Jump to content

Expiration of unpublished caches?


Recommended Posts

Is there a time limit on how long a user can have an unpublished cache? I'm asking because I've been watching a certain location for months and finally decided to place a cache there last weekend. I got the cache ready but before making the arduous hike up the mountain, I emailed the local cache reviewer to check on the coordinates. The reviewer said that the coordinates were within 200 feet of another cache...but the cache they mentioned is unpublished. Since the cache numbers are sequential, I believe the other cache was created within the past 9 days (since the other GC code came after one I created 9 days ago and before the one I created 2 days ago). How long does the other cacher have to place the cache? Weeks? Months? Years? Is there anything to prevent someone from "staking a claim" and never actually placing a cache in that location?

Edited by MorrisonHiker
Link to comment

Is there a time limit on how long a user can have an unpublished cache? I'm asking because I've been watching a certain location for months and finally decided to place a cache there last weekend. I got the cache ready but before making the arduous hike up the mountain, I emailed the local cache reviewer to check on the coordinates. The reviewer said that the coordinates were within 200 feet of another cache...but the cache they mentioned is unpublished. Since the cache numbers are sequential, I believe the other cache was created within the past 9 days (since the other GC code came after one I created 9 days ago and before the one I created 2 days ago). How long does the other cacher have to place the cache? Weeks? Months? Years? Is there anything to prevent someone from "staking a claim" and never actually placing a cache in that location?

 

Probably more than a few weeks, probably less than a year, probably a few months. I don't believe a reviewer will allow the claim to be held forever if there is pressure to publish another cache. Your choices seem to be find another location that does not have proximity issues, or wait a couple months and if the cache is still not published drop the reviewer a line and ask how much longer, your ready to go. But then if it is published you will need to find another location anyway. Seems the best strategy is go for a second location and publish.

Link to comment

Is there a time limit on how long a user can have an unpublished cache? I'm asking because I've been watching a certain location for months and finally decided to place a cache there last weekend. I got the cache ready but before making the arduous hike up the mountain, I emailed the local cache reviewer to check on the coordinates. The reviewer said that the coordinates were within 200 feet of another cache...but the cache they mentioned is unpublished. Since the cache numbers are sequential, I believe the other cache was created within the past 9 days (since the other GC code came after one I created 9 days ago and before the one I created 2 days ago). How long does the other cacher have to place the cache? Weeks? Months? Years? Is there anything to prevent someone from "staking a claim" and never actually placing a cache in that location?

 

Probably more than a few weeks, probably less than a year, probably a few months. I don't believe a reviewer will allow the claim to be held forever if there is pressure to publish another cache. Your choices seem to be find another location that does not have proximity issues, or wait a couple months and if the cache is still not published drop the reviewer a line and ask how much longer, your ready to go. But then if it is published you will need to find another location anyway. Seems the best strategy is go for a second location and publish.

 

Yeah, I have other caches in the area...but this location is of historical importance so I was hoping to place a cache there and give details about the history. Hopefully the other cache owner will do that...and not just set up a micro cache with no description. There are other places on the mountain that will work...but this spot would be the best.

Link to comment
How long does the other cacher have to place the cache? Weeks? Months? Years?

 

The answer is, it depends. Years, probably not. But if say the CO is awaiting a permit from the park and the park is dragging their feet, I could see it being a matter of months.

 

Is there anything to prevent someone from "staking a claim" and never actually placing a cache in that location?

 

Yes, your reviewer can prevent it. The "claim" is not indefinite. There needs to be a reason for it. Maybe the CO is creating a difficult puzzle cache, maybe he is constructing an elaborate container. Perhaps he is waiting for a permit.

 

When a new cache bumps up against an old one that is holding an area, the reviewer will ask the the owner of the older cache what he has in mind. If there is no response, or no good reason for holding the area, it is likely that the older cache will be archived and the newer cache published.

Link to comment

Another approach would be to use the historical site as the first (virtual) stage of a multi-cache.

 

Now that's an idea. I had planned on a multi on a nearby mountain...but maybe I could start a multi or puzzle cache at this spot instead. There is a year etched in stone that could be used as part of a multi or puzzle cache. :laughing:

Link to comment

Another approach would be to use the historical site as the first (virtual) stage of a multi-cache.

 

The unpublished cache was finally published in the middle of last week. I resubmitted my cache using your suggestion. I made the actual historical plaque the first stage (non-physical) of an offset multicache. The physical cache was placed about 550 feet away. The reviewer rejected it again saying that it was withing 128 feet of a stage of the other cache. :rolleyes:

 

I'm hoping that this reviewer just didn't notice the note which indicates the first stage is non-physical. The reviewer quoted the entire Cache Saturation rule...but must not've realized this was a non-physical stage.

