Going to change your cache co-ords?

[+Haggis Hunter]

I don't wish to go into the rights and wrongs of how caches are reviewed or how the reviewers do their jobs. I do feel that people should be aware of what appears to be another new rule which has been implemented.

 

I changed the co-ords the other day for Athens of the North. A cache which would have been 8 years old in 3 days time and has had 863 finds. This cache was one of my earliest finds and I adopted it a while back.

 

After changing the co-ords, a reviewer disabled it and also sent me an email stating that due to the co-ords being changed it's new location was being checked to ensure that it continues to comply with the current listing guidelines.

 

It turns out the cache is placed in an SSSI. Which means proof has now to be given that it has permission. Never mind that for the last 8 years it's been in an SSSI and never been a problem. Well it turns out cache placement was a lot more relaxed back then. So myself and the original owner has decided that the cache has had to go.

 

So the moral of the story is - think hard before you relocate your caches, as you are being watched!

 

Note to the moderators, please close this thread at the first sign of desultory comments that are aimed at the reviewers, as this was most certainly not my intention of this thread.

[+dfx]

nothing surprising there, it's no secret that an "update coordinates" log will also alert the reviewers somehow. after all, updated coordinates can get it too close to another cache, and that needs to be checked.

 

a real shame for the cache though, always sucks to see an old one go. not that i know what SSSI is, but i would think that if the cache was invalid under current guidelines, it may have been only a matter of time until it would have gotten disabled/archived anyway.

[+FancoverFive]

nothing surprising there, it's no secret that an "update coordinates" log will also alert the reviewers somehow. after all, updated coordinates can get it too close to another cache, and that needs to be checked.

 

a real shame for the cache though, always sucks to see an old one go. not that i know what SSSI is, but i would think that if the cache was invalid under current guidelines, it may have been only a matter of time until it would have gotten disabled/archived anyway.

 

An SSSI is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, the purpose of which is well explained by its title. SSSIs are conservation areas where geocaches shouldn't really be hidden in the first place.

[+drsolly]

nothing surprising there, it's no secret that an "update coordinates" log will also alert the reviewers somehow. after all, updated coordinates can get it too close to another cache, and that needs to be checked.

 

a real shame for the cache though, always sucks to see an old one go. not that i know what SSSI is, but i would think that if the cache was invalid under current guidelines, it may have been only a matter of time until it would have gotten disabled/archived anyway.

 

An SSSI is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, the purpose of which is well explained by its title. SSSIs are conservation areas where geocaches shouldn't really be hidden in the first place.

 

Another warning - SSSIs aren't fixed. SimplyPaul and I discovered that recently, when we tried to place a cache fairly close (we thought) to an SSSI, which turned out to be inside the SSSI. It had expanded since we last looked.

[+ventura_kids]

I remember.....back when moving vacation buried railroad caches were allowed .....we used to hide caches anywhere (just a joke ). Nowadays, we need to be more careful of where we decide to place caches, and what design they are.

 

Actually....not to take the opposite side .... but I wouldn't want someones cache to slowly creep too close to one of my caches. I'm glad they get reviewed during any changes.

[+t4e]

 

Actually....not to take the opposite side .... but I wouldn't want someones cache to slowly creep too close to one of my caches. I'm glad they get reviewed during any changes.

 

ooh God forbid two caches get too close and exchange (travel)BUGS

 

it won't happen, caches moved withing the distance allowed by the guidelines are not reviewed for proximity because if they are too close to an existing cache or beyond the guidelines you will get an error message

 

Important: If the new coordinates are too far from the original coordinates, or if they are too close to an existing Waypoint, then you will receive an error message. This error message means that you are Editing Major Portions of a Cache Listing and will need help from a reviewer.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?p....page&id=61

[+ventura_kids]

Did you know you can "nudge" your cache over long distances?

Tiny moves are allowed without sending the info to the reviewer.

Just do 100 tiny moves.

[+dfx]

Did you know you can "nudge" your cache over long distances?

Tiny moves are allowed without sending the info to the reviewer.

Just do 100 tiny moves.

are you sure? to my knowledge, any "update coordinates" log will send info to the reviewers somehow.

