Do unpublished caches "placehold" the spot?

[+SSO JOAT]

Another CO suggested to me that when you start working up a cache listing and have saved the listing (got your GC#) but not yet submitted it to the reviewer, that your unpublished cache shows up as a placeholder for the reviewer. So if someone else comes along and drops a cache within the tenth mile before you have completed and submitted your own listing, your unpublished cache will prevent the other one from being approved. Can any reviewer-types shed some light on this?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Another CO suggested to me that when you start working up a cache listing and have saved the listing (got your GC#) but not yet submitted it to the reviewer, that your unpublished cache shows up as a placeholder for the reviewer. So if someone else comes along and drops a cache within the tenth mile before you have completed and submitted your own listing, your unpublished cache will prevent the other one from being approved. Can any reviewer-types shed some light on this?

 

I'm looking for the definitive answer on this too. There have been a few times when I have just entered"ballpark" coordinates when initially submitting the cache listing (with the "this cache is active" unchecked). After working on the cache page listing, I got more accurate coordinates when I actually placed the container. In a couiple of cases the coordinates were a couple hundred feed from where I originally thought I'd be placing the cache. I don't know how far off the initial coordinates can be from the coordinates when the cache is submitted for review but it could theoretically block a fairly large area if the same criteria that is used for changing coordinates on an existing cache is used for caches not yet published.

[+Vater_Araignee]

first submit first serve.

[+DragonsWest]

first submit first serve.

 

Not in my experience. I had a cache in the field and tried to publish it and was informed someone already had a cache within 220 feet, just not published, yet. The reviewer said he would prod the other geocacher to fish or cut bait within a week. Sadly, the other cache popped up 3 days later and I had to tromp out into the woods and retrieve my cache.

 

Possibly up to the reviewer, so I recommend (for the definitive answer) asking the reviewer(s) who publish caches in your area.

[+geodarts]

I asked my reviewer about this when I created a cache that was going to take some work, as well as some investment. He told me that it would hold the spot, although if it gets to be too long, he would probably ask me what is going on. I doubt if I would have had any competition for the spot, but I went ahead and submitted it (without showing that the cache was placed so it would not be directly in front of the reviewers) just in case.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Erickson

[+gpsfun]

Another CO suggested to me that when you start working up a cache listing and have saved the listing (got your GC#) but not yet submitted it to the reviewer, that your unpublished cache shows up as a placeholder for the reviewer. So if someone else comes along and drops a cache within the tenth mile before you have completed and submitted your own listing, your unpublished cache will prevent the other one from being approved. Can any reviewer-types shed some light on this?

It depends. Or as the movie title suggests, it's complicated.

 

My recommendation is to create your cache listing using the most accurate coordinates you can obtain, explain what you have in mind (including the expected submission for publication date) in a reviewer note, and contact the local volunteer reviewer with the GC Code to state what you have in mind. Occasionally it is discovered that someone else is working on a cache nearby, perhaps for the same event that you have in mind, and the sooner you find out about it the more of an opportunity you will have to find an alternative location.

[AZcachemeister]

I can't Markwell you, but there have been other threads on this subject.

 

Indeed, the first person to start the cache hiding process has precedent. If someone else comes along and also wants to hide one in the area, their (the original hider) time becomes limited, and they will need to either get on with it, or abandon their efforts.

[+StarBrand]

Yup - it isn't an indefinite hold though. You have to get something hidden or lose the spot.

[+Moose Mob]

Sometimes there is a cache in prgress, handling issues, or waiting to get published for an event. These have been know to trump new placements.

 

Also be wary of puzzle and/or multi cache finals or intermediate points.

[+drfred]

The FTF frenzy got bad here for a while. A local cacher tried to place a cache and got the notification that a pending cache was in the way. He went to the area and found the other cache with that information alone and logged it before publication to get the FTF... talk about luck!

[Andronicus]

I believe the answer is "kind of". I had made up a cache page, and not submitted it. I thought it had no effect, so realy didn't think anything of it. I was waiting for our provincal parks to come out with a policy on geocaching. A year later, the local reviewer sends me an archival notice. He said someone else placed one there.

 

That suggest to me that it will "interfere with" another cachers cache, but is not a road block. I think that you need to communicate with your reviewer if you want it to be a place holder. I have done that sucesfuly.

[+paleolith]

I'm surprised nothing more definitive has been posted. The following is partly from memory of previous threads and partly from my one experience.

 

My understanding is that the lower GC# has priority, not first to submit. (Which implies that if you expect this sort of thing to arise, you could game the system by setting aside a few GC#s to use later.) However, it's up to the reviewer whether to actually grant that priority. If you don't demonstrate intent to place the cache and progress toward doing so, you'll lose the spot. If you have unpublished pages that you don't plan to use for a while (reserved numbers, experimentation, etc), then it's best to move the coordinates into the ocean or some other place where a cache cannot be placed, so that the reviewers won't have to deal with a conflict.

 

I once located a good spot and set up a page for it. There it languished for a few weeks. One Friday evening I got an email due to the reviewer posting a reviewer note saying a cache had been submitted within 1/10 mile. I immediately emailed the reviewer, posted a reviewer note saying I relinquished the space, and moved the coordinates offshore. But I missed the reviewer's work window and the cache didn't get published for another day. I was sorry about this because it was a friend of mine placing the cache and he had hoped for it to be in place during a (non-geocaching) event on Saturday. And it turned out that where I was hoping to place a cache, about 100 yards away, was across the park boundary and on private land anyway.

