Natural Boundaires out of the Guidelines

[+phillipie99]

When did natural boundaires get taken out of the guidelines? Acording to one of the reviewers it was too subjective. I don't see why you can no longer hide a cache across a river that is 3 or 4 meters wide because someone else hid one on the other side of the river. Realy who in the right mind is going to try and cross a fast flowing possible freezing cold river to get to a cache 5 minuters faster? Sure the cache is 100m away (for example) in a straight line, but you may have to walk over a kilometer to get to a bridge and then back down the river to a cache. Anyone think the removal of the rule is obsurd?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

First I've heard of it.

 

I think natural boundaries are a good reason to make exception to the proximity guideline when the feature is a true boundary which prevents a cacher from going directly from one cache to another.

 

If they have taken out the natural boundary exception it's probably because, as your reviewer told you, it really is subjective and they got tired of folks claiming a natural boundary where there wasn't much of one... a creek bed that can easily be stepped over or waded through is a natural boundary in some cacher's eyes, but likely not in the Reviewer's.

Edited April 28, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Lil Devil]

I think the whole 0.1 mile saturation guideline is absurd. It should be at least 1/4 mile, but I'd prefer to see 1/2 mile.

[+phillipie99]

I guess it also adds to the fact all places should have a local reviewer as i live in northern Ontario our reviewers are in southern Ontario. You cant learn everything about the area from google maps some times the natural boundaries arn't visible from a satilite view and thats where a local reviewer comes in.

Edited April 28, 2010 by phillipie99

[+brslk]

When I was first trying to hide my first cache I tried to explain to the reviewer that there was a major highway with a cement barrier between the cache I wanted to place and one that was close.

I lost that discussion because well... people do climb over stuff like that and cross roads they shouldn't... and do swim across rivers they shouldn't and... etc...

 

I thought my local reviewer was being unfair! I even came here and complained about it and got the facepalm pics posted in reply to my post! (I know! how dare they!)

 

I recently placed my first cache after being more thoughtful to the guidelines. You can follow them to the letter but the thing most important is the thought behind the guidelines.

 

I found that working with the reviewer is much more easy than trying to argue with them. (not that I am suggesting you are doing that)

My local reviewer has been more than helpful.

[+phillipie99]

I had the same problem as you brslk accept I had a cache on the other side of a highway with 10 foot fences a few months back. Sure people climb over stuff there not suposed to but I dont believe many cachers do.

Edited April 28, 2010 by phillipie99

[+dfx]

I guess it also adds to the fact all places should have a local reviewer as i live in northern Ontario our reviewers are in southern Ontario. You cant learn everything about the area from google maps some times the natural boundaries arnt visible from a satilite view and thats where a local reviewer comes in.

i don't think the reason for splitting the cache review queue and the reviewers into geographic areas is that they're supposed to know the details of the terrain. it's more about local customs and habits, most importantly languages and local laws. and after that comes the point of simply splitting the workload into manageable chunks.

[+brslk]

I had the same problem as you brslk accept I had a cache on the other side of a highway with 10 foot fences a few months back. Sure people climb over stuff there not suposed to but I dont believe many cachers do.

 

I sympathize with you fellow Canuck but just be patient. Remember there are millions of other places you can place your cache that will get approved.

The place I was finally approved for was actually much better then the first place I tried.

 

While I do agree with you that reviewers should be more local, it just isn't possible. That would be way too many reviewers.

 

It would take a ton of volunteer reviewers that spend a lot of time for free.

 

There are over a million caches out there so imagine how many reviewers there would have to be if they all were local?

 

Don't get discouraged.

[4wheelin_fool]

I think the whole 0.1 mile saturation guideline is absurd. It should be at least 1/4 mile, but I'd prefer to see 1/2 mile.

 

I agree.

 

The overall result would be quality over quantity, with a bunch of whine and cheese.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I think the whole 0.1 mile saturation guideline is absurd. It should be at least 1/4 mile, but I'd prefer to see 1/2 mile.

 

I agree.

 

The overall result would be quality over quantity, with a bunch of whine and cheese.

How Gouda you!

[Keystone]

Actually, there was never language directly in the guidelines about natural barriers.

 

Cliffs, Rivers, Highways.... These are equitable exceptions which reviewers sometimes make. Sometimes we don't.