 

or what is "tiny" in your book?

Edited July 24, 2010 by dfx

[+Cairngorm]

Did you know you can "nudge" your cache over long distances?

Tiny moves are allowed without sending the info to the reviewer.

Just do 100 tiny moves.

are you sure? to my knowledge, any "update coordinates" log will send info to the reviewers somehow.

 

or what is "tiny" in your book?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

(see entries on June 25)

[+dfx]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

(see entries on June 25)

they did that because the site doesn't let you move the cache further than 161 meters. the reviewers still got notice though.

[+dino-irl]

Did you know you can "nudge" your cache over long distances?

Tiny moves are allowed without sending the info to the reviewer.

Just do 100 tiny moves.

Wrong. A reviewer will get a notification even if the move is 0m/ft.

 

"Nudging" a cache like this is not a good idea and is even more likely to bring you to the attention of a reviewer than just emailing them and asking them to complete the move for you.

Edited July 24, 2010 by dino-irl

[+Pharisee]

Did you know you can "nudge" your cache over long distances?

Tiny moves are allowed without sending the info to the reviewer.

Just do 100 tiny moves.

Wrong. A reviewer will get a notification even if the move is 0m/ft.

 

"Nudging" a cache like this is not a good idea and is even more likely to bring you to the attention of a reviewer than just emailing them and asking them to complete the move for you.

A hypothetical question....

A multi-cache has the parking place as the quoted co-ordinates and a couple of intermediate locations to gather information. The cache setter has given the location of the final hidden box in an 'additional waypoint' that is only visible to the reviewers and the owner himself. The cache is hidden just outside an SSSI so it meets the guidelines. It is duly approved and published.

Now suppose the CO later inadvertently moves the final box to a location inside the SSSI (not intentionally to flout the guidelines, you understand, but because the final cache has been 'muggled' and the SSSI boundry is not particularly well identified). He changes the information required at the intermediate locations to reflect the change and updates the final waypoint on the cache page.

In a situation like that, would the reviewers be notified of the change? I should add that the parking place and hence the quoted co-ordinates on the cache page stay the same.

Edited July 24, 2010 by Pharisee

[+agentmancuso]

An SSSI is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, the purpose of which is well explained by its title. SSSIs are conservation areas where geocaches shouldn't really be hidden in the first place.

 

Nonsense. The vast majority of SSSI areas are in no way affected by geocaching. I have a cache on an SSSI, with permission from the SNH who run it, in an email from the local ranger saying he could see no plausible objection to any cache being placed there.

[+Haggis Hunter]

An SSSI is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, the purpose of which is well explained by its title. SSSIs are conservation areas where geocaches shouldn't really be hidden in the first place.

But if you have got enough money you can do some back handers to some sleazy politicians who then will allow you to decimate an entire SSSI and put a golf course on it.

 

For info Holyrood Park has lots of caches in it. Which is probably the most important SSSI area within Edinburgh. The ranger service who manage the area are more than happy for them to exist, and that is even with a change of management.

[markandlynn]

This would be easier if when placing a cache in the UK you got the magic maps to look at as these are what you cache is now reviewed against.

[+Graculus]

We don't say you can't place a cache in an SSSI (or nature reserve) only that you get permission. From my experience this is not usually a problem. Natural England (who scheduled SSSI's in England) have been very supportive with owners who have contacted them.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+Palujia]

Have had to re-check and re-set a couple of my caches due to what appears to be GPS error, when setting out the cache. No matter how carefully I checked the co-ordinates when originally setting - on re-checking after a couple of comments have had to "move" the co-ordinates by a few seconds. So although the caches haven't moved the co-ordinates have !! Reviewer has been kind to me, as this is my first series and I really wanted to get it right !!- Cache set with Garmin Extrex " Leg-end " or "Foot"as its known chez Palujia, not Iphone.

[+Andalusite]

This would be easier if when placing a cache in the UK you got the magic maps to look at as these are what you cache is now reviewed against.

 

Instructions and link to MAGIC is here

Edited July 24, 2010 by Andalusite

[+dfx]

A hypothetical question....

