Cache not approved for proximity even though it's on an island

[+j2x]

Folks,

 

I was river rafting this last weekend and happily left a cache on an island (the only island cache in the area) that my group stopped at. I submitted my listing and received a rejection letter stating:

I'm reviewing your new cache for listing on geocaching.com. I'm afraid it appears to be only 409 feet away from another cache, GCGJDD, Lots of Pictures #3. There is also a second cache (Campell's cache) only a short distance away as well.

 

The guidelines state: "The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

Now, my cache is traditional and normal sized, the nearby cache is micro and is on shore. Truly, if the river is very unusually low one could wade though hip-deep water from the shore to the island, but I would think almost anyone would need some sort of boat or raft to get there.

 

I respect the reviewer and told him that I'd move it, but I strongly disagree that proximity between the caches is a good reason to reject my cache since one who finds the cache on shore is very unlikely to be able/willing to go out and find mine on the island.

 

What do you think?

[+Too Tall John]

Bummer.

 

I've heard of some exceptions being made for a cache when a barrier, such as a river, is between the caches in question. It may be worth asking about such an exception. Since the reviewer mentions another existing cache being in close proximity, this may be why they didn't offer the option to begin with, though.

 

Looking at the map, I wonder if, perhaps, the puzzle cache is too close, too, but they don't want to give that location up. . .

Edited July 28, 2010 by Too Tall John

[+dfx]

have you tried asking for an exception to be made?

 

even though i have to say that judging from the map, the small part of the river between the shore and the island may not be enough of a natural obstacle to warrant an exception....

[+narcissa]

Reviewers used to waive the proximity guideline for island caches, but lately it seems they're not as willing to do this.

[+9Key]

I think you're stuck. Not just one cache but two too close to yours. Sorry!

Edited July 28, 2010 by 9Key

[+roziecakes]

Hi there,

I live in your area, and I've found one of the two other caches that you mention. Believe it or not, there are actually a lot of cachers who boat out to caches in the Eugene area, so even though you might not think that someone who finds the cache onshore would not be likely to go find the one on the island, you'd be surprised!

 

However, as others have said, you may be able to get an exception. The reviewers in our area are really really nice people, and you might be able to appeal your case to them. How large is the island? Maybe you could even move it to another area of the island?

 

By the way, if you like boating to caches, there are a couple of awesome looking float events coming up in our area. I'm actually purchasing a raft this evening, so I'll be there

[+dfx]

alternative: go out there, take the containers of the offending caches, and post NA on them. wait a bit and resubmit your cache. voila!

[+mountainman38]

Folks,

 

I was river rafting this last weekend and happily left a cache on an island (the only island cache in the area) that my group stopped at. I submitted my listing and received a rejection letter stating:

I'm reviewing your new cache for listing on geocaching.com. I'm afraid it appears to be only 409 feet away from another cache, GCGJDD, Lots of Pictures #3. There is also a second cache (Campell's cache) only a short distance away as well.

 

The guidelines state: "The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

Now, my cache is traditional and normal sized, the nearby cache is micro and is on shore. Truly, if the river is very unusually low one could wade though hip-deep water from the shore to the island, but I would think almost anyone would need some sort of boat or raft to get there.

 

I respect the reviewer and told him that I'd move it, but I strongly disagree that proximity between the caches is a good reason to reject my cache since one who finds the cache on shore is very unlikely to be able/willing to go out and find mine on the island.

 

What do you think?

I placed my first cache* about 475 feet from the nearest cache. While this is inside the 1/10 mile rule, there is a very deep canyon between the caches, that would require a hike of over a mile to get to the other cache. Before I published the cache, I contacted a local reviewer and explained the situation. The reviewer responded that he/she would be willing to approve the cache, given the terrain it was in.

 

Did you explain exactly where your cache was to the reviewer? It seems reasonable that yours be approved, since the difficulty in getting to it would satisfy the over saturation rule.

 

*It turned out my cache wasn't viable, after all. It was in Riverside State Park, and when I applied to the park service for approval I was denied since the area it was in was too sensitive. Too bad -- it was a pretty cool spot.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Is there a Multi or Puzzle that ends on the island?

 

(Sites down still, for maintenance, so can't look at the map!)