 

If you are always 528 feet from your neighbor's cache, you'll never be disappointed by the Cache Saturation guideline.

[+thedeadpirate]

When did natural boundaires get taken out of the guidelines? Acording to one of the reviewers it was too subjective. I don't see why you can no longer hide a cache across a river that is 3 or 4 meters wide because someone else hid one on the other side of the river.

 

4 meters is like 13 feet. That's more of a small creek or drainage ditch.

 

Anyway, natural boundaries have never been in the guidelines that I am aware of. Reviewers will sometimes make exceptions. But I don't see anyone making an exception when somebody could easily traverse 4 meters without going around to a bridge.

[+brslk]

When did natural boundaires get taken out of the guidelines? Acording to one of the reviewers it was too subjective. I don't see why you can no longer hide a cache across a river that is 3 or 4 meters wide because someone else hid one on the other side of the river.

 

4 meters is like 13 feet. That's more of a small creek or drainage ditch.

 

Anyway, natural boundaries have never been in the guidelines that I am aware of. Reviewers will sometimes make exceptions. But I don't see anyone making an exception when somebody could easily traverse 4 meters without going around to a bridge.

 

Natural boundaries have been in the guidelines for a long time. Ask your local reviewer.

 

I am also assuming your 4 meter (13 feet) is much calmer than the one near me. I would never think of trying to swim, boat or even kayak across it. That would be near certain death.

 

Your drainage ditch might be someone elses raging river.

[+Lil Devil]

I've saved a copy of all the guideline versions back to 2003, and I can't find any mention of natural boundaries or any other type of exception in the cache saturation section. Words have been continually added to that section, but I can't find anything that's been removed.

[+thedeadpirate]

When did natural boundaires get taken out of the guidelines? Acording to one of the reviewers it was too subjective. I don't see why you can no longer hide a cache across a river that is 3 or 4 meters wide because someone else hid one on the other side of the river.

 

4 meters is like 13 feet. That's more of a small creek or drainage ditch.

 

Anyway, natural boundaries have never been in the guidelines that I am aware of. Reviewers will sometimes make exceptions. But I don't see anyone making an exception when somebody could easily traverse 4 meters without going around to a bridge.

 

Natural boundaries have been in the guidelines for a long time. Ask your local reviewer.

 

I am also assuming your 4 meter (13 feet) is much calmer than the one near me. I would never think of trying to swim, boat or even kayak across it. That would be near certain death.

 

Your drainage ditch might be someone elses raging river.

 

I stand corrected then. I thought rivers, cliffs, etc., were always at the discretion of the reviewer and never guaranteed.

[+thedeadpirate]

I appologize for my ignorance, but it could also be due to the late hour and my skimming skills are a bit faulty.

 

I jumped into the wayback machine and looked at a few random dates when the guidelines were updated all the way back to 2005 when I started and I cannot find the natural barrier exception spelled out anywhere.

 

My OCD will make it very difficult for me to sleep until I can find this. Please, could someone point to one of the past incarnations of the guidelines that included the natural barrier exception specifically?

[4wheelin_fool]

When did natural boundaires get taken out of the guidelines? Acording to one of the reviewers it was too subjective. I don't see why you can no longer hide a cache across a river that is 3 or 4 meters wide because someone else hid one on the other side of the river.

 

4 meters is like 13 feet. That's more of a small creek or drainage ditch.

 

Anyway, natural boundaries have never been in the guidelines that I am aware of. Reviewers will sometimes make exceptions. But I don't see anyone making an exception when somebody could easily traverse 4 meters without going around to a bridge.

 

Natural boundaries have been in the guidelines for a long time. Ask your local reviewer.

 

I am also assuming your 4 meter (13 feet) is much calmer than the one near me. I would never think of trying to swim, boat or even kayak across it. That would be near certain death.

 

Your drainage ditch might be someone elses raging river.

 

I stand corrected then. I thought rivers, cliffs, etc., were always at the discretion of the reviewer and never guaranteed.

 

Um, you were correct to begin with. See post 11.

Edited April 28, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+thedeadpirate]

Um, you were correct to begin with. See post 11.

 

I was pretty sure of it. But I figured brslk may know something I didn't.

 

I guess I can get some sleep now.

[4wheelin_fool]

Um, you were correct to begin with. See post 11.

 

I was pretty sure of it. But I figured brslk may know something I didn't.

