Underwater cache not published...help get it published

[+ranger608]

Hello fellow geocachers. I’m a very active scuba diver in WI and just placed my first of many underwater geocache. I’m going to be putting them on historical shipwrecks in Green Bay and Lake Michigan. The cashe is called Finns Needed… but it can’t get it past the reviewer because of its proximity to a LAND based cache.

 

Finns Needed is on the actual shipwreck of the Fleetwing in 11 feet of water. I can’t move it farther away from the land based cache because then it would not be ON the shipwreck.

 

Link to Finns needed. ----- Note this link is not working. Do not bother clicking on it.

 

As a side note it took not only some thinking on how to do it but also lots planning and considerable money for equipment, fuel and other factors to place the cache. It’s not just like taking a walk and moving it.

 

Please post your thoughts and let me know what I can do to get this cache up and running. This is very frustrating. This is part of the appeals process.

 

I put a link to a picture of the cache. Just click on the picture with the yellow geocache on it.

 

Underwater Geocache Picture.

Edited May 21, 2010 by ranger608

[+Kryten]

Cache saturation guidelines have previously been relaxed when an intervening geographical feature makes accidental "cross discovery" unlikely. This would seem to be a classic example.

[Mr.Yuck]

Cache saturation guidelines have previously been relaxed when an intervening geographical feature makes accidental "cross discovery" unlikely. This would seem to be a classic example.

 

+1. I would think if you have followed the proper appeal process (wrote to appealsatgeocaching.com), that you would win this one. Goodness knows I've been wrong before though.

[Keystone]

Please know that only site administrators and volunteer cache reviewers can see your unpublished cache.

 

So, by way of further information, the existing land-based cache is just 357 feet away. The existing cache, hidden in 2008, is named after the shipwreck and has a cache page that talks all about the wreck and the diving opportunity.

[+The Blorenges]

Also, how close is it to the land-based cache, just so we can get a better idea of the proximity issue?

 

MrsB

[+Touchstone]

Cache saturation guidelines have previously been relaxed when an intervening geographical feature makes accidental "cross discovery" unlikely. This would seem to be a classic example.

 

Can you show me where it says that in the Saturation portion of the Guidelines?

 

To the OP....we can't see Unpublished Listings so the link is pretty much useless.

 

To answer your question, either move your cache, or contact the nearby cache owner to see if they can move theirs to make room for yours.

 

11 feet of water really doesn't sound like much of a barrier to me.

[+Geodalf]

In a similar situation I asked the owner of the nearby cache to move it. He did.

[+ADTCacheur]

That looks like the kind of cache where you wouldn't find it while looking for the other cache! Although if you aren't clear enough with saying it's an underwater cache, people may find the other one while looking for yours...

 

Anyway, contact GSP and hope you have a waterproof container!

[+Touchstone]

That looks like the kind of cache where you wouldn't find it while looking for the other cache!

 

That appears to be irrelevant in the newest version of the Guidelines:

 

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,...

 

Since it sounds as if there's already a cache in the area, this new placement would appear to fail the intent of that portion of the Guidelines.

[knowschad]

That looks like the kind of cache where you wouldn't find it while looking for the other cache!

 

That appears to be irrelevant in the newest version of the Guidelines:

 

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,...

 

Since it sounds as if there's already a cache in the area, this new placement would appear to fail the intent of that portion of the Guidelines.

Perhaps, but it could also be said that "underwater" is an area, and there are currently no caches hidden in that area, right? Also, 11 feet of water is considerable barrier unless you are properly equipped for it.

Obviously, the reviewer agreed with the way you see things, but I think that this case sounds like its at least worth an appeal to Groundspeak. But our opinions here in the forums aren't going to get it published one way or another.

[+Touchstone]

...it could also be said that "underwater" is an area, and there are currently no caches hidden in that area, right?

 

Sorry, but I can't agree with that interpretation. How you define an "area" would open the debate to an endless array of hair splitting the same way the "confusion" aspect of Proximity did (and probably why it was removed).