A multi-cache has the parking place as the quoted co-ordinates and a couple of intermediate locations to gather information. The cache setter has given the location of the final hidden box in an 'additional waypoint' that is only visible to the reviewers and the owner himself. The cache is hidden just outside an SSSI so it meets the guidelines. It is duly approved and published.

Now suppose the CO later inadvertently moves the final box to a location inside the SSSI (not intentionally to flout the guidelines, you understand, but because the final cache has been 'muggled' and the SSSI boundry is not particularly well identified). He changes the information required at the intermediate locations to reflect the change and updates the final waypoint on the cache page.

In a situation like that, would the reviewers be notified of the change? I should add that the parking place and hence the quoted co-ordinates on the cache page stay the same.

i believe they also get notice when a "final location" type waypoint is changed, and maybe even when a "stages of a multicache" waypoint is changed. it would only make sense. but don't quote me on that, i have really no idea.

[+riviouveur]

Sorry, wrong thread!

Edited July 24, 2010 by riviouveur

[+Haggis Hunter]

We don't say you can't place a cache in an SSSI (or nature reserve) only that you get permission. From my experience this is not usually a problem. Natural England (who scheduled SSSI's in England) have been very supportive with owners who have contacted them.

I have to back this up. The reviewer did not say I couldn't have the cache there, just that it was to stay disabled until permission was proven or sought. It was myself and the original cache owner that decided it was best for the cache to get archived.

 

But the point of myself making this thread wasn't about caches being on SSSI's it just so happens that my experience involved this. It also is not about whether your cache should be re-reviewed when you change the co-ords, in fact I can see the sense in this. I was just highlighting something that I wasn't aware happened when you changed your co-ords. Which I think others might not have either?

 

I was however, aware that if you done lots of corrections the system highlighted this to the reviewer, but not just one change of co-ords that are within the parameters of the 0.1 mile rule.

[+currykev]

No comment

[+Haggis Hunter]

No comment

I'm speechless!

[markandlynn]

This would be easier if when placing a cache in the UK you got the magic maps to look at as these are what you cache is now reviewed against.

 

Instructions and link to MAGIC is here

 

I know that hence my post, but its not on the cache submission page which would be much more helpfull for UK submissions.

[+Silver Horde]

We don't say you can't place a cache in an SSSI (or nature reserve) only that you get permission. From my experience this is not usually a problem. Natural England (who scheduled SSSI's in England) have been very supportive with owners who have contacted them.

I have to back this up. The reviewer did not say I couldn't have the cache there, just that it was to stay disabled until permission was proven or sought. It was myself and the original cache owner that decided it was best for the cache to get archived.

 

But the point of myself making this thread wasn't about caches being on SSSI's it just so happens that my experience involved this. It also is not about whether your cache should be re-reviewed when you change the co-ords, in fact I can see the sense in this. I was just highlighting something that I wasn't aware happened when you changed your co-ords. Which I think others might not have either?

 

I was however, aware that if you done lots of corrections the system highlighted this to the reviewer, but not just one change of co-ords that are within the parameters of the 0.1 mile rule.

Why didn't you try to get permission now? Seems a shame to lose an old cache.

[+Haggis Hunter]

Why didn't you try to get permission now? Seems a shame to lose an old cache.

With the exception of Holyrood Park were I personally know the land manager, trying to get permission for other Edinburgh SSSI's is a pain in the rear end. I tried just back in April for another SSSI's which is owned by the same establishment as Holyrood. I never got a no, but I certainly got the run around, and then it ended up that my messages were just getting ignored. So it was deemed pointless to even try for this one.

[+maxkim]

There are different levels of SSSI as well we have a grade I (an area of water near us with lots of waterfowl on it) and a band of level two around it. The water (and birds) are the reason for the SSSI. The trees around it are there to protect it and screen it - hence only level two - with paths and picnic areas etc in it... but TPTB apply the same rules to both levels... I had a verbal permission from a ranger but transferring that in to writing... well....

[+uktim]

We don't say you can't place a cache in an SSSI (or nature reserve) only that you get permission. From my experience this is not usually a problem. Natural England (who scheduled SSSI's in England) have been very supportive with owners who have contacted them.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

 

Why would anyoine contact Natural England? AIUI they are not landowners.