Edited July 28, 2010 by Bear and Ragged

[+buttaskotch]

Appeal on the grounds that a craft is necessary to retrieve the cache as it is unlikely for many to have with them at all times, and if it was rejected, move on.

[+pmolan]

I see that someone had no problem approving the 6 on the left. I guess I can see how adding yours on the island would confuse everyone.

 

[+niraD]

I see that someone had no problem approving the 6 on the left.

The virtual cache, the bogus coordinates for the mystery/puzzle cache, and the EarthCache do not count towards the saturation guidelines. Only physical stages and cache containers count towards the saturation guidelines.

[JohnX]

I have had a similar event that I was involved in. I have a cache on an island and another cacher placed one on another island about 475 feet away. There was no possible way you could confuse the caches and both were/are fun and adventurous caches. The other cacher got turned down. I should have pressed the issue with the reviewer but I did not.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Guidelines are guidleines. Reviewers may make exceptions, if they so choose. You should have checked with the reviewer before you hid the caches, since it is in violation of the guideliens. One should not assume that guidelines only pertain to other people. Tha is called entitlement.

[jholly]

You stated you could wade out to the island. With that I don't see the river as much of a barrier. You have a proximity issue and need to move your cache. The size of the previously placed cache has absolutely no bearing on the proximity issues, i.e., regulars don't trump micros.

[+Too Tall John]

. . . regulars don't trump micros.

Now there's an idea! Maybe people would hide larger caches if they knew a larger cache could "push out" their smaller one.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

. . . regulars don't trump micros.

Now there's an idea! Maybe people would hide larger caches if they knew a larger cache could "push out" their smaller one.

 

Hey! You get your big fat ammo can outta here!

[+Too Tall John]

. . . regulars don't trump micros.

Now there's an idea! Maybe people would hide larger caches if they knew a larger cache could "push out" their smaller one.

Hey! You get your big fat ammo can outta here!

[4wheelin_fool]

The size of the previously placed cache has absolutely no bearing on the proximity issues, i.e., regulars don't trump micros.

 

I believe that he mentioned the size difference to show that the 2 caches could not be easily confused with each other. If he had hidden a micro on the island perhaps it would be another full foot further away, but 410 feet isnt much different than 409.

[+narcissa]

It's always a good idea to get a cache site approved BEFORE placing a cache there, especially if it takes some work to get to it.

[Clan Riffster]

What do you think?

I think you either knew, or should have known, that you were committing a proximity violation before you ever typed up your cache page. That being the case, you should have included a Reviewer note, explaining the layout, and the fact that a *cough cough* significant *cough cough* barrier existed between your cache, and the one(s) you are too close to. That way the Reviewer has all the facts before making a judgment call.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

Just keep stealing the micros until they get archived, then publish your ammo can.

[+palmetto]

I strongly disagree that proximity between the caches is a good reason to reject my cache since one who finds the cache on shore is very unlikely to be able/willing to go out and find mine on the island.

 

The Saturation Guideline doesn't address the issue of likelihood of find, or ease access from one cache to another.

 

If it did, what about the cacher on a boat, readily accessing yours, and then the 2 on shore nearby?

What about the reviewer's observation that it's possible to wade from shore to the island?

 

Your cache is less then 450 feet from 2 other caches, in an area where there are a good many caches on both banks of the river. This is a fairly cache saturated area, generally. Not a spot where an exception is likely.

 

....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....

[jessejoe23]

Huh...some reviewers can be jerks..... I had one denied because it was only 475 feet from the final stage of a multi-cache.... When I placed it I had the first part of the multi in my gpsr and that what I judged my distance on...It really put a bad taste in my mouth(so to speak).I have yet to hide anoth one.

[+thedeadpirate]

Huh...some reviewers can be jerks..... I had one denied because it was only 475 feet from the final stage of a multi-cache.... When I placed it I had the first part of the multi in my gpsr and that what I judged my distance on...It really put a bad taste in my mouth(so to speak).I have yet to hide anoth one.

So you're bad mouthing a reviewer because YOU didn't bother to do the multi so you could have all the coords in your gps?

 

Get some breath mints and try again. It's not the end of the world.