 

I guess I can get some sleep now.

He probably knows a lot that you don't. The question is whether it is relevant or correct..

[+Vater_Araignee]

When did natural boundaires get taken out of the guidelines? Acording to one of the reviewers it was too subjective. I don't see why you can no longer hide a cache across a river that is 3 or 4 meters wide because someone else hid one on the other side of the river. Realy who in the right mind is going to try and cross a fast flowing possible freezing cold river to get to a cache 5 minuters faster? Sure the cache is 100m away (for example) in a straight line, but you may have to walk over a kilometer to get to a bridge and then back down the river to a cache. Anyone think the removal of the rule is obsurd?

Considering I can easily jump 8 feet something 10 to 13 feet wide would be a considered a challenge by me, not a barrier.

 

Unless there is plenty of white water.

 

I have also never heard of such a rule just examples of potential exceptions to the guidelines.

I have also never seen an exception, not saying they don't exists just haven't been shown or found any.

[+phillipie99]

I had an acception granted the other day for a cache across a larger river (about 10m) but I was told this will be my last acception because the rule has been removed so it must have been in the guidelines some where. Here's the email I receved:

 

Thanks for the reminder. Hadn't forgotten but things have been busy! It is good to go as I will make an exception but please note that the guidelines no longer make any mention of "natural boundaries". It was too subjective. As you are likely unaware of this change and in view of the nature of the caches I will make a one time exception to the 160m guideline in this case for these particular caches. So it will be published May 12th. CacheMinder

[+StarBrand]

Actually, there was never language directly in the guidelines about natural barriers.

 

Cliffs, Rivers, Highways.... These are equitable exceptions which reviewers sometimes make. Sometimes we don't.

 

If you are always 528 feet from your neighbor's cache, you'll never be disappointed by the Cache Saturation guideline.

 

I think this really says it all - especially the last line. Seems to me that far too many people are always looking for some exception.

[knowschad]

I've saved a copy of all the guideline versions back to 2003, and I can't find any mention of natural boundaries or any other type of exception in the cache saturation section. Words have been continually added to that section, but I can't find anything that's been removed.

I would LOVE to see those put into a Wikipedia-style history format (or, version control format, for you programmers)!

[knowschad]

When did natural boundaires get taken out of the guidelines? Acording to one of the reviewers it was too subjective. I don't see why you can no longer hide a cache across a river that is 3 or 4 meters wide because someone else hid one on the other side of the river. Realy who in the right mind is going to try and cross a fast flowing possible freezing cold river to get to a cache 5 minuters faster? Sure the cache is 100m away (for example) in a straight line, but you may have to walk over a kilometer to get to a bridge and then back down the river to a cache. Anyone think the removal of the rule is obsurd?

Not that it really matters, if your reviewer says "no", but out of curiousity, does that "river" (sounds more like a creek to me) freeze in your Ontario winters?

 

It is curious that your reviewer clearly states that there has been a recent change that has affected this type placement. I'd really like to know what it was that he/she is interpreting in that way. Why don't you ask CacheMinder directly, and let us know the answer?

[+tozainamboku]

I had an acception granted the other day for a cache across a larger river (about 10m) but I was told this will be my last acception because the rule has been removed so it must have been in the guidelines some where. Here's the email I receved:

 

Thanks for the reminder. Hadn't forgotten but things have been busy! It is good to go as I will make an exception but please note that the guidelines no longer make any mention of "natural boundaries". It was too subjective. As you are likely unaware of this change and in view of the nature of the caches I will make a one time exception to the 160m guideline in this case for these particular caches. So it will be published May 12th. CacheMinder

I see this as further evidence that there are secret unwritten rules that are known only to the reviewers and Groundspeak. As far as I can tell there was never any mention it the published guidelines that exceptions to the proximity guideline would be granted if there was a natural barrier. Instead the guidelines used to state that 528 feet (161 m) was a "rule of thumb" and implied that reviewers had some leeway in interpreting this rule.

 

Yet here we have a cacher who claims their reviewer sent the above email implying that there was a "natural boundary" exception at one time and that it has been removed. Either the review didn't understand the guidelines or there is a secret guidelines annex known only to reviewers and Groundspeak and it is these secret guidelines that have changed.