 

Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

 

Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements.

 

I forwarded it back to the other local reviewer and hope they will approve it. Am I understanding the rules correctly? Non-physical stages shouldn't be subject to the 528 foot rule.

Link to comment

Another approach would be to use the historical site as the first (virtual) stage of a multi-cache.

 

The unpublished cache was finally published in the middle of last week. I resubmitted my cache using your suggestion. I made the actual historical plaque the first stage (non-physical) of an offset multicache. The physical cache was placed about 550 feet away. The reviewer rejected it again saying that it was withing 128 feet of a stage of the other cache. :rolleyes:

 

I'm hoping that this reviewer just didn't notice the note which indicates the first stage is non-physical. The reviewer quoted the entire Cache Saturation rule...but must not've realized this was a non-physical stage.

 

Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

 

Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements.

 

I forwarded it back to the other local reviewer and hope they will approve it. Am I understanding the rules correctly? Non-physical stages shouldn't be subject to the 528 foot rule.

 

Is the other cache a traditional or a multi? It is possible that your virtual stage is not the one that is too close.

Link to comment

Another approach would be to use the historical site as the first (virtual) stage of a multi-cache.

 

The unpublished cache was finally published in the middle of last week. I resubmitted my cache using your suggestion. I made the actual historical plaque the first stage (non-physical) of an offset multicache. The physical cache was placed about 550 feet away. The reviewer rejected it again saying that it was withing 128 feet of a stage of the other cache. :rolleyes:

 

I'm hoping that this reviewer just didn't notice the note which indicates the first stage is non-physical. The reviewer quoted the entire Cache Saturation rule...but must not've realized this was a non-physical stage.

 

Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

 

Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements.

 

I forwarded it back to the other local reviewer and hope they will approve it. Am I understanding the rules correctly? Non-physical stages shouldn't be subject to the 528 foot rule.

 

Is the other cache a traditional or a multi? It is possible that your virtual stage is not the one that is too close.

 

Sorry I didn't make that clear in my last post. The other cache is the final stage of a multi-cache. That stage is 128 feet from the non-physical stage of my cache. When they rejected my cache (again), they again mentioned the cache by name...so I know that's the cache that's causing the problem.

 

Theirs is a physical location...but from what I understand of the rules, non-physical stages (even for unrelated caches) don't have to follow the 528 foot rule.

Link to comment

Another approach would be to use the historical site as the first (virtual) stage of a multi-cache.

 

The unpublished cache was finally published in the middle of last week. I resubmitted my cache using your suggestion. I made the actual historical plaque the first stage (non-physical) of an offset multicache. The physical cache was placed about 550 feet away. The reviewer rejected it again saying that it was withing 128 feet of a stage of the other cache. :rolleyes:

 

I'm hoping that this reviewer just didn't notice the note which indicates the first stage is non-physical. The reviewer quoted the entire Cache Saturation rule...but must not've realized this was a non-physical stage.

 

Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

 

Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements.

 

I forwarded it back to the other local reviewer and hope they will approve it. Am I understanding the rules correctly? Non-physical stages shouldn't be subject to the 528 foot rule.

 

Is the other cache a traditional or a multi? It is possible that your virtual stage is not the one that is too close.

 

Sorry I didn't make that clear in my last post. The other cache is the final stage of a multi-cache. That stage is 128 feet from the non-physical stage of my cache. When they rejected my cache (again), they again mentioned the cache by name...so I know that's the cache that's causing the problem.

 

Theirs is a physical location...but from what I understand of the rules, non-physical stages (even for unrelated caches) don't have to follow the 528 foot rule.

 

I agree, non-physical caches should not be subject to the saturation restrictions by the current guidelines. Being as the cache you are said to be too close to is a multi it is possible that one of the intermediate stages is near your final location. You will need to either check with your reviewer or find all stages of the other cache.

Link to comment

Another approach would be to use the historical site as the first (virtual) stage of a multi-cache.

 

The unpublished cache was finally published in the middle of last week. I resubmitted my cache using your suggestion. I made the actual historical plaque the first stage (non-physical) of an offset multicache. The physical cache was placed about 550 feet away. The reviewer rejected it again saying that it was withing 128 feet of a stage of the other cache. :rolleyes:

 

I'm hoping that this reviewer just didn't notice the note which indicates the first stage is non-physical. The reviewer quoted the entire Cache Saturation rule...but must not've realized this was a non-physical stage.