[+dfx]

Huh...some reviewers can be jerks..... I had one denied because it was only 475 feet from the final stage of a multi-cache.... When I placed it I had the first part of the multi in my gpsr and that what I judged my distance on...It really put a bad taste in my mouth(so to speak).I have yet to hide anoth one.

sorry to rain on your parade, but that's got nothing to do with the reviewer being a jerk. those are the rules, they're clearly spelled out and every reviewer would thus have done the same.

 

rule of thumb: if you want to hide your cache in the vicinity of a multi-cache, you should complete the multi first to learn where all of its stages and the final cache are.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... rule of thumb: if you want to hide your cache in the vicinity of a multi-cache, you should complete the multi first to learn where all of its stages and the final cache are.

What is "the vicinity of a multi-cache"? That would encompass many square miles.

[+dfx]

What is "the vicinity of a multi-cache"? That would encompass many square miles.

vicinity = if you have reason to believe that there's a multicache layed out in that area.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

What is "the vicinity of a multi-cache"? That would encompass many square miles.

vicinity = if you have reason to believe that there's a multicache layed out in that area.

And how would one deduce this, ESP?

[+dfx]

And how would one deduce this, ESP?

pretty easy from (attention, here comes the magic word) reading the descriptions of the multicaches.

[jholly]

Huh...some reviewers can be jerks..... I had one denied because it was only 475 feet from the final stage of a multi-cache.... When I placed it I had the first part of the multi in my gpsr and that what I judged my distance on...It really put a bad taste in my mouth(so to speak).I have yet to hide anoth one.

 

Sorry to rain on your parade, but none of our reviewers are jerks. There is one that is a doorknob though.

 

You really need to read the part of the guidelines regarding proximity. Any physical cache has to be 528 feet from any physical stage of a mullti or mystery cache. If you don't know where those are then ask your reviewer if you proposed location is clear *before* you try to publish. If it is not, perhaps he could suggest a direction you could move yours to be clear. The problem is not with the reviewer, the problem is with you.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

And how would one deduce this, ESP?

pretty easy from (attention, here comes the magic word) reading the descriptions of the multicaches.

Really? The description tells you how far away and in what direction is the final?

[+dfx]

Really? The description tells you how far away and in what direction is the final?

no, but it tells me whether there's reason to believe that the multi cache is layed out in this area or not.

 

[+thedeadpirate]

What is "the vicinity of a multi-cache"? That would encompass many square miles.

vicinity = if you have reason to believe that there's a multicache layed out in that area.

And how would one deduce this, ESP?

 

ESP combined with a search of nearby caches would probably work. But if you didn't want to make an educated guess about whether or not that multi in the general vacinity might interfere, then you could always just hide the cache and then be prepared to move it if the reviewer it was too close.

 

OR, you could just call the reviewer a jerk because he's doing his job and refuse to hide anymore caches.

[jessejoe23]

Huh...some reviewers can be jerks..... I had one denied because it was only 475 feet from the final stage of a multi-cache.... When I placed it I had the first part of the multi in my gpsr and that what I judged my distance on...It really put a bad taste in my mouth(so to speak).I have yet to hide anoth one.

 

Sorry to rain on your parade, but none of our reviewers are jerks. There is one that is a doorknob though.

 

You really need to read the part of the guidelines regarding proximity. Any physical cache has to be 528 feet from any physical stage of a mullti or mystery cache. If you don't know where those are then ask your reviewer if you proposed location is clear *before* you try to publish. If it is not, perhaps he could suggest a direction you could move yours to be clear. The problem is not with the reviewer, the problem is with you.

 

So basically I should just go out find my spot,Come back clear it with the reviewer.Then go back out to hide the cache?

 

Really? The description tells you how far away and in what direction is the final?

no, but it tells me whether there's reason to believe that the multi cache is layed out in this area or not.

 

 

So in other words Im supposed to know that a multi 1/2 mile away is gonna end within 528 feet of my site?

 

No wonder there are so many crummy micros under light pole covers.

[jessejoe23]

Sooo basically it comes down to if there is a multi within several miles dont bother trying to hide a cache, As they may have a part of there cache there.

[+thedeadpirate]

Sooo basically it comes down to if there is a multi within several miles dont bother trying to hide a cache, As they may have a part of there cache there.

 

Yep. That's what everyone said.