[+Munkeh]

We don't say you can't place a cache in an SSSI (or nature reserve) only that you get permission. From my experience this is not usually a problem. Natural England (who scheduled SSSI's in England) have been very supportive with owners who have contacted them.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

 

Why would anyoine contact Natural England? AIUI they are not landowners.

 

you've misunderstood. you contact the land owner and the land owner contacts natural england. if the cache is on a SSSI Natural england have the final say in terms of permission if a cache can be placed there or not

Edited July 25, 2010 by Munkeh

[+jason johnson]

What if you place a cache just outside the SSSI, which is in later years expanded so that the cache is now inside the SSSI? It was fine when placed and accepted by the reviewer, but, without moving, now needs permission.

[+Graculus]

We don't say you can't place a cache in an SSSI (or nature reserve) only that you get permission. From my experience this is not usually a problem. Natural England (who scheduled SSSI's in England) have been very supportive with owners who have contacted them.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

 

Why would anyoine contact Natural England? AIUI they are not landowners.

 

Trying to find an actual landowner is often very difficult. Natural England are the body responsible for scheduling SSSI's in England and would therefore have a good idea of who the landowner is. Seems a sensible place to start your enquiries. And, as I said they've been very positive with people who have contacted them so far.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+martlakes]

you contact the land owner and the land owner contacts natural england. if the cache is on a SSSI Natural england have the final say in terms of permission if a cache can be placed there or not

 

As I understand it, it's the landowner you need to ask. If they have any concerns about their responsibilities as a landowner of an SSSI, and whether a geocache might be a problem, they could check with Nat England. If the landowner is happy that it won't cause a problem then there is no need to ask Nat England.

 

Trying to find an actual landowner is often very difficult. Natural England are the body responsible for scheduling SSSI's in England and would therefore have a good idea of who the landowner is. Seems a sensible place to start your enquiries. And, as I said they've been very positive with people who have contacted them so far.

 

Indeed, trying to identify who owns some remote hillside is not at all easy. In these days of data protection I doubt Nat England would give you details of landowners, without their permission. Yorkshire Dales Nat Park certainly wouldn't in relation to one of my caches.

 

Nat England were perfectly happy with several caches I know about and one or two of mine, but they did say you'd still need to ask the landowner. So theoretically, it's probably best to start with the landowner as they have the 'final say'. Only if they want to make sure allowing a geocache wouldn't create any sort of contravention of the SSSI regs would they/you need to ask Nat Eng.

 

RE; the OP. I'm surprised that reviwers have time to check every co-ordinate move - no wonder more are needed! There also seems a certain illogical aspect to grandfathering all the caches in SSSIs that are out there without permission, but if someone moves their co-ords by 10 ft, now it does. Hey ho.

It would also be good if Groundspeak and the reviewers were more open about informing us about changes to rules and regs before they are implemented. Maybe, heaven forbid, even discuss them beforehand. There seem to be a lot of changes being imposed 'out of the blue' recently which only come to light when an individual does something with their cache.

[Deceangi]

There also seems a certain illogical aspect to grandfathering all the caches in SSSIs that are out there without permission, but if someone moves their co-ords by 10 ft, now it does. Hey ho.

 

Going back 4 years, there was very few On-line resources accessible to the UK Reviewers, within that period these resources have been developed or vastly improved upon by those sources. CCW alone have gone through several updates to their website, making it easily usable now days. Natural England has gone through a similar process.

 

That meant it was not always practicable to check every cache submission for every type of land designation. Also over time a area can see the total area Designated can increase. Meaning when a cache is originally submitted it was not in a SSSI, but now is.

 

A example of this is a local Hillside to where I live. Which is several KM long. When I started reviewing a small part was a designated Nature Reserve, over time that designation was changed to a SSSI, the are covered by the SSSI designation has slowly spread over a number of phases to cover the whole hillside. That means caches originally published as not being in a SSSI, are now within the designated area.

