Underwater cache not published...help get it published

[+scorpio_dark]

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.

 

But I didn't think the issue was a harmful placement. It sounds like that if the other cache were adjusted, they'd be good to go.

 

I agree with this post though.

[Mr.Yuck]

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.

 

Yes, the reviewers seem much less inclined. All you have to do is look at Keystone's posts to this thread, and you can see they appear to be tightening things up around har. And the OP better dadgum well hope that he isn't on the appeals board.

[+ranger608]

Just for the record. This cache has NO impact on the wreck. It's attached by a loop in the end of some line then passed under the attachment point and put back though the loop to secure it to the wreck. AGAIN no impact on the wreck. In fact divers / snorkeler are encouraged to go visit them by the state historical society. It is illegal to remove ANYTHING from a historical shipwreck.

[jholly]

It is illegal to remove ANYTHING from a historical shipwreck.

 

Well, there you go, you won't ever be able to archive your cache because it will be illegal to remove it.

[+scorpio_dark]

It is illegal to remove ANYTHING from a historical shipwreck.

 

Well, there you go, you won't ever be able to archive your cache because it will be illegal to remove it.

[+Chokecherry]

In theory it's illegal to remove anything from a shipwreck, but there are plenty of things illegal to do and when extra public attention is brought to it and more traffic people a little less careful of the laws are bound to come in.

[+ranger608]

Like I said, divers and snorkelers are encouraged to visit the wreck by the State Historical Society. Here are some pictures of it for you to look at.

 

These are links to the pictures on Dennis Mullens website. I dive with him often.

 

Fleetwing Picture

 

Fleetwing Picture 2

[+ranger608]

In theory it's illegal to remove anything from a shipwreck, but there are plenty of things illegal to do and when extra public attention is brought to it and more traffic people a little less careful of the laws are bound to come in.

This is a published wreck site. There is a very nice informative sign telling you were to go to dive and see it on the boat landing over looking the wreck area. So I don't think what your talking about is going to be an issue.

[+gg]

Maybe you could move it to a more suitable location. Here is some guidelines to adhere to....

 

Geocaches in Space (or other planets/spacecraft)

 

We do allow cache listings in outer space such as in the International Space Station or on Mars. Make sure you can land or connect to the space station/planet for it to be acceptable as a listing. Keep in mind, however, that due to the saturation guideline you can't place another cache on the ISS since one is already listed there.

Edited May 23, 2010 by gg7

[JohnX]

My opinion, for what it is worth is this. I have seen many members of the geocaching community relentlessly following following "rules" that are mere guidelines and when the "rules" don't exist, they make them up. Hey reviewer, use some common sense.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Just a note that the title of the cache listing "mere guidelines" is actually "Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines"

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

[JohnX]

Just a note that the title of the cache listing "mere guidelines" is actually "Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines"

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Just to prove myself a grammar freak, let me quote the "requirements/guidelines", and please note the use of the backslash in the title to indicate the lack of decision, it says guidelines.. Here it goes, "Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). Note the use of the words "should be generally separated". I added the bold font because I am fussy.

[jholly]

Just a note that the title of the cache listing "mere guidelines" is actually "Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines"

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Just to prove myself a grammar freak, let me quote the "requirements/guidelines", and please note the use of the backslash in the title to indicate the lack of decision, it says guidelines.. Here it goes, "Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). Note the use of the words "should be generally separated". I added the bold font because I am fussy.

 

Let me help you with your interpretation. For us that hide them view them as rules. Follow that and you will not be disappointed. For reviewers they are guidelines, that under some circumstances the distance can be waived. Without the "rules" being stated as a guideline the reviewers would not have any freedom of action. Perhaps it would be best if reviewers and hiders are bound to the 528 foot limit? I think not.

 

You might note that the guidelines has specifically limited the ISS to *one* cache because of saturation guidelines. I'm sure that if anyone ever hides one on Mars the rules would be enforced.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Just a note that the title of the cache listing "mere guidelines" is actually "Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines"

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Just to prove myself a grammar freak, let me quote the "requirements/guidelines", and please note the use of the backslash in the title to indicate the lack of decision, it says guidelines.. Here it goes, "Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). Note the use of the words "should be generally separated". I added the bold font because I am fussy.

 

And the word "generally" can also be used to mean that in some cases in might be appropriate for the caches to be separated by MORE than 0.1 miles.

[+tozainamboku]

Just a note that the title of the cache listing "mere guidelines" is actually "Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines"

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Just to prove myself a grammar freak, let me quote the "requirements/guidelines", and please note the use of the backslash in the title to indicate the lack of decision, it says guidelines.. Here it goes, "Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). Note the use of the words "should be generally separated". I added the bold font because I am fussy.

