Coordinates with an offset? is it a common practice?

[+Pat in Louisiana]

I have been working with a group of cacher to establish a series of caches at state historic sites. Several of these have existing caches and are not a large enough area to stay within the "528' saturation" rule.

It was suggested we post bogus coordinates with a correcting clue as to the actual location. Is this something the is acceptable? Or in common practice?

[+webscouter.]

I would say if I was a reviewer, which thankfully I am not, I would not publish caches that tried to work around the saturation guidelines in this manner.

[+beejay&esskay]

I have been working with a group of cacher to establish a series of caches at state historic sites. Several of these have existing caches and are not a large enough area to stay within the "528' saturation" rule.

It was suggested we post bogus coordinates with a correcting clue as to the actual location. Is this something the is acceptable? Or in common practice?

You are going to lie about the actual location of the cache to evade the 528 rule? Be prepared for the SBA (either actually logged or an e-mail to the reviewer), the subsequent archiving and having the reviewer never trust you in the future.

 

A truly horrible idea.

[+Pat in Louisiana]

That's what I'm thinking but our organizer thinks it is not an issue. Perhaps I'm not understanding what he is trying to explain to me.

[+Pat in Louisiana]

" Be prepared for the SBA"

 

What is SBA?

[+webscouter.]

SBA = Should Be Archived

[+Pat in Louisiana]

AHHH I see said the blind man!

[+Vater_Araignee]

I have been working with a group of cacher to establish a series of caches at state historic sites. Several of these have existing caches and are not a large enough area to stay within the "528' saturation" rule.

It was suggested we post bogus coordinates with a correcting clue as to the actual location. Is this something the is acceptable? Or in common practice?

do you mean that the mystery/puzzle cache start coords are in the saturation zone an the final will be outside of it?

Yeah, that works. Have a look at this search.

You will notice that the second cache on the list is only 149' away.

[+Pat in Louisiana]

I have work with our reviewer and he has always been open to see both side of the coin.

He has published some of my caches that are only a few hundred feet away from each other but it is a 3 mile trek to get from one to the other due to the interstate highway between them. Then again he has not published some that were 520 feet apart as there was not a logical reason to approve them. Over all I would leave it up to his judgment and would explain what we were trying to do in the "note to reviewer" box.

[+Pat in Louisiana]

No Vater,

If I understand the instructions we were given the posted coord would be outside the 528 but the actual cache would be within it.

[+Vater_Araignee]

No Vater,

If I understand the instructions we were given the posted coord would be outside the 528 but the actual cache would be within it.

Then that's bad, the reason for the 528' distance is to prevent people from finding cache A and logging a found it on cache B.

[+Whiteboy47]

first off that is a bad idea.but you say there is caches already at the sites so why do you need another cache at the same site.

[Keystone]

No Vater,

If I understand the instructions we were given the posted coord would be outside the 528 but the actual cache would be within it.

I archived a cache with that setup last week once I figured out what the owner had done. It was a second offense. When he hides his next puzzle cache or multicache, he will discover many new things during the review process.

 

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[+Pat in Louisiana]

first off that is a bad idea.but you say there is caches already at the sites so why do you need another cache at the same site.

 

Well Whiteboy47 the basic idea behind all of these caches is that they are all going to be adopted by the Office of State Parks and maintained by the state as part of an effort to get another sector of the public visiting the historic sites.

[+Pat in Louisiana]

I archived a cache with that setup last week once I figured out what the owner had done. It was a second offense. When he hides his next puzzle cache or multicache, he will discover many new things during the review process.

 

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

Keystone you know who my reviewer is and I would not try to pull the wool over his eyes!

If I did puppy monster might get me :-)

[+dfx]

No Vater,

If I understand the instructions we were given the posted coord would be outside the 528 but the actual cache would be within it.

you can't do that, but you can do it the other way around. the saturation guideline only applies to "physical stages" of any cache, which are coordinates where the cacher has to find something that has been put out by the CO (usually a container with instructions or coordinates, and it also includes the final cache location). it does not apply to locations where the cacher has to gather information that's "naturally" there, such as from an information sign.

 

it also means that the header coordinates of other mystery or multi caches do not necessarily interfere with your cache location, because they might not be "physical stages". but you're gonna have to check on that with your reviewer, and/or completing the caches in question yourself.

 

don't try to get around this by lying, it will be discovered and reported and it's not gonna do you any good.

 

I have work with our reviewer and he has always been open to see both side of the coin.