 

What changed in the published guidelines is that it no longer says "rule of thumb". Perhaps Groundspeak meant to take away the reviewers capability to make a judgements about cache saturation. This is the same change that has lead to the increase in the number of power trails we are seeing. It may be unfortunate that in order to deal with whiney cachers who had a cache turned down, TPTB have taken away the ability of reviewers to make judgement calls on cache saturation. They have changed the published guidelines to simply say that the distance between physical stages is generally 0.1 miles. While the use of "generally" implies that there is some reviewer judgment allowed, it could very well be that they have privately told reviewers: "No exceptions for caches less than 0.1 mile and if there is 0.1 miles separation and no other guideline issue you must publish the cache (even if its a power trail)." I miss the good old days where we had guidelines instead of strict rules that tie the hands of reviewers.

[+phillipie99]

I emailed cacheminder to get more clarification. I'll post the email up here when I get a reply back.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I see this as further evidence that there are secret unwritten rules that are known only to the reviewers and Groundspeak. As far as I can tell there was never any mention it the published guidelines that exceptions to the proximity guideline would be granted if there was a natural barrier. Instead the guidelines used to state that 528 feet (161 m) was a "rule of thumb" and implied that reviewers had some leeway in interpreting this rule.

That there is a private forum for Reviewers to discuss, train and collaborate to support the game has never been a secret.

 

The Reviewers, however, are just as bound by the published guidelines as you and I are.

 

There is no secret set of rules that they can jump out and tackle you with.

 

It is easy to mis-speak if you don't take the time to thoroughly consider everything you say - in my original post I talked about the natural barrier language being taken out... I didn't stop to think about the fact that they had never been in to start with!

 

I expect that's what happened with this Reviewer. He likely meant that the Reviewers had agreed in their private forum that they would restrict the use of that exception, which was never in the guidelines but sometimes used by Reviewers at their discretion. What he said was that the language had been taken out - an easy mistake to make.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

When did natural boundaires get taken out of the guidelines? Acording to one of the reviewers it was too subjective. I don't see why you can no longer hide a cache across a river that is 3 or 4 meters wide because someone else hid one on the other side of the river. Realy who in the right mind is going to try and cross a fast flowing possible freezing cold river to get to a cache 5 minuters faster? Sure the cache is 100m away (for example) in a straight line, but you may have to walk over a kilometer to get to a bridge and then back down the river to a cache. Anyone think the removal of the rule is obsurd?

Without yet reading the other responses, I'm going to guess that some people were crying about this thing and tha thing all being "Natural Boundries", and threw a fit about their Caches not getting approved. My opinion is that a "river" 3-4 meters wide isn't big enough, but you think it is big enough...that's the definition of subjective, and opens everyone up to wild interpretations and disputes.

[+joespaz]

I think the whole 0.1 mile saturation guideline is absurd. It should be at least 1/4 mile, but I'd prefer to see 1/2 mile.

 

After a 5 year break from playing this game, I'm beginning to agree with you!

[+phillipie99]

I recently got a reply back. Here it is Hi: Sounds like I may have lead you astray on suggesting that the guidelines at one time dealt specifically with the issue of "natural barriers". They didn't as far as I can recall. Exceptions to the saturation guideline may be made if there is a significant natural barrier. However, as I'm sure you can appreciate what is significant to some is insignificant to others hence the subjectiveness.

There are no secret reviewer guidelines but interpretations do get discussed among reviewers and do change over time. And, at the end of the day, Groundspeak has the last word so if you feel that I have been wrong in my application of the guidelines (or in this case too lenient) you can always appeal my decision by taking it to Groundspeak. CacheMinder

[+edscott]

When did natural boundaires get taken out of the guidelines? Acording to one of the reviewers it was too subjective. I don't see why you can no longer hide a cache across a river that is 3 or 4 meters wide because someone else hid one on the other side of the river.

 

4 meters is like 13 feet. That's more of a small creek or drainage ditch.

 

Anyway, natural boundaries have never been in the guidelines that I am aware of. Reviewers will sometimes make exceptions. But I don't see anyone making an exception when somebody could easily traverse 4 meters without going around to a bridge.

 

Natural boundaries have been in the guidelines for a long time. Ask your local reviewer.

 

I am also assuming your 4 meter (13 feet) is much calmer than the one near me. I would never think of trying to swim, boat or even kayak across it. That would be near certain death.

 

Your drainage ditch might be someone elses raging river.