 

Some folks just shouldn't hide caches anyway. If you're going to get that upset because a reviewer applies the guidelines like he's supposed to, then you're really gonna go nuts when folks start bad mouthing your leaky film canister.

[jholly]

Huh...some reviewers can be jerks..... I had one denied because it was only 475 feet from the final stage of a multi-cache.... When I placed it I had the first part of the multi in my gpsr and that what I judged my distance on...It really put a bad taste in my mouth(so to speak).I have yet to hide anoth one.

 

Sorry to rain on your parade, but none of our reviewers are jerks. There is one that is a doorknob though.

 

You really need to read the part of the guidelines regarding proximity. Any physical cache has to be 528 feet from any physical stage of a mullti or mystery cache. If you don't know where those are then ask your reviewer if you proposed location is clear *before* you try to publish. If it is not, perhaps he could suggest a direction you could move yours to be clear. The problem is not with the reviewer, the problem is with you.

 

So basically I should just go out find my spot,Come back clear it with the reviewer.Then go back out to hide the cache?

 

 

In an area where there are multis and mysteries that is not a bad idea. Of course if you have done the multis and mysteries and know where things are then you are in better shape for hiding. Or you could just drop it, write it up and hope. If you dropped it in the wrong place you move it and try again.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The thing is that you are supposed to hide caches where you can easily return to maintain them.

 

If it is a PITA for you to go back then you really should find a better location.

 

So, hide your cache, submit a listing, the vast majority will be fine.

 

If it turns out that your cache is for some reason in violation and can't be listed then, because you hid it in a place where you can easily return to maintain it, it won't be a big deal to go back and move it.

 

 

Or you could get mad and pitch a hissy fit. We like to watch folks do that! Sorta breaks up the monotony of the vast majority being listed without issue.

[+narcissa]

Sooo basically it comes down to if there is a multi within several miles dont bother trying to hide a cache, As they may have a part of there cache there.

 

No. Select a few good spots ahead of time, get your reviewer to approve a spot, and THEN place the cache.

[+thedeadpirate]

Sooo basically it comes down to if there is a multi within several miles dont bother trying to hide a cache, As they may have a part of there cache there.

 

No. Select a few good spots ahead of time, get your reviewer to approve a spot, and THEN place the cache.

 

Jessejoe, don't listen to her.

 

If there is a multi within a 10 mile radius, don't bother trying to hide a cache. Leave that to the professionals and soothsayers.

[+narcissa]

Sooo basically it comes down to if there is a multi within several miles dont bother trying to hide a cache, As they may have a part of there cache there.

 

No. Select a few good spots ahead of time, get your reviewer to approve a spot, and THEN place the cache.

 

Jessejoe, don't listen to her.

 

If there is a multi within a 10 mile radius, don't bother trying to hide a cache. Leave that to the professionals and soothsayers.

 

Oh, and if there's a mystery/unknown with 25 miles, just forget about it.

[+thedeadpirate]

Sooo basically it comes down to if there is a multi within several miles dont bother trying to hide a cache, As they may have a part of there cache there.

 

No. Select a few good spots ahead of time, get your reviewer to approve a spot, and THEN place the cache.

 

Jessejoe, don't listen to her.

 

If there is a multi within a 10 mile radius, don't bother trying to hide a cache. Leave that to the professionals and soothsayers.

 

Oh, and if there's a mystery/unknown with 25 miles, just forget about it.

 

Exactly. Just be honest with the guy. No need to beat around the bush.

[Clan Riffster]

Sooo basically it comes down to if there is a multi within several miles dont bother trying to hide a cache

This ridiculous inference is all you could get from the advice offered? Seriously? Brother, if your sense of entitlement is that strong, perhaps it's best that you don't hide caches at all. You decided to hide a cache without doing your homework ahead of time, and somehow this is the Reviewer's fault? Really? What a sad little world you must live in.