 

0.1/528 is pretty easy to understand. Below that threshold, let the Reviewer make their judgment call, and in this case it appears that they have and is why I agree with the latter portion of your post:

 

... I think that this case sounds like its at least worth an appeal to Groundspeak.

[+thedeadpirate]

Before appealing to Groundspeak I would contact the owner of the other cache and see if something could be worked out.

 

*** This post is simply encouraging the OP try the more probable recourse first.

[+bittsen]

Sorry but the other cache was there first and you knew that if you looked, ahead of time, before placing your cache.

 

Just because you found a "better spot" for a cache doesn't mean that you should be granted an exception from the guidelines.

 

Now if your cache was in 1,000 feet of water then you could argue vertical obstacle. Just being a submerged cache (esp in 11 feet of water) isn't enough of a barrier in my opinion.

[+roziecakes]

That looks like the kind of cache where you wouldn't find it while looking for the other cache! Although if you aren't clear enough with saying it's an underwater cache, people may find the other one while looking for yours...

 

Anyway, contact GSP and hope you have a waterproof container!

 

I think the other one is far enough away that people wouldn't find the other one looking for theirs... I don't think people would widen their search radius that much.

[+roziecakes]

In all seriousness though, it's unfortunate that you took all the time to place your cache first before trying to tackle the distance issue, but since that's said and done I would do it in this order:

 

1) Contact the CO of the other cache and see if they might be willing to move theirs 200-ish feet.

 

2) If not, then contact your reviewer and discuss the underwater aspect.

 

If none of this works, you could try to get it listed on another cache listing site like terracaching...

 

Your series sounds extremely unique and interesting, best of luck with the rest of it! Unfortunately you might not be able to place all of the ones you would like because of distance guidelines. We have a walking tour in the town where we live. We wanted to make a cache series or multi based around this walking tour, but ended up not being able to because of cache saturation guidelines from other caches in the area, or just physical distance of the walking points themselves, so out of 20 points, we could only put up 3; but that's life. We may Waymark the others if we get up the gumption though. Again, best of luck.

Edited May 20, 2010 by nymphnsatyr

[+ranger608]

BTW - the other section I mention will be in about 27 feet of water if I have to place it there and about a 400 yard swim from the canoe landing.

Edited May 21, 2010 by ranger608

[+ranger608]

Ok first off let me say I'm sorry that the link didn't work to the Cache. I didn't know that until after I put it up.

 

I will contact the other person who has the cache that is causing me the problem. I do however know that they had their cache in that location first so, what's fair is fair.

 

Now 11 feet of water may not sound like much. But how many of you have went out in 40 degree water to place a cache and how may of you have tried to hold your breath when getting to a cache in 11 feet of water. All I'm trying to say here is that it may not sound like much but it is in cold water and you will need at minimum snorkeling equipment to get to it.

 

I have decided that I if the person who has the other cache will not move theirs and I loose my appeal. I will move the cache to deeper water on a MUCH less hard part of the wreck to get to that NO ONE without scuba gear can get at. That seems a little less in the spirit of geocaching to me.

Edited May 21, 2010 by ranger608

[+ranger608]

Cache saturation guidelines have previously been relaxed when an intervening geographical feature makes accidental "cross discovery" unlikely. This would seem to be a classic example.

 

+1. I would think if you have followed the proper appeal process (wrote to appealsatgeocaching.com), that you would win this one. Goodness knows I've been wrong before though.

 

The fact that people can get the information about the shipwreck from the other cache is a great asset to my cache. That way I can get people that have the skills actually out the the wreck and not just looking at the sign.

[+brslk]

I will offer some unsolicited advice. First off, I am with you. I think your cache has enough "distance" from the other to make it OK.

Second. I think asking the person with the cache in close proximity to yours is in bad taste. He may not or may even move it for you.

Third. Appeal. If it doesn't go your way don't get bitter or angry about it. I know it's frustrating when you have an excellent place for a cache and someone has one too near that is not so great as yours.

 

My first three caches were denied due to proximity issues. I was very angry about that but got over it.