 

C'mon.. 13 feet is sort of a wimpy broad jump.

[+thedeadpirate]

I am also assuming your 4 meter (13 feet) is much calmer than the one near me. I would never think of trying to swim, boat or even kayak across it. That would be near certain death.

Isn't 15+ feet common length for kayaks? You could pretty much use your kayak as a bridge and crawl right across that span. Boats are gonna be even longer and flatter and thus easier to use as bridges.

[+Ambrosia]

I guess it also adds to the fact all places should have a local reviewer as i live in northern Ontario our reviewers are in southern Ontario. You cant learn everything about the area from google maps some times the natural boundaries arn't visible from a satilite view and thats where a local reviewer comes in.

Well, unless the Reviewer lives directly in the same town, I don't see how they would know anything about the surrounding area. I know I wouldn't.

 

So, unless there are millions of Reviewers, in each town around the world, wouldn't work.

[+kissguy&frannyfru]

So,what wrong with saturation anyway? Just means more caches to find right? I know in the small town i live in i am always finding a great spot for a cache but then realizing there is another to close. Happens all the time.

I wish they would go to 250 ft myself.

[+Zor]

Actually, there was never language directly in the guidelines about natural barriers.

 

Cliffs, Rivers, Highways.... These are equitable exceptions which reviewers sometimes make. Sometimes we don't.

 

If you are always 528 feet from your neighbor's cache, you'll never be disappointed by the Cache Saturation guideline.

 

Unfortunately this is not always the case. A few years ago a local cacher hid a bunch of caches that were 165 meters apart which is well within the saturation guidelines. He hid quite a few along a very nice trail and had to do some serious hiking to get to the end.

 

When he submitted his caches, the reviewer came back and told him that they had (the two local reviewers) decided that for that specific trail, you had to hide caches 330 meters apart, not 165. Exactly double the distance. This new guideline would not apply anywhere else in our city but only for that one trail. The hider was VERY upset because now he had to go back and take out half of the caches he had hidden that were well within the standard guidelines. He refused to hide caches for over a year because he no longer trusted the local reviewers to go by GSP's guidelines.

 

I know it's subjective per reviewer, but how is something like that permissable?

[+Zor]

Dupe

Edited April 29, 2010 by Zor

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I know it's subjective per reviewer, but how is something like that permissable?

That's why there is an appeal process.

 

First ask the Reviewer why he varied from the guidelines, he likely had good reason, but if his answer is not satisfactory file an appeal. That will get you a definitive answer.

 

Questioning his decision here in the forum won't get you anything but speculation.

Edited April 29, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Zor]

This was over two years ago and I barely knew of the situation. My understanding was that an appeal was tried and denied. There were actually two reviewers for our area and both set this "new" guideline. GSP apparently (and yes this is just from what I was told since then so I don't know how reliable it is) backed the reviewers saying it was up to them and their discretion.

 

I get that reviewers are supposed to have discretion based on their experience and knowledge of the area, but is it really feasible to just arbitrarily decide that the GSP guidelines are not sufficient so we're going to double them?

 

Regardless, to the OP concern, I do think that natural barricades can be taken into consideration but I think it vastly depends on the specifics. What some people consider big others consider meager.

[knowschad]

When he submitted his caches, the reviewer came back and told him that they had (the two local reviewers) decided that for that specific trail, you had to hide caches 330 meters apart, not 165. Exactly double the distance.

I think that unless I could get a very clear explaination of the reason for that, it would be be about the time I would have beeb appealing to Groundspeak. Are you sure, however, that there weren't rules put in place by whoever managed that area? If so, those rules would override the guidelines.

[+thedeadpirate]

This was over two years ago and I barely knew of the situation.

 

Two years ago the power trail guideline was alive and well. He could place that same set of caches now and probably get it approved. (assuming no specific restrictions by that particular land manager)

[Keystone]

This was over two years ago and I barely knew of the situation.

 

Two years ago the power trail guideline was alive and well. He could place that same set of caches now and probably get it approved. (assuming no specific restrictions by that particular land manager)

Absolutely correct, which is why I made my prior statement. To deny a cache 529 feet from another, I'd need to see a land manager policy that would dictate that result. There are a few of those.

[+Zor]

This was over two years ago and I barely knew of the situation.