This is little doubt the the proximity "rule" is a guideline. Reviewers are given some discretion as to how best to achieve the stated goal of encouraging cachers 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.

 

Over time many reviewers have become reluctant to vary from the rule of thumb of 528 feet separation between physical stages of cache. Still a cache that is only a few feet short of the stated distance is far more likely to get an exception than as cache that is 100 short of the distance.

 

There are no stated guidelines for when a reviewer should or should not grant exceptions. Most reviewers want to avoid any sort of a "wow" rule for granting exceptions. (Search on virtual caches if you don't understand why this is so).

 

The argument put forward here has been that a underwater cache is somehow more deserving of an exception than another cache on land. This is clearly a "wow" requirement in that the reviewer has to make a judgment as to what level of terrain difficulty results in a cache being granted and exception.

 

Certainly someone looking for the cache on land is not likely to mistakenly find the cache in the water and vice versa. However the goal of the proximity guideline is not to prevent one cache being mistaken for another. This is a common misconception. There is already a cache bring attention to this wreck so it seems that another cache doing so, even one that now requires you to swim down in 11 feet of water, is already in the same area. Someone needs to find a stronger reason for granting an exception to the OP's cache than "It sounds cool".

 

Motorcycle_mama - the title may be Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines but the firs sentence is

 

These are listing guidelines only.

 

And it is bolded in the text.

 

The requirements/guidelines also give instructions to cache owners for appealing the decision. From that section:

Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived.

 

Let the OP and community discuss the cache and see if they feel that a case is being made why this cache should get an exception. JohnX is right in that reviewers have some discretion here. If this is not the case, Groundspeak needs to tell us where the reviewer's discretion ends. For now, if a case is made that this cache deserves an exception, my guess is that the reviewer could publish it without waiting for Groundspeak to make a ruling.

[JohnX]

Bad edit.

Edited May 23, 2010 by JohnX

[burmars]

Ask the woner of the land based cache if he can move it or archive it. I'm sure he wouldn't mind. A cache on a shipwreck is awesome!

[+DarkZen]

ranger608,

 

I once had a cache denied because it was 7' (yes, seven) too close to the next cache. It was also separated from that cache by a canyon that several hundred feet deep, and was not climbable without equipment. Further, even if you could climb up and down it you would not be able to navigate the deep, thick bramble patch at the bottom. I made my case for an appeal and it was still rejected. I knew it was close when I submitted so with great effort I went back and retrieved it - no hard feelings (no, it was not possible to move it back 7 feet due to the terrain).

 

Another time I had a situation similar to yours and asked the CO of the other cache if he would consider moving it - he did.

 

What I'd really like to know is, did you know your cache violated the saturation guideline when you placed it? And if not, why not?

[Keystone]

What I'd really like to know is, did you know your cache violated the saturation guideline when you placed it? And if not, why not?

The OP had recently found the shore-based cache whose owner had chosen to feature the wreck site in a different manner.

[+Cardinal Red]

What I'd really like to know is, did you know your cache violated the saturation guideline when you placed it? And if not, why not?

The OP had recently found the shore-based cache whose owner had chosen to feature the wreck site in a different manner.

Yes, ranger608 logged the land based cache this month on May 8th. The cache owner of the land based hide said in his description: "One of my favorite dive sites. Another in my maritime/nautical/scuba themed caches around Door County." These two guys seem to have a lot in common.

 

Ranger, get to know this guy. As a friend, he might be more inclined to work this out with you.

[Double Agents]

What if you made it a Multi-cache instead? Stage 1 at some kind of landing or ramp over 0.1 mile from theirs as some kind of placard with coords to your stage 2 underwater shipwreck cache?

Might be able to work around rules for a Puzzle or Earthcache?

 

Or if the reviewer still doesn't like it, it could become a bonus cache to the existing one.

[Keystone]

What if you made it a Multi-cache instead? Stage 1 at some kind of landing or ramp over 0.1 mile from theirs as some kind of placard with coords to your stage 2 underwater shipwreck cache?

Might be able to work around rules for a Puzzle or Earthcache?

 

Or if the reviewer still doesn't like it, it could become a bonus cache to the existing one.

1. The final log stage of a multicache located on the shipwreck would still be subject to the saturation test. The reverse would work - the final cache location on shore is determined from a virtual clue found on the shipwreck (a visible number on the hull or a part, counting fixed objects like bolts, etc.).

