conforming cache(s), you feigned surprise, and came here to the forums to complain about the other cache, the guidelines, and the reviewer. I think you need to grow up and take responsibility for your own actions, and stop blaming others.

 

As I said, I appreciate that reviewers volunteer and have a hard job, but this took me by surprise as one of my former caches was within the 500+ feet and allowed because a river canyon stood between them. (Yeah, I know, precedents don't count.) This one was 320+ feet away counting the canal but this canal flows through a protected wetland so no construction allowed for bridge and there is the one mile plus walk between them. Not a huge deal to me as I still have a series of 9 that cachers are loving but just seems like it would better serve the sport if there could be exception for natural barriers--especially if the saturation thing is mainly to keep people from getting confused. I would just like to think that we could encourage flexibility within the guidelines to get the optimum fun for everyone out there. Guess submarined was an inflammatory word choice, eh? This is a great sport and if we can help it evolve to be even better, we all win. And thanks guys for the multi cache suggestion! Not being experienced with those, I never thought to use that option.

 

It's probably not a good idea to make a habit of asking for exceptions and variations on your cache submissions.

The guidelines state that there is no precedent with regards to reviews, so each listing should be able to stand on its own merits. But you may reach a point with the reviewer when 'enough is enough' with the requests for exceptions to the guidelines. Just something to consider when placing more caches out there.

Edited February 23, 2010 by wimseyguy

[+Prime Suspect]

especially if the saturation thing is mainly to keep people from getting confused.

It isn't. The main reason is to encourage people to not place caches where caches already exist.

[james__12345]

There is actually a cache here ON a train. An engine to be specific. It is part of a small museum here with several information plaques around and all that. The engine the cache is on is not an active track, but there is a track a few feet away that is active once a year. They do one ride a year to nashville just so people can say they rode a train and learn about it a little. I made the trip YEARS ago with school and it was really cool. I also enjoyed going back and grabbing the cache, because it was neat seeing the details of all the moving parts etc. of the train.

[+small oaks]

Yesterday 7.4 our local reviewers brought this new saturation guideline into our knowledge in Finnish forum...yes it's April now.

 

It was a suprise to read about the change in saturation "guideline" where all fysical items brought by geocacher is under this 0.1 mile rule. So they can't be placed under this limit.

So does this make new night caches impossible to do? Can reflectors be hidden less than 0.1..mile? They are equally physical as stickers with coordinates or someting and both takes geocacher closer to geocache.

[+TomToad]

I just received an email informing me that my member has expired. I have sent in a check for $30 on 03/15/2010 and the check cleared the bank on 04/05/2010. Who do I notify to get this corrected?

All physical stages of the same cache can be closer than .1 miles. No physical stage of a cache can be closer than .1 mile to any physical stage of a different cache. So that would mean that night caches are still safe.

Hope that clarified your question.

[+small oaks]

All physical stages of the same cache can be closer than .1 miles. No physical stage of a cache can be closer than .1 mile to any physical stage of a different cache. So that would mean that night caches are still safe.

Hope that clarified your question.

Yes. Ok. I Think I understand It now. Thanks. This is not that "bad" guideline as I thought it was.

 

Do these night cache reflectors also need coordinates like other additional waypoints like "stages of multicache"?

[+sbell111]

It's probably not a good idea to make a habit of asking for exceptions and variations on your cache submissions.

The guidelines state that there is no precedent with regards to reviews, so each listing should be able to stand on its own merits. But you may reach a point with the reviewer when 'enough is enough' with the requests for exceptions to the guidelines. Just something to consider when placing more caches out there.

As I understand it, requests for exceptions to the guidelines need to be made to TPTB, not your local reviewer. Therefore, your reviewer would not care how many exceptions have been granted (or requested).

[Keystone]

It's probably not a good idea to make a habit of asking for exceptions and variations on your cache submissions.

The guidelines state that there is no precedent with regards to reviews, so each listing should be able to stand on its own merits. But you may reach a point with the reviewer when 'enough is enough' with the requests for exceptions to the guidelines. Just something to consider when placing more caches out there.

As I understand it, requests for exceptions to the guidelines need to be made to TPTB, not your local reviewer. Therefore, your reviewer would not care how many exceptions have been granted (or requested).

Your understanding is incorrect. For many guidelines, the reviewer has discretion to grant exceptions, within limits. I have probably granted a half dozen such exceptions on my own within the past week.

 

I can also enlist help from Groundspeak when the guideline variance goes beyond what I'm comfortable granting on my own (for example, a 400 foot cache saturation conflict) or if the guideline doesn't contemplate exceptions being granted by reviewers (for example, caches that solicit). I've worked with Groundspeak on two such exceptions within the past week.

 

Finally, any cache owner has the right of appeal when a reviewer applies a guideline to hold up publication, and the reviewer and owner aren't able to resolve the issue between themselves. I've been overruled once within the past week. I am happy when I am overruled because it means there's another cache out there to find.

[Keystone]

All physical stages of the same cache can be closer than .1 miles. No physical stage of a cache can be closer than .1 mile to any physical stage of a different cache. So that would mean that night caches are still safe.

Hope that clarified your question.

Yes. Ok. I Think I understand It now. Thanks. This is not that "bad" guideline as I thought it was.

 

Do these night cache reflectors also need coordinates like other additional waypoints like "stages of multicache"?

Simple reflectors do not count for Cache Saturation guideline purposes, and the owner does not need to enter their locations as Additional Waypoints.

 

Reviewers do make requests and suggestions about night caches based on common sense. It would be bad form to hide a new night cache that criss-crossed the path of an existing night cache. It would be confusing to have three different night caches with starting point reflectors that were all within sight of each other.

[+sbell111]

It's probably not a good idea to make a habit of asking for exceptions and variations on your cache submissions.

The guidelines state that there is no precedent with regards to reviews, so each listing should be able to stand on its own merits. But you may reach a point with the reviewer when 'enough is enough' with the requests for exceptions to the guidelines. Just something to consider when placing more caches out there.

As I understand it, requests for exceptions to the guidelines need to be made to TPTB, not your local reviewer. Therefore, your reviewer would not care how many exceptions have been granted (or requested).

Your understanding is incorrect. For many guidelines, the reviewer has discretion to grant exceptions, within limits. I have probably granted a half dozen such exceptions on my own within the past week.

 

I can also enlist help from Groundspeak when the guideline variance goes beyond what I'm comfortable granting on my own (for example, a 400 foot cache saturation conflict) or if the guideline doesn't contemplate exceptions being granted by reviewers (for example, caches that solicit). I've worked with Groundspeak on two such exceptions within the past week.

 

Finally, any cache owner has the right of appeal when a reviewer applies a guideline to hold up publication, and the reviewer and owner aren't able to resolve the issue between themselves. I've been overruled once within the past week. I am happy when I am overruled because it means there's another cache out there to find.

Are you more likely to deny an exception if the cache owner has asked for exceptions previously?

[+Vater_Araignee]

.... provisions have been made in the past, in various instances, to allow caches to be placed less than 528.6756 feet apart when a normally impassable barrier exists between them--40 feet might be streaching it a bit, however. :ph34r

I just have to ask. Where did the "528.6756 feet" come from?

I'm guessing that he's figuring in the length of an ammo can?

Fair assumption.

Wow that's a big ammo can. 6.756 feet.