 

Two years ago the power trail guideline was alive and well. He could place that same set of caches now and probably get it approved. (assuming no specific restrictions by that particular land manager)

Absolutely correct, which is why I made my prior statement. To deny a cache 529 feet from another, I'd need to see a land manager policy that would dictate that result. There are a few of those.

 

I have heard of similar restrictions for one of the parks in our city. But with this particular trail, the owners/folks who run the trail actually told several of the local geocachers that they wanted a lot of caches on their trail because it would bring more people out there. If you go to http://tinyurl.com/22wt5bf you'll see what we now famously call "The Albert County X". That main trail (north to south) goes from Riverview, NB all the way to one of our national parks, Fundy. It's a 58K hiking trail which is only accessible on foot (not even by bike) and as you can see, it's covered in caches.

 

I can't speak for the reviewers, but I think their intention was to try and limit the amount of caches on that trail since they saw a pattern coming. It didn't really stop people from filling the trail up since we have a lot of hikers in this area. So even though they restricted it to every .2mi, it still filled up anyway so why did they find it necessary to change the guidelines for that one trail in the first place?

[+StarBrand]

This was over two years ago and I barely knew of the situation.

 

Two years ago the power trail guideline was alive and well. He could place that same set of caches now and probably get it approved. (assuming no specific restrictions by that particular land manager)

Absolutely correct, which is why I made my prior statement. To deny a cache 529 feet from another, I'd need to see a land manager policy that would dictate that result. There are a few of those.

 

I have heard of similar restrictions for one of the parks in our city. But with this particular trail, the owners/folks who run the trail actually told several of the local geocachers that they wanted a lot of caches on their trail because it would bring more people out there. If you go to http://tinyurl.com/22wt5bf you'll see what we now famously call "The Albert County X". That main trail (north to south) goes from Riverview, NB all the way to one of our national parks, Fundy. It's a 58K hiking trail which is only accessible on foot (not even by bike) and as you can see, it's covered in caches.

 

I can't speak for the reviewers, but I think their intention was to try and limit the amount of caches on that trail since they saw a pattern coming. It didn't really stop people from filling the trail up since we have a lot of hikers in this area. So even though they restricted it to every .2mi, it still filled up anyway so why did they find it necessary to change the guidelines for that one trail in the first place?

 

I think you missed the point.

 

There was some wording in the guidelines about creating "power trails" and what the reviewer may suggest in place of one. That wording is now gone.

[+tzipora]

I guess it also adds to the fact all places should have a local reviewer as i live in northern Ontario our reviewers are in southern Ontario. You cant learn everything about the area from google maps some times the natural boundaries arn't visible from a satilite view and thats where a local reviewer comes in.

 

I don't know if that's really a problem, or if it is, I'm very disadvantaged. There's only one reviewer for the entire state of Alaska, which covers a whole lot of ground and nobody could possibly have sufficiently intimate knowledge of the terrain to automatically identify natural boundaries. Additonally, the reviewer is based out of North Carolina. Plus, you just never know about what constitutes a boundary because in the outdoors, things change. Rivers change course. Lakes freeze. Creeks expand and contract with the seasons. Even cliffs erode eventually.

 

What it boils down to is this: sticking to hard-and-fast (or as hard and as fast as they get around here) guidelines like the 528 foot rule of thumb significantly reduces the difficulties involved in getting exceptions made. And if you do have a good reason to go about getting an exception made, communication is key. Explain the situation to the reviewer clearly and using objective observations. In the event your exception is granted, somebody is probably going to ask the reviewer why, and s/he's going to need an answer.

 

That said, I didn't really realize that you could ask for an exception before. I tried to place a cache in a park last summer, not remembering that there's a cache along a bike path about 100-150 feet away. In those feet are a set of railroad tracks and a couple fences, including barbed wire. The tracks are pretty close to the train station, and the railroad is notorious for vigilant prosecution of trespassers. I sure wouldn't want to take the direct route...hmmm...

[+thedeadpirate]

This was over two years ago and I barely knew of the situation.

Two years ago the power trail guideline was alive and well. He could place that same set of caches now and probably get it approved. (assuming no specific restrictions by that particular land manager)

Absolutely correct, which is why I made my prior statement. To deny a cache 529 feet from another, I'd need to see a land manager policy that would dictate that result. There are a few of those.

I have heard of similar restrictions for one of the parks in our city. But with this particular trail, the owners/folks who run the trail actually told several of the local geocachers that they wanted a lot of caches on their trail because it would bring more people out there. If you go to http://tinyurl.com/22wt5bf you'll see what we now famously call "The Albert County X". That main trail (north to south) goes from Riverview, NB all the way to one of our national parks, Fundy. It's a 58K hiking trail which is only accessible on foot (not even by bike) and as you can see, it's covered in caches.

 

I can't speak for the reviewers, but I think their intention was to try and limit the amount of caches on that trail since they saw a pattern coming. It didn't really stop people from filling the trail up since we have a lot of hikers in this area. So even though they restricted it to every .2mi, it still filled up anyway so why did they find it necessary to change the guidelines for that one trail in the first place?

If you'll go back and read our replies carefully you will see that at the time you say this series was placed, there was a line in the guidelines which restricted the placement of caches in the manner you described. That statement was removed last year. So now, if he were to submit that same series, the reviewer would very likely publish it.

 

It is not an unfair application of the guidelines on one cacher. It's simply a case that the guidelines have changed from the time of the original placement and now.

 

These very issues are likely the reason that TPTB removed the power trail guideline and are apparently now taking away reviewers' ability to make exceptions in certain cases that make sense.

 

Frankly, I don't blame them. It's a shame that so many people fail to understand the nuances of cache placements and when it would be proper to request an exception and when a placement does NOT warrant an exception. The more people tie up the staff at the lilly pad with such complaints, the more these guidelines will turn into hard and fast rules.

 

It just boggles me that we have so many "how do I become a reviewer" threads pop up. You couldn't pay me enough for the headache. I honestly don't know how they continue to do such a thankless job and not climb a water tower and just start firing potatoes at everyone below.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I don't know if that's really a problem, or if it is, I'm very disadvantaged. There's only one reviewer for the entire state of Alaska, which covers a whole lot of ground and nobody could possibly have sufficiently intimate knowledge of the terrain to automatically identify natural boundaries. Additonally, the reviewer is based out of North Carolina. Plus, you just never know about what constitutes a boundary because in the outdoors, things change. Rivers change course. Lakes freeze. Creeks expand and contract with the seasons. Even cliffs erode eventually.

There are maybe 100 Reviewers for the whole world. They can review the world quite nicely because they don't have to go see caches... they're only reviewing the location and cache for guideline compliance.

 

That's why a Reviewer in NC can effectively review caches in AK, or Australia.

 

All the Reviewer needs to know about Alaska is any land management issues, and there is a localized list for those, so an AK Reviewer (or Reviewer of any other land) need not ever visit the land where he/she reviews caches.

Edited April 29, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+briansnat]

I don't know if that's really a problem, or if it is, I'm very disadvantaged. There's only one reviewer for the entire state of Alaska, which covers a whole lot of ground and nobody could possibly have sufficiently intimate knowledge of the terrain to automatically identify natural boundaries. Additonally, the reviewer is based out of North Carolina. Plus, you just never know about what constitutes a boundary because in the outdoors, things change. Rivers change course. Lakes freeze. Creeks expand and contract with the seasons. Even cliffs erode eventually.

There are maybe 100 Reviewers for the whole world. They can review the world quite nicely because they don't have to go see caches... they're only reviewing the location and cache for guideline compliance.

 

That's why a Reviewer in NC can effectively review caches in AK, or Australia.

 

All the Reviewer needs to know about Alaska is any land management issues, and there is a localized list for those, so an AK Reviewer (or Reviewer of any other land) need not ever visit the land where he/she reviews caches.

 

I've reviewed caches in a number of states, as well as other countries. I need to know the local rules, if any and I make sure I familiarize myself with them.All reviewers do that. Topo maps and sat photos usually tell me the rest of what I need to know. It's not a perfect system so if there are exceptions that the reviewer needs to be aware of, that is what the "note to reviewer" is for. The more information you can provide, the better. Photos might help your case if your cache is borderline. If your cache appears to violate a guideline give the reviewer additional information. Does it show on the map as a military base, but it was deactivated and sold to the town? Find a link to a news article and include that in a note to reviewer. Is there a river separating two caches that are too close together? Take a photo and submit that with your note to reviewer.

 

Even a reviewer who lives locally might not be aware of every terrain issue. Give him as much information as possible so he can make an educated decision.