He has published some of my caches that are only a few hundred feet away from each other but it is a 3 mile trek to get from one to the other due to the interstate highway between them.

that's specifically part of the saturation guideline: physical stages can be exempt from it if there's a significant obstacle between them, such as a large river or a highway. so this has nothing to do with the reviewer being "nice".

Edited March 19, 2010 by dfx

[+Pat in Louisiana]

dfx,

I was implying he was "fair" not "nice".

The 528' is a guideline not set in stone but it ultimately is his call.

That said, anyone who caches with his dog IS nice! IMHO

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

first off that is a bad idea.but you say there is caches already at the sites so why do you need another cache at the same site.

 

Well Whiteboy47 the basic idea behind all of these caches is that they are all going to be adopted by the Office of State Parks and maintained by the state as part of an effort to get another sector of the public visiting the historic sites.

How about contacting the owners of the caches already in those locations and see if they are interested in cooperating with this project?

[+Vater_Araignee]

Well Whiteboy47 the basic idea behind all of these caches is that they are all going to be adopted by the Office of State Parks and maintained by the state as part of an effort to get another sector of the public visiting the historic sites.

Land managers wishes supersede.

 

Now I'm gonna run and hide...

[+Pat in Louisiana]

first off that is a bad idea.but you say there is caches already at the sites so why do you need another cache at the same site.

 

Well Whiteboy47 the basic idea behind all of these caches is that they are all going to be adopted by the Office of State Parks and maintained by the state as part of an effort to get another sector of the public visiting the historic sites.

How about contacting the owners of the caches already in those locations and see if they are interested in cooperating with this project?

 

We have looked at this but it would not bring anyone who has already found it back to the area.

[+Pat in Louisiana]

Thanks for all the feedback but 4:30 come early so I'll look in tomorrow.

[+Whiteboy47]

first off that is a bad idea.but you say there is caches already at the sites so why do you need another cache at the same site.

 

Well Whiteboy47 the basic idea behind all of these caches is that they are all going to be adopted by the Office of State Parks and maintained by the state as part of an effort to get another sector of the public visiting the historic sites.

How about contacting the owners of the caches already in those locations and see if they are interested in cooperating with this project?

 

We have looked at this but it would not bring anyone who has already found it back to the area.

Ok i'm not tryen to stir the pot here.But your saying two things here you want another sector of the public to visit.Then you turn around and say that it wont bring anyone back.It just sounds like your tryen to bend the rules for some new smilies

[+Pat in Louisiana]

Hey all,

after further discussions it turns out I'm mistaken as to the whole off set issue.

What the organizer wants us to do is add a +/- number clue to our final coordinates on a card in the cache that will assist the cacher in finding the final cache of a state park challenge.

I was way out in left field on his intended instructions.

Sorry about all of this!

[+moose61]

A cacher in my area had the same problem. He made short multi caches, allowing him to use WP's with questions which were at the site he wanted to show and still meet all GC rules. It turned out fine.

[+wimseyguy]

The correct answer on how to bring people to see two historical markers with geocaching when the markers are within 528' of each other was provided in post 16. Especially if you want to avoid the wrath of the puppymonster.

 

But PatinLa has posted that this isn't the entire issue. So the answer is yes, offset coordinates as part of a multi cache, or the bonus for a series of caches is quite common. So common, that it is even mentioned in the guidelines:

Offset caches are a variation on multi-caches. They are listed as a multi-cache when selecting a cache type. They are not found by simply going to some coordinates and finding a cache there. With the offset cache the published coordinates could be of an existing historical monument, plaque, or even a benchmark that you would like to have your cache hunter visit. At this spot, the hunter looks for numbers or information already appearing on the marker or on some part of the marker or site (geocachers never deface public or private property). The geocacher is then able to manipulate these numbers or information using instructions posted on the cache page to continue the hunt.

[GermanSailor]

It was suggested we post bogus coordinates with a correcting clue as to the actual location.

 

Is this something the is acceptable?

No

 

Or in common practice?

Yes, but not common, but it happens. To put it in a nutshell: Don't do it!

 

GermanSailor

[+Pat in Louisiana]

The correct answer on how to bring people to see two historical markers with geocaching when the markers are within 528' of each other was provided in post 16. Especially if you want to avoid the wrath of the puppymonster.

 

Thanks wimseguy but the problem I thought I had was trying to place another cache at an old civil war cemetery that is less than an acre and has an existing cache. It had nothing to do with another historical site nearby.

All water under the bridge now though.