 

Because of the above, when the UK Reviewers gained access to MAGIC, which gives us one resource showing all the major land designations. Meaning we are now more able to correctly identify locations within these. We after discussions between ourselves decided to Grandfather In, published caches. As we do not have the time or resources to check every published cache. However any relocation is considered to have broken that Grandfathered In clause.

 

This is not new and has been in affect for as long as I have been a Reviewer!

 

It would also be good if Groundspeak and the reviewers were more open about informing us about changes to rules and regs before they are implemented. Maybe, heaven forbid, even discuss them beforehand. There seem to be a lot of changes being imposed 'out of the blue' recently which only come to light when an individual does something with their cache.

 

I'd suggest you look back through this forum, to 2008. Since then, any change in Reviewing Policy implemented by the UK Reviewers has been announced by us. You'll see announcements about the requirement for Proof of Permission being implemented for Network Rail Properties, and also Church Properties/Cemeteries.

 

We going forward will continue to announce any change in Reviewing Policies. that we implement!

 

Also Land Owner Permission Agreements are always announced by the GAGB on their forum, and listed on their GLAD-GAGB Landowner Agreement Database

 

Global Policies implemented under the instructions of Groundspeak, are the responsibility of Groundspeak to announce. Not the UK Reviewers. Any failure on their part to make such a announcement needs to be taken up directly with them, and not the UK Reviewers. Who are required to implement the actual policies.

 

If you wish to take up this point further, Then I'd suggest you create a Get Satisfaction Feedback Topic, this can be found by clicking on the Tab top left of the page on any Cache Page or your Profile Page. These are actively monitored by Groundspeak Employee's, who also provide feedback within topics

 

Alternatively the Founder and CEO of Groundspeak, will be attending the Perth Mega Event on the 31-7-10. You will have a opportunity if your attending and meet him, to ask him about this.

 

Deci

[+Phil100]

We don't say you can't place a cache in an SSSI (or nature reserve) only that you get permission. From my experience this is not usually a problem. Natural England (who scheduled SSSI's in England) have been very supportive with owners who have contacted them.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

 

Why would anyoine contact Natural England? AIUI they are not landowners.

 

you've misunderstood. you contact the land owner and the land owner contacts natural england. if the cache is on a SSSI Natural england have the final say in terms of permission if a cache can be placed there or not

I recently, unwittingly, placed a new cache on the Simonside Hills in Northumberland which was on the very edge of a SSSI and was consequently held until the required permissions were obtained. I contacted the local office of Natural England and found them extremely helpful and supportive. It was NE who obtained the permission of the landowner after I had clarified some possible issues. I would not have had any easy way of knowing who the landowner was.

[+SidAndBob]

I changed the co-ords the other day for Athens of the North. A cache which would have been 8 years old in 3 days time and has had 863 finds. This cache was one of my earliest finds and I adopted it a while back.

The best cache I have ever done has just been disabled because the parking coordinates were changed by it's dedicated owner. Very sad.

[+uktim]

We don't say you can't place a cache in an SSSI (or nature reserve) only that you get permission. From my experience this is not usually a problem. Natural England (who scheduled SSSI's in England) have been very supportive with owners who have contacted them.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

 

Why would anyoine contact Natural England? AIUI they are not landowners.

 

Trying to find an actual landowner is often very difficult. Natural England are the body responsible for scheduling SSSI's in England and would therefore have a good idea of who the landowner is. Seems a sensible place to start your enquiries. And, as I said they've been very positive with people who have contacted them so far.

 

 

I wouldn't expect NE to disclose the details of a landowner to anyone who asked. The fact that land is classed as an SSSI doesn;t mean that the owners details can be given out willy nilly.

[+Happy Humphrey]

An SSSI is a Site of Special Scientific Interest, the purpose of which is well explained by its title. SSSIs are conservation areas where geocaches shouldn't really be hidden in the first place.

They are not necessarily conservation areas. They may be vast, containing roads, houses, industrial units, rubbish dumps, golf courses etc. The purpose of an SSSI is, I agree, well explained by the title. As I understand it, it's an area of land that is of interest to the scientist, and this can be for a variety of reasons. The designation is to allow the scientists' studies to continue without undue interference (such as land development destroying the features of interest). The scientists may even destroy parts of the land if it is deemed useful.