[+Highland Horde]

I had found a spot to place a cache but I thought it strange that nobody had placed one there yet. I went on google earth to take a look. There was a multi not too far away. I emailed my local reviewer to see if the area was clear (using the approx. coords from google earth) they gave me the all clear I went and placed the cache and submitted with the actual coords (not from google)... but this I learned from another cache I had placed when I was still (really) a noob. I had hiked in about 20 min placed a cache in a nice park. Took some good pics. Took my time setting up the cache page with some great pics of the area. Submitted the cache. It was turned down because it was too close to the final on a multi. Then it snowed and my cache was buried for a couple months. I still havent completed that multi so see if the cache can go back in somewhere else in the park but if the final of the multi gets people into the park then thats great. There is a lot to learn about placing good caches and making good cache placements. There is no reason to get upset with your reviewer. They are the ones that can help you in learning these things. Work with them, not against them.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Huh...some reviewers can be jerks.....

 

No doubt. Some cachers can be jerks, to. So can some muggles. That pretty much covers everybody, doesn't it?

 

I had one denied because it was only 475 feet from the final stage of a multi-cache.

 

This, however, is not an instance of a reviewer being a jerk. It is a case of a reviewer doing his job by enforcing a very clear-cut guideline.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

So basically I should just go out find my spot,Come back clear it with the reviewer.Then go back out to hide the cache?

 

 

That's pretty much what everyone else does. Yes.

 

Or you can go ahead and hide the cache, but be prepared to move it if there is a conflicting multi or mystery cache nearby.

[+eagsc7]

Folks,

 

I was river rafting this last weekend and happily left a cache on an island (the only island cache in the area) that my group stopped at. I submitted my listing and received a rejection letter stating:

I'm reviewing your new cache for listing on geocaching.com. I'm afraid it appears to be only 409 feet away from another cache, GCGJDD, Lots of Pictures #3. There is also a second cache (Campell's cache) only a short distance away as well.

 

The guidelines state: "The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

Now, my cache is traditional and normal sized, the nearby cache is micro and is on shore. Truly, if the river is very unusually low one could wade though hip-deep water from the shore to the island, but I would think almost anyone would need some sort of boat or raft to get there.

 

I respect the reviewer and told him that I'd move it, but I strongly disagree that proximity between the caches is a good reason to reject my cache since one who finds the cache on shore is very unlikely to be able/willing to go out and find mine on the island.

 

What do you think?

I placed my first cache* about 475 feet from the nearest cache. While this is inside the 1/10 mile rule, there is a very deep canyon between the caches, that would require a hike of over a mile to get to the other cache. Before I published the cache, I contacted a local reviewer and explained the situation. The reviewer responded that he/she would be willing to approve the cache, given the terrain it was in.

 

Did you explain exactly where your cache was to the reviewer? It seems reasonable that yours be approved, since the difficulty in getting to it would satisfy the over saturation rule.

 

*It turned out my cache wasn't viable, after all. It was in Riverside State Park, and when I applied to the park service for approval I was denied since the area it was in was too sensitive. Too bad -- it was a pretty cool spot.

 

DUDE!!!! I KNOW EXACTLY WHERE YOUR TALKING ABOUT!!! I tried to place one there a couple YEARS ago. The Park ranger said that 'Climbing was limited to a verry SMALL area, and the Ammo Can on the side of a cliff was Hazardous to the Park." Ohh Well.

 

The Steaks

*Coming BACK to Spokane Someday!*

[+dfx]

So in other words Im supposed to know that a multi 1/2 mile away is gonna end within 528 feet of my site?

no you're not "supposed to know". but if you do wanna know, just complete the multi and take note of its stages. then you will know.

[+Team MacKenzie]

Sooo basically it comes down to if there is a multi within several miles dont bother trying to hide a cache, As they may have a part of there cache there.

 

No. Select a few good spots ahead of time, get your reviewer to approve a spot, and THEN place the cache.

 

Or just go out and do the multi and then you'll know for yourself where all the stages are AND you have another smilie

 

I had two nice spots picked out for caches. Wondered why there weren't caches there already! I did the multi in the area and found that one stage was too close to one location. The final was a 1/2 mile from my other chosen location. One cache placed and approved, the other spot, well it's on my list of possibles for the day when the multi goes down for the count.

 

Do I think that the unavailable cache location is prettier and nicer than the multi-stage...well of course I do. I could place a small l&l there, the stage of the multi that's blocking it is a 35mm film can with a piece of paper in it.

 

Do I make a fuss over the whole thing....of course not. It's not a big deal...I have a list of possible cache locations longer than I have time to make and place! Not to mention about 1 million more caches to find!!