 

Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

 

Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements.

 

I forwarded it back to the other local reviewer and hope they will approve it. Am I understanding the rules correctly? Non-physical stages shouldn't be subject to the 528 foot rule.

 

Is the other cache a traditional or a multi? It is possible that your virtual stage is not the one that is too close.

 

Sorry I didn't make that clear in my last post. The other cache is the final stage of a multi-cache. That stage is 128 feet from the non-physical stage of my cache. When they rejected my cache (again), they again mentioned the cache by name...so I know that's the cache that's causing the problem.

 

Theirs is a physical location...but from what I understand of the rules, non-physical stages (even for unrelated caches) don't have to follow the 528 foot rule.

 

I agree, non-physical caches should not be subject to the saturation restrictions by the current guidelines. Being as the cache you are said to be too close to is a multi it is possible that one of the intermediate stages is near your final location. You will need to either check with your reviewer or find all stages of the other cache.

 

I spent over 4 hours yesterday and hiked 9+ miles finding all other caches in the area and the other 7 stages of this multicache. The other caches and stages are far away from where I've placed my non-physical initial stage and the final physical stage of the cache. Again, I think the reviewer just didn't read the note that I left to indicate the first stage is non-physical. Hopefully they will review it in detail and realize their mistake.

 

BTW...the reason I can't move my non-physical stage is because it is a historical site. I want to bring users to the location and teach them about the site by having them read the plaque there. Once there, they can use a number on the plaque to decode the final coordinates. The multicache that is placed nearby doesn't mention the historical site at all.

Edited by MorrisonHiker
Link to comment

Another approach would be to use the historical site as the first (virtual) stage of a multi-cache.

 

The unpublished cache was finally published in the middle of last week. I resubmitted my cache using your suggestion. I made the actual historical plaque the first stage (non-physical) of an offset multicache. The physical cache was placed about 550 feet away. The reviewer rejected it again saying that it was withing 128 feet of a stage of the other cache. :rolleyes:

 

I'm hoping that this reviewer just didn't notice the note which indicates the first stage is non-physical. The reviewer quoted the entire Cache Saturation rule...but must not've realized this was a non-physical stage.

 

Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

 

Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements.

 

I forwarded it back to the other local reviewer and hope they will approve it. Am I understanding the rules correctly? Non-physical stages shouldn't be subject to the 528 foot rule.

 

Is the other cache a traditional or a multi? It is possible that your virtual stage is not the one that is too close.

 

Sorry I didn't make that clear in my last post. The other cache is the final stage of a multi-cache. That stage is 128 feet from the non-physical stage of my cache. When they rejected my cache (again), they again mentioned the cache by name...so I know that's the cache that's causing the problem.

 

Theirs is a physical location...but from what I understand of the rules, non-physical stages (even for unrelated caches) don't have to follow the 528 foot rule.

 

I agree, non-physical caches should not be subject to the saturation restrictions by the current guidelines. Being as the cache you are said to be too close to is a multi it is possible that one of the intermediate stages is near your final location. You will need to either check with your reviewer or find all stages of the other cache.

 

I spent over 4 hours yesterday and hiked 9+ miles finding all other caches in the area and the other 7 stages of this multicache. The other caches and stages are far away from where I've placed my non-physical initial stage and the final physical stage of the cache. Again, I think the reviewer just didn't read the note that I left to indicate the first stage is non-physical. Hopefully they will review it in detail and realize their mistake.

 

BTW...the reason I can't move my non-physical stage is because it is a historical site. I want to bring users to the location and teach them about the site by having them read the plaque there. Once there, they can use a number on the plaque to decode the final coordinates. The multicache that is placed nearby doesn't mention the historical site at all.

 

Ah, I wasn't aware you had found those other stages. Try an email to the reviewer. I'm sure it can be worked out.

Link to comment

I looked at the cache. I think you are now OK. They are a new reviewer and must have just missed the virtual aspect of the cache. Post another reviewer note explaining the first part is a virtual part and there is no container. It looks like an awesome location, so good luck in the final stages of getting the cache published.

 

By the way, regarding the original question, for me the time to get it moving after another cache comes into play is weeks. You can expect that in the last week I am going to bug the fool out of you too. Daily reviewer notes with a count down date pretty much. You get plenty of fair warning before the cache is archived. Once archived, the other cache then takes the spot and you cannot get the cache unarchived without moving it.

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...