Edited April 30, 2010 by briansnat

[+tzipora]

I don't know if that's really a problem, or if it is, I'm very disadvantaged. There's only one reviewer for the entire state of Alaska, which covers a whole lot of ground and nobody could possibly have sufficiently intimate knowledge of the terrain to automatically identify natural boundaries. Additonally, the reviewer is based out of North Carolina. Plus, you just never know about what constitutes a boundary because in the outdoors, things change. Rivers change course. Lakes freeze. Creeks expand and contract with the seasons. Even cliffs erode eventually.

There are maybe 100 Reviewers for the whole world. They can review the world quite nicely because they don't have to go see caches... they're only reviewing the location and cache for guideline compliance.

 

That's why a Reviewer in NC can effectively review caches in AK, or Australia.

 

All the Reviewer needs to know about Alaska is any land management issues, and there is a localized list for those, so an AK Reviewer (or Reviewer of any other land) need not ever visit the land where he/she reviews caches.

 

I've reviewed caches in a number of states, as well as other countries. I need to know the local rules, if any and I make sure I familiarize myself with them.All reviewers do that. Topo maps and sat photos usually tell me the rest of what I need to know. It's not a perfect system so if there are exceptions that the reviewer needs to be aware of, that is what the "note to reviewer" is for. The more information you can provide, the better. Photos might help your case if your cache is borderline.

 

I wasn't saying that it couldn't be done effectively very remotely. I think my reviewer is doing a pretty darned great job, actually. I was more contrasting my situation with the OP's, whose reviewer is much more local to him.

[+texasgrillchef]

I think the whole 0.1 mile saturation guideline is absurd. It should be at least 1/4 mile, but I'd prefer to see 1/2 mile.

 

I think that depends on the area that your in.

 

Why do I say that? I have seen many "Natural" areas where having several hides even within 100 yards from each other would still be plenty of room for thsoe hides. Because of the natural surroundings. Moutains, Rivers, Lakes, Ponds, etc.

 

On the other hand. There are areas that really having the .1 mile limit really is to little. Example. A huge huge parking lot for a NFL/MLB/NBA can easily have 2 or 3 or even 4 caches in the SAME parking lot because the parking lot is so BIG that you could easily get 2, 3 or 4 caches in it and still maintain the .1 mile requirment.

 

However, you have to have a "Guideline" somewhere. You can't just do away with all the limits all together. Not until we tripple or even quadruple the amount of reviewers we have that actually KNOW the area that they are reviewing.

 

Thus for now the .1 mile limit is a good one. Also if you want to have a POWER TRAIL... of which I LOVE... 1/10 mile settings are almost PERFECT for POWER TRAILS.

 

Keep in mind that one could easily have a MULTI-Cache be a POWER TRAIL as well. Multi's DON'T have any distance limits when it comes to the waypoints. So in a Multi-Power Trail. One could have a "Waypoint" every couple of hundred feet. Have a hundred of so waypoints. The only disadvantage to this multi is that you would only get ONE smiley.

 

As far as the OP & his issue is concerned. I currently don't have an opinion YET on the use of Natural Boundries. Unless the reviewer really knows the area very well, It can be quite hard to determine if their is enough distance/natural boundry reason to allow the cache or not.

 

Such as the River issue that the OP was talking about. Someone might have quick easy access to a inflatable, or have "Waders" who knows. Maybe he even has access to a "Jet pack" (Now that they have gone on sale & are available for $80,000 each.) Of course now I would consider that cache a "5" on the Terrain on getting there.

 

For now... I think we should jsut leave well enough alone. I see no reason to change things.

 

TGC

[+texasgrillchef]

I am only asking this question in this thread, since after reading the entire thread (to this point) there has been significant discussion about reviewers etc...

 

So my question is this. (These questions are asked only out of curiosity and NOT meant to imply any form of dissatifaction, complaint, or dishonesty on groundspeaks part, or on the part of any reviewer)

 

1. Are the reviewers active geocachers as well? ie do they go out and find caches on a regular basis?

 

2. Do the reviewers ever place/hide caches themselvs? If they do. WHO reviews the caches THEY hide?

 

3. What is the average number of finds for the reviewers? (ie... The sum of all the finds of all the reviewers divided by the number of reviewers)

 

4. What is the average number of "hides" for the reviewers? (Same formula as #3 but using the number of hides instead)

 

TGC