 

I now take my frustrations out on people on the forum. This is how I get even.

[+scorpio_dark]

Cache saturation guidelines have previously been relaxed when an intervening geographical feature makes accidental "cross discovery" unlikely. This would seem to be a classic example.

 

+1. I would think if you have followed the proper appeal process (wrote to appealsatgeocaching.com), that you would win this one. Goodness knows I've been wrong before though.

 

The fact that people can get the information about the shipwreck from the other cache is a great asset to my cache. That way I can get people that have the skills actually out the the wreck and not just looking at the sign.

 

In that case this sounds like a great set of candidates to re-organize together as a multi, or simply organize it as a "bonus cache" with coords inside the other one. That is if the CO is not game to out-right move it, but is game to cooperate.

 

I realize this may sadden some of those who would like the smiley out of it. I guess it's really all about what your end goal is. People will get the experience either way, yes?

[jholly]

I guess I'm going to take a different view. The cache you want to place is well within the 528 foot limit, so why did you think it was going to get approved? So it is covered with a bit of water, not exactly a major barrier. The other cache has been established for sometime and since you did not say it is a final on a multi or mystery cache I assume you could have easily determined the proximity. I think asking the other cache owner to move his to accommodate yours is rude. And the saturation rules don't say anything about the 0.1 mile distance to prevent confusion between caches, it is 0.1 miles because that is what the frog says. So the argument that one is on land and one is in the water does not, ah, er, hold water.

[+brslk]

I guess I'm going to take a different view. The cache you want to place is well within the 528 foot limit, so why did you think it was going to get approved? So it is covered with a bit of water, not exactly a major barrier. The other cache has been established for sometime and since you did not say it is a final on a multi or mystery cache I assume you could have easily determined the proximity. I think asking the other cache owner to move his to accommodate yours is rude. And the saturation rules don't say anything about the 0.1 mile distance to prevent confusion between caches, it is 0.1 miles because that is what the frog says. So the argument that one is on land and one is in the water does not, ah, er, hold water.

 

Different reviewers? the crow does not fly under water.

[+ranger608]

I decided not to ask the owner of the other cache to move theirs. I did however send them a message asking if they thought the other cache would be found by accident when look for either one. I informed them that I was looking for their feed back on the subject for support with my appeal when I submit it.

 

I agree with everyone that stated it's rude to ask someone to move a cache just because mine is harder to move than theirs.

 

BTW - I'm not bitter or mad. Just a little disappointed with how long this is taking. It's a fun cache and a neat wreck for diver / snorkelers to explore.

 

FYI - I just placed another one in 100 feet of water tonight on another wreck off Algoma, WI. I sure as heck hope that one will not have this same proximity issue. Ha, Ha.

[+brslk]

I decided not to ask the owner of the other cache to move theirs. I did however send them a message asking if they thought the other cache would be found by accident when look for either one. I informed them that I was looking for their feed back on the subject for support with my appeal when I submit it.

 

I agree with everyone that stated it's rude to ask someone to move a cache just because mine is harder to move than theirs.

 

BTW - I'm not bitter or mad. Just a little disappointed with how long this is taking. It's a fun cache and a neat wreck for diver / snorkelers to explore.

 

FYI - I just placed another one in 100 feet of water tonight on another wreck off Algoma, WI. I sure as heck hope that one will not have this same proximity issue. Ha, Ha.

 

Good luck!

[+ranger608]

So it is covered with a bit of water, not exactly a major barrier. The

 

Yes it is covered with a bit of water. Cold water 90% of the year and it's also 300 feet from shore. Again snorkeling gear and better yet scuba gear. We had drysuits on when we placed this.

[+tozainamboku]

The reviewers seem much less inclined to make exceptions to the proximity rule than they once were. It used to be that a cache that had an unusual sort of challenge that appeals to a small group of caches might be allowed less than 528 from an easy park and grab especially if one cache would not be mistaken for the other (one on land and the other in the water a reasonable distance off shore). But reviewers are reluctant now to make such an exception because everyone who feels that their situation is just as exceptional will complain if their cache is now turned down. The reviewers are refusing to apply any "Wow" rule: is an underwater cache at a wreck in 11 feet of cold water "wow" enough to get an exception but an underwater cache in 10 feet of warm water not "wow" enough? Given their experience in the past when they were given the responsibility to make such judgments, it is not surprising that some good ideas are being turned down.

[+drfred]

I don't think it would be rude at all to ask the other CO to consider moving their cache. If someone told me they were doing an underwater cache but mine was too close I would pack my SCUBA gear into the car and ask them how far I needed to move my container...

 

I would only recommend presenting your idea and ASK them to CONSIDER a move to make them both possible. The worst thing that could happen is that they say no, and as long as you don't get mad or snippy about it there will be no harm done.

[+keehotee]

 

BTW - I'm not bitter or mad. Just a little disappointed with how long this is taking. It's a fun cache and a neat wreck for diver / snorkelers to explore.

 

 

Why don't you just list it on another site?

[+Prime Suspect]

Yes it is covered with a bit of water. Cold water 90% of the year and it's also 300 feet from shore. Again snorkeling gear and better yet scuba gear. We had drysuits on when we placed this.

Let me ask you something. When you're on shore, at the most logical place to enter the water to get the cache, how far are you from the other cache?

[knowschad]

So it is covered with a bit of water, not exactly a major barrier. The

 

Yes it is covered with a bit of water. Cold water 90% of the year and it's also 300 feet from shore. Again snorkeling gear and better yet scuba gear. We had drysuits on when we placed this.

Anybody that has ever gone swimming in Lake Superior or Lake Michigan knows that it is ICE cold... cold enough to give you a splitting headache and major shrinkage just taking a quick dive under and back out again. 11 feet of water in one of those Great Lakes is not trivial.

[+Telecacher]

Bummer..

 

11' of water is actually quite a barrier for most people. I think many people here could not reach it at all, let alone spend any seconds looking for the cache, even in warm water.

 

Sounds like a very cool hide. I hope you win that appeal.

[jholly]

So it is covered with a bit of water, not exactly a major barrier. The

 

Yes it is covered with a bit of water. Cold water 90% of the year and it's also 300 feet from shore. Again snorkeling gear and better yet scuba gear. We had drysuits on when we placed this.

Anybody that has ever gone swimming in Lake Superior or Lake Michigan knows that it is ICE cold... cold enough to give you a splitting headache and major shrinkage just taking a quick dive under and back out again. 11 feet of water in one of those Great Lakes is not trivial.

 

Swam in Lake Michigan for years. No headaches, shrinkage was not to, ah, er, big of a problem. In my prime 11 feet was not a problem.

[+Chokecherry]

I've swam in Lake Superior for years also swam in Michigan. Swam in 11 feet of water in the lakes and didn't find it to be ice cold. I have nothing to shrink but all body parts stayed fine. No a single splitting headache either.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think it would be rude at all to ask the other CO to consider moving their cache. If someone told me they were doing an underwater cache but mine was too close I would pack my SCUBA gear into the car and ask them how far I needed to move my container...

 

I would only recommend presenting your idea and ASK them to CONSIDER a move to make them both possible. The worst thing that could happen is that they say no, and as long as you don't get mad or snippy about it there will be no harm done.

 

I don't think it's rude to ask them to move it either ( depending how you ask ). It would be rude to expect them to move it. Eleven feet of water really is not that much. I'd be tempted to look for it with just a pair of goggles, and maybe 20 feet of plastic tubing with a small buoy attached to one end if the goggles weren't enough. If it really was dependent on scuba diving equipment and was much more deeper, you would have more of a case.

 

I was looking for a terrain 5 rappeling cache and ran into another cacher who was looking for a terrain 2 stage of a multi 20 feet away. Since the rappelling gear was definitely required, I guess that was one reason why they could coexist. In these cases it is always best to ask first without expecting a guidelines variance automatically.

[+Walts Hunting]

Why don't you just list it on another site?

 

Because he wants people to look for it.

[knowschad]

I've swam in Lake Superior for years also swam in Michigan. Swam in 11 feet of water in the lakes and didn't find it to be ice cold. I have nothing to shrink but all body parts stayed fine. No a single splitting headache either.

Lake Michigan can warm up, true, especially in the more southern parts during mid-summer. Green Bay probably won't be quite as balmy, but I will agree that it isn't like Superior.

[jholly]

Eleven feet of water really is not that much. I'd be tempted to look for it with just a pair of goggles, and maybe 20 feet of plastic tubing with a small buoy attached to one end if the goggles weren't enough.

 

Unfortunately below about 2 feet you would not be able to expand your chest to take a breath. There is a reason that snorkel tubes are not much longer than they are.

[+ADTCacheur]

Eleven feet of water really is not that much. I'd be tempted to look for it with just a pair of goggles, and maybe 20 feet of plastic tubing with a small buoy attached to one end if the goggles weren't enough.

 

Unfortunately below about 2 feet you would not be able to expand your chest to take a breath. There is a reason that snorkel tubes are not much longer than they are.

 

I didn't know that. My new fun fact of the day!

[+GrateBear]

Suck it up and move on. I placed a cache on dry land that was less than the required distance from an underwater cache. That cache was below the inversion layer at about 25' deep. The reviewer rejected it, even on appeal. Seems a bit absurd, but that's life.

[+ADTCacheur]

*SNIP*

 

Now 11 feet of water may not sound like much. But how many of you have went out in 40 degree water to place a cache and how may of you have tried to hold your breath when getting to a cache in 11 feet of water. All I'm trying to say here is that it may not sound like much but it is in cold water and you will need at minimum snorkeling equipment to get to it.

 

*SNIP*

 

first off, 40 degrees Fahrenheit, right? as in 5 degrees above freezing instead of 40 (and also smaller degrees)? That would be cold. Just to point out, I'm on a swim team, and I swim in lake superior (the coldest of the great lakes) about an hour a day 2 weeks a year. I think I could handle this cache without equipment so don't say you NEED snorkeling gear. If there is any NEED, it's some kind of goggle, but even that isn't a need if you're crazy enough...

[Keystone]

Here is an analogy that might be helpful.

 

Lately there is a fad in my review territory for people to hide caches that require technical climbs up very tall trees, with ropes and harnesses and all that stuff. It's terrain 5, requiring special equipment and training.

 

If we buy the logic of a scuba cache "trumping" the 528 foot circle around a cache on shore, then the saturation guideline shouldn't apply to tree climbing caches either. An extreme cacher could throw a few of them up in the tall trees in a park already saturated with ground based caches.

[+Telecacher]

11' under water, or 11' up a tree, should be worth more than 11' across ground.

[jholly]

11' under water, or 11' up a tree, should be worth more than 11' across ground.

I'd give 1". The terrain rating does not trump the saturation guideline.

Edited May 22, 2010 by jholly

[+tozainamboku]

Sounds like a lot of people want an affirmative action program for higher terrain caches. Should there be one saturation guideline for cache that are considered park and grab and another for caches underwater or hidden in trees? If you were to have different rules based on the terrain of the cache, where would the line be drawn? It seems much easier, not only for the reviewer but for cachers who are hiding caches, to have one guideline that is applied the same to every cache.

[jholly]

Sounds like a lot of people want an affirmative action program for higher terrain caches. Should there be one saturation guideline for cache that are considered park and grab and another for caches underwater or hidden in trees? If you were to have different rules based on the terrain of the cache, where would the line be drawn? It seems much easier, not only for the reviewer but for cachers who are hiding caches, to have one guideline that is applied the same to every cache.

 

I think a uniform guideline makes sense. You whip out your GPS, it says 550 feet so your good to go. If it says 495 then what correction do I give for terrain? And terrain creep? Don't even want to think about that one.

[+Coldgears]

Here is an analogy that might be helpful.