 

An example would be a quarry containing unusually interesting fossils. The SSSI designation would allow access for studies to continue (including damaging the site by extracting fossils) whilst protecting the site from development. In such a case a geocache might well be perfectly appropriate, but of course it won't now be approved without permission.

 

Whether a cache that was placed before the reviewers were aware of the SSSI status (or before SSSI status was granted) should be re-reviewed, is a tricky point. But if a cache is moved an insignificant distance, then it seems a bit unfair to treat it as a new cache, when another one close by (also in the SSSI) remains allowed even though it also has no written permission.

[+Jacaru & Wemnog]

Quote ~ We don't say you can't place a cache in an SSSI (or nature reserve) only that you get permission. From my experience this is not usually a problem. Natural England (who scheduled SSSI's in England) have been very supportive with owners who have contacted them.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books" Unquote.

 

I have just had a cache approved for publication by Natural England in an SSSI. I can't fault them on their communication, knowledge of geocaching and helpful approach. All they requested from me was that I mentioned certain things in the cache listing. From start to finish they gave approval via a phone call to me and a follow up email within two hours.

[+needaxeo]

With the exception of Holyrood Park were I personally know the land manager, trying to get permission for other Edinburgh SSSI's is a pain in the rear end. I tried just back in April for another SSSI's which is owned by the same establishment as Holyrood. I never got a no, but I certainly got the run around, and then it ended up that my messages were just getting ignored. So it was deemed pointless to even try for this one.

 

Seems moot then. A cache (or anything else for that matter) should have permission from the land owner whereever it is. This really has nothing to do with reviewers or geocaching rules, it's just the right thing to do tm.

 

And there's an expectation from the folk that are looking for the cache that permission was sought. If I'm getting chased across a field by a large angry scotsman shouting "get off my land" when I say "But I'm geocaching" he says "Oh right, yeah, Bill did ask" then we're cool. If no permission was obtained someone's done a disservice to him and anyone that went looking for the cache.

 

e.g There is a cache near me in an area near an SSSI and when I enter the area all the signs make it very clear where horses, people and bikes can and cannot go and the same signs make it clear they don't want anyone wandering off the footpaths. Yet the cache isn't on a footpath. Like you, I can't be bothered to find out if it has permission or not, but I suspect it probably doesn't, and I won't go for it as a result.

 

So long as folk mark any caches with "I couldn't be bothered to get permission" if they don't already have it that seems reasonable.

 

I guess the "glass half full" approach is, you (or someone else) got away without getting it for nearly a decade, which, to an extent does support your "it's pointless even trying to get it" stance.

 

As I understand it, it's an area of land that is of interest to the scientist

 

Nearly. It's an area of land that is of special interest to the scientist

 

Ok, I make a joke, but the whole planet is of interest to science.

Edited July 31, 2010 by needaxeo

[+Happy Humphrey]

Ok, I make a joke, but the whole planet is of interest to science.

True, but not everywhere on the planet is of interest, however!

[+needaxeo]

Ok, I make a joke, but the whole planet is of interest to science.

True, but not everywhere on the planet is of interest, however!

 

Yes it is. Special interest on the other hand...

[+Pajaholic]

IMO, the OP is correct. It seems a very good idea to be careful of updating coords if there are other caches in the area. I'm not entirely sure what happened with The other side of the Tamar by Birdman-of-liskatraz but I suspect it's an example of how things might pan out. In this case, it seems that cachers were not replacing the container as Birdie intended and it was getting washed out every time it rained hard. So he moved the cache to somewhere less prone to that issue only to have a reviewer disable it.

 

The first stage of a multi is almost on top of the location (parking and a question to answer). There's also a physical cache that might be too close if you don't take elevation into consideration (but once you do the almost 200ft height difference means that it's more than 0.1 miles away). Whatever; it seems that the cache would no longer comply with current guidelines as interpreted by the reviewers even if it were moved back to its original location.

 

I'm sad to note that Birdie has recently archived almost all of his caches, and I hope that this had nothing to do with that decision.

 

So, what to do? If there's no real reason why it shouldn't be there (i.e. there's nothing that would cause a reviewer to take action if the cache was left as is), perhaps it's a good idea to get agreement with the relevant reviewer before moving the cache. If there's now a saturation issue and your cache pre-dates the conflicting cache, hopefully the reviewer would accept that your cache has priority and/or that both can remain. At least you'd then know that you'd lose it if you move it!

[+scuba_2]

Most sssis seem to take the tack of we dont understand it so just say no!

even if it would bring more visiters to the visitor center.

 

maybe you should just leave new cords at the old location and not say anything,like you said its been there 8 years and the world has not stopped turning has it !!!

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

IMO, the OP is correct. It seems a very good idea to be careful of updating coords if there are other caches in the area. I'm not entirely sure what happened with The other side of the Tamar by Birdman-of-liskatraz but I suspect it's an example of how things might pan out. In this case, it seems that cachers were not replacing the container as Birdie intended and it was getting washed out every time it rained hard. So he moved the cache to somewhere less prone to that issue only to have a reviewer disable it.

 

The first stage of a multi is almost on top of the location (parking and a question to answer). There's also a physical cache that might be too close if you don't take elevation into consideration (but once you do the almost 200ft height difference means that it's more than 0.1 miles away). Whatever; it seems that the cache would no longer comply with current guidelines as interpreted by the reviewers even if it were moved back to its original location.

 

I'm sad to note that Birdie has recently archived almost all of his caches, and I hope that this had nothing to do with that decision.

 

So, what to do? If there's no real reason why it shouldn't be there (i.e. there's nothing that would cause a reviewer to take action if the cache was left as is), perhaps it's a good idea to get agreement with the relevant reviewer before moving the cache. If there's now a saturation issue and your cache pre-dates the conflicting cache, hopefully the reviewer would accept that your cache has priority and/or that both can remain. At least you'd then know that you'd lose it if you move it!

 

To be fair to the reviewers - It was this cache that made me archive all the others (40 or so), but as I understand it, it was all my fault by mistyping 6 digits in the co-ordinates I submitted. I then got in a huff and archived almost every cache I own. Deciangi told me that "Cachers like new caches", so I've slowly been collecting them all in and have this very week placed a new series of 8 caches (With a bonus still to be placed) and another stand alone cache. So it serves me right for getting into a huff! It does mean however that some of my favourite caches won't see the light of day again (on Geocaching.com at least - I may move them to Opencaching however) as I can't sensibly place them in a new location.

 

I was told however, that if a reviewer had been flexible and allowed the stage of a multi to be less than the normally required distance from an existing cache , and at some time in the future the original cache is moved a few feet - then a another reviewer can disable the original cache on proximity grounds!

[hnisc]

I have had to move a cache from its current location due to waterlogging. The move is to the other side of the site however, it will not let me update the listing for the new co-rds as the distance is too much... Do I have to archive the cache then and start it again?

[+The Blorenges]

I have had to move a cache from its current location due to waterlogging. The move is to the other side of the site however, it will not let me update the listing for the new co-rds as the distance is too much... Do I have to archive the cache then and start it again?

 

No, just email your local reviewer the GC number of your cache and the new co-ordinates and ask him/her if they could update them for you.

 

MrsB

[hnisc]

I have had to move a cache from its current location due to waterlogging. The move is to the other side of the site however, it will not let me update the listing for the new co-rds as the distance is too much... Do I have to archive the cache then and start it again?

 

No, just email your local reviewer the GC number of your cache and the new co-ordinates and ask him/her if they could update them for you.

 

MrsB

 

I had done so but no reply as yet but I'll wait

[+dino-irl]

Who did you send the request to?

 

Just remember that reviewers review around their day jobs and that 48-72hrs is a reasonable time to wait although it can sometimes be quicker.

[hnisc]

I waited a week with no response but it doesnt matter now.

[+dino-irl]

I waited a week with no response but it doesnt matter now.

Reason is I asked Graham and neither he nor I* received it. Interested in case you sent it somewhere else and need to contact one of us in the future

 

* I review as Croaghan and Graham is wildfowler/Inishanier. Any Ireland reviewer queries need to come to one of us.