 

The actual reviewer's log was

 

Hello, I am a volunteer for Geocaching.com and I have just come across this new cache in the review queue. The posted coords for this are within 528 feet of another cache with a higher GCxxxx code that has just been posted to the Review Queue. Lower GCxxxx codes (your cache) have priority over higher ones so long as the cache owner actually intends to place a cache at the conflicting location and is proceeding diligently with his/her hide. So my question for you is, "Are you intending to place a cache at this location and are you proceeding diligently with your hide?"

 

Please respond to this issue by either posting a Reviewer Note to this page or sending me an e-mail [...]

Note that procedures may vary among reviewers, and I'm sure that old rule about no precedents applies here.

 

Edward

[+SSO JOAT]

OK. This is kinda what I figured was the case. The reason I ask is that I'm working on another multi-puzzle series of caches and have located a piece of public real estate with a bike path running through it that will handle the multiple hides needed for the puzzle finals. It's not what I'd call "high value" caching area for traditionals, so I doubt that any caches will pop up in there while I'm getting the paperwork done in advance of the actual listing work. But last week, a visiting cacher from a nearby town started dropping a bunch of micros along a section of that bike path, though further down the road from the area I scouted out. I don't want to put in weeks of work only to have my chosen site blocked out by the micro frenzy. So it sounds like I should get over there and grab coords for all my anticipated finals and get the GC#'s started if I want a better chance at getting these puzzles in there.

 

Thanks for the info.

[+Kabuthunk]

Ok, followup question for reviewers. I've created a 'placeholder' cache for lack of a better description to drop my TB's. The coordinates are approximately the location of my home, and the description of this unpublished cache specifically says that it exists only to keep things that I never want to drop from being dropped, keep them out of my inventory since they're typically not with me when I'm out, but at home.

 

Should I leave this unpublished cache as is, or should I send a message to the reviewer to have them somehow activate and then archive it (or just bypass activate and turn it to 'archived')?

[+Cairngorm]

I don't type exact coords until I can measure them in the field. So I have ten unpublished caches with identical x.000 coords. They don't seem to block each other.

[daveindeal]

simple answer is NO !!

 

the review can see the listing but it will not reserve the area, i found this out the hard way, i had a multi planned taking in 4 local churches and lead to a forgotten church where onl 2 graves remain.

 

i spent a 3 weeks working on the pages the locations even visiting all the churches, got permission from the vicars to place them and workedf out all the numbers from the graves, all i had left to do was place the final at the forgotten church.

 

due to work i couldnt get out to place it untill the weekend, with 3 days to go, and leading up uo an event church micros popped up at the entrance to every location that i had used. :

 

angry:

 

so NO IT DOES NOT "Reserve the placment"

 

only when you tick the box to send it to the reviewew will it holod the location

[+larryc43230]

Ok, followup question for reviewers. I've created a 'placeholder' cache for lack of a better description to drop my TB's. The coordinates are approximately the location of my home, and the description of this unpublished cache specifically says that it exists only to keep things that I never want to drop from being dropped, keep them out of my inventory since they're typically not with me when I'm out, but at home.

 

Should I leave this unpublished cache as is, or should I send a message to the reviewer to have them somehow activate and then archive it (or just bypass activate and turn it to 'archived')?

I'm not a reviewer (never even played one on TV...), but you could do what I've done for my non-traveling travel bug stash: Create a never-to-be-published (placeholder) cache with the same coordinates as one of your active caches. As long as the "real" cache remains active, the "stash cache" can't interfere with anyone else's placement of new caches.

 

--Larry

[+Avernar]

Ok, followup question for reviewers. I've created a 'placeholder' cache for lack of a better description to drop my TB's. The coordinates are approximately the location of my home, and the description of this unpublished cache specifically says that it exists only to keep things that I never want to drop from being dropped, keep them out of my inventory since they're typically not with me when I'm out, but at home.

I did the same thing for my travel bugs. I made it a puzzle cache without any child waypoints so it doesn't trigger the saturation rule.

[daveindeal]

simple answer is NO !!

 

the review can see the listing but it will not reserve the area, i found this out the hard way, i had a multi planned taking in 4 local churches and lead to a forgotten church where onl 2 graves remain.

 

i spent a 3 weeks working on the pages the locations even visiting all the churches, got permission from the vicars to place them and workedf out all the numbers from the graves, all i had left to do was place the final at the forgotten church.

 

due to work i couldnt get out to place it untill the weekend, with 3 days to go, and leading up uo an event church micros popped up at the entrance to every location that i had used. :

 

angry:

 

so NO IT DOES NOT "Reserve the placment"

 

only when you tick the box to send it to the reviewew will it holod the location

 

After my recent forum post (as quoted) it was picked up by our local UK review to investigate.

 

And so i wish to apologies to you all ..........

 

after discusion with the reviewer YES they do "lock the coordinates fro the 0.1 mile rule" but its not until that your listing is submitted that it lets the reviewer know of another in the area,

 

the review advised me that when this happens they normally look into the location further as to which will get presidence,

 

My experience, was an error that somehow slipped thru made worse by me butchering about the cache listings to try and suit my original cache placement idea, so there is no evidence to look back into .

 

please accept my apology

[+SSO JOAT]

I've created a 'placeholder' cache for lack of a better description to drop my TB's. The coordinates are approximately the location of my home, and the description of this unpublished cache specifically says that it exists only to keep things that I never want to drop ...

 

So long as the description states what the cache is for (private TB hotel), then the reviewers would be able to read that if another cache were submitted within the tenth mile. From what we've gathered in this thread, these conflicts are handled on a case-by-case basis.

 

 

I don't type exact coords until I can measure them in the field. So I have ten unpublished caches with identical x.000 coords. They don't seem to block each other.

 

They wouldn't block each other until one is actually submitted for publishing, triggering a reviewer to look and see if the cache can be published. At that time, they see all the other caches and say, "WTH?".