 

Lately there is a fad in my review territory for people to hide caches that require technical climbs up very tall trees, with ropes and harnesses and all that stuff. It's terrain 5, requiring special equipment and training.

 

If we buy the logic of a scuba cache "trumping" the 528 foot circle around a cache on shore, then the saturation guideline shouldn't apply to tree climbing caches either. An extreme cacher could throw a few of them up in the tall trees in a park already saturated with ground based caches.

 

Yes, but your comparing a regular old hide, with a regular old hide in a tree. This hide has historic value, in fact the geocache it is too close to is about that historic value! The issue here isn't saturation, if a park is already saturated a hide in a tree is a big deal. In the area the OP mentions there isn't saturation, the real issue is.... I'm tired it's 1:38 I had a compelling arguement but just started to fall alsleep halfway durning it. I'll edit tommorrow sometime when I'm not tired to give a good arguement.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Here is an analogy that might be helpful.

 

Lately there is a fad in my review territory for people to hide caches that require technical climbs up very tall trees, with ropes and harnesses and all that stuff. It's terrain 5, requiring special equipment and training.

 

If we buy the logic of a scuba cache "trumping" the 528 foot circle around a cache on shore, then the saturation guideline shouldn't apply to tree climbing caches either. An extreme cacher could throw a few of them up in the tall trees in a park already saturated with ground based caches.

 

Yes, but your comparing a regular old hide, with a regular old hide in a tree. This hide has historic value, in fact the geocache it is too close to is about that historic value! The issue here isn't saturation, if a park is already saturated a hide in a tree is a big deal. In the area the OP mentions there isn't saturation, the real issue is.... I'm tired it's 1:38 I had a compelling arguement but just started to fall alsleep halfway durning it. I'll edit tommorrow sometime when I'm not tired to give a good arguement.

 

So, a cache that has the "Wow" factor or has "historic value" shouldn't have to follow the proximity guideline? You may not mean it like that, but this is what it sounds like: MY cache is much more important than YOUR cache, so YOUR cache should be archived or moved so MY cache can be published. I could make the same appeal that I found this really cool spot but there is a guardrail cache 300' away, but I have an ammo can as a cache, so my cache is more deserving. That's why the 528' guideline is adhered to so rigidly and exceptions are rarely granted. Otherwise, reviewers would have to make decisions based on cache worthiness.

[Mr.Yuck]

Why don't you just list it on another site?

 

Because he wants people to look for it.

 

Yes sir, that's funny. But the two closest scuba caches to me, both in Lake Erie, haven't been found since 2007, and 2008, respectively. And the 2008 find was just a diver who created his still 1 find account after stumbling on the cache at the wreck site.

 

I'd say you'll have higher traffic on one 300 feet from shore where snorkeling is possible. But if you put those suckers a few miles out on a wreck, expect to have 3 or 4 finds.......ever.

[+Chokecherry]

Even if you use the historical value argument with this cache there is a ground based cache that addresses the historical value without bringing extra traffic (and potential damage) to the object of historical value, but still leaves the option open for people to explore further if they so desire. We have a lot of "historical" caches around here. You can stumble on historical value ever 20 feet if you really wanted to here because there is always something historical and valuable to someone.

 

However, that doesn't mean each object of value must have a cache attached to it. Some caches further away convey the value while preserving the object of value and you get a historical lesson.

 

We have a site of a plane crash here and it's nearest caches are about 1000-2000 feet away from the crash sight. You could put them right on the crash site but honestly the one in the memorial park had much more impact because of the ancillary information you got on the life of the plane occupants etc. No, you don't get to walk on the ground the plane hit or pick up left over pieces of plane but you get the historical impact even 1000 feet away.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Chokecherry

[+Team Cotati]

 

BTW - I'm not bitter or mad. Just a little disappointed with how long this is taking. It's a fun cache and a neat wreck for diver / snorkelers to explore.

 

 

Why don't you just list it on another site?

 

While I can't speak directly for the CO, I can offer a plausible theory:

 

For the most part, compared to geocaching.com, those other sites are a joke.