 

2. The saturation guideline applies to puzzles, too.

 

3. Earthcaches are for learning about geology, not shipwrecks.

 

4. Reviewers don't make decisions based on whether they "like" or "dislike" cache submissions. We publish all the ones which meet the guidelines, even if we don't "like" them. This is an example of a cache most reviewers "like," but it doesn't meet the guidelines.

[+ranger608]

Appeal is on the way. I have my fingers crossed but I'm not holding my breath.

 

For those of you that were wondering. I did visit the other cache the other day. Its a nice one. I have been in contact with the CO of that cache and we are on great terms with everything. He's no longer diving by the way and wrote a nice letter to the appeals guys for me in his email back.

 

This was my first cache and to tell you the truth I did not realize I was violating any distance rules until it was in place and was denied.

[+brslk]

Appeal is on the way. I have my fingers crossed but I'm not holding my breath.

 

For those of you that were wondering. I did visit the other cache the other day. Its a nice one. I have been in contact with the CO of that cache and we are on great terms with everything. He's no longer diving by the way and wrote a nice letter to the appeals guys for me in his email back.

 

This was my first cache and to tell you the truth I did not realize I was violating any distance rules until it was in place and was denied.

 

Was he willing to move his or her cache a little? or did you ask? If you are already on good terms with him or her then that would be the way to go.

 

It would avoid a lot of problems.

[+roziecakes]

It's nice to see that you have such a good attitude about it, I think that will make your process much easier whatever the outcome. Good for you for being on good terms with the other cache owner! Best of luck

[+drfred]

I once had a cache denied because it was 7' (yes, seven) too close to the next cache. It was also separated from that cache by a canyon that several hundred feet deep, and was not climbable without equipment. Further, even if you could climb up and down it you would not be able to navigate the deep, thick bramble patch at the bottom. I made my case for an appeal and it was still rejected. I knew it was close when I submitted so with great effort I went back and retrieved it - no hard feelings (no, it was not possible to move it back 7 feet due to the terrain).

 

I'm a bit surprised but guess it comes down to reviewer discretion. A few years back I placed one that was ~7-10 feet too close, but across a highway up on a mountain looking down at the cut. Moving it further back would have proven difficult. The cache across the way was on an immovable statue and had a completely different focus than mine. At the time of submission I sent a description of my cache as well as the other close one and explained the situation. It was approved. I'd like to think it still would be today.

[+joranda]

Just a note that the title of the cache listing "mere guidelines" is actually "Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines"

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Just to prove myself a grammar freak, let me quote the "requirements/guidelines", and please note the use of the backslash in the title to indicate the lack of decision, it says guidelines.. Here it goes, "Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). Note the use of the words "should be generally separated". I added the bold font because I am fussy.

 

And the word "generally" can also be used to mean that in some cases in might be appropriate for the caches to be separated by MORE than 0.1 miles.

 

And sometimes less depending on what is between the two caches. I have seen it myself.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Of course.

 

However some cachers always want to interpret the statement to indicate that the distance can always be less than 0.1 miles. It is equally the case (and perhaps more the case) that it is often appropriate for the distance to be more than 0.1 miles.

[+ADTCacheur]

Just a note that the title of the cache listing "mere guidelines" is actually "Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines"

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Just to prove myself a grammar freak, let me quote the "requirements/guidelines", and please note the use of the backslash in the title to indicate the lack of decision, it says guidelines.. Here it goes, "Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). Note the use of the words "should be generally separated". I added the bold font because I am fussy.

 

And the word "generally" can also be used to mean that in some cases in might be appropriate for the caches to be separated by MORE than 0.1 miles.

 

I just want to point out: "Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles"

 

This means that they should be 0.1+ miles apart, but there are exceptions.

[DannyCaffeine]

This is kinda off topic but how does one sign the log to an underwater cache?

[+Touchstone]

This is kinda off topic but how does one sign the log to an underwater cache?

 

No doubt there's more than one way to fulfill the logbook requirement, but the two in my area use grease boards. It requires a bit more maintenance, but the cache owners are pretty active divers.

[Mr.Yuck]

This is kinda off topic but how does one sign the log to an underwater cache?

 

No doubt there's more than one way to fulfill the logbook requirement, but the two in my area use grease boards. It requires a bit more maintenance, but the cache owners are pretty active divers.

 

Yeah, I'm no diver, but I've looked at enough scuba cache pages to know that divers have all sorts underwater slates and logbooks and stuff. This here is the first thing that came up on a google search of diver slates.

Edited May 26, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel