+C.CrazyCache Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. I received an e-mail from a reviewer stating that they hate to retract caches but "there is so much wrong with this cache it needs to be retracted". This occured after a few ppl did not find it. Then, finally someone did as FTF. The only issue is the log book, which fell off in rain & I posted that I would replace it when I return home (I am out of state on vacation). I am clueless as what is "so much". Quote Link to comment
+BulldogBlitz Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 no clue, suppose only the reviewer can give the detail. Quote Link to comment
+buttaskotch Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Since we can't see archived caches please supply the GC# if you want hypothetical theories from your fellow forum members Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 "archived" caches can be read by searching for "hidden by". "retracted" caches....probably not so much. Best bet for the OP would be to engage in dialogue with the Reviewer. Forum discussion would only be guessing and wild speculation. Quote Link to comment
+GeoGeeBee Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Since we can't see archived caches please supply the GC# if you want hypothetical theories from your fellow forum members It wasn't archived, it was "retracted." So I'm not sure we can see it even with the GC number. Quote Link to comment
+mainsheet Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 If there was "so much wrong with it" you'd think the reviewer could explain to you what some of those things were. Quote Link to comment
+JBnW Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Anyone else hear the sound of another shoe falling? In any event, I'd take it up with the reviewer in question. Quote Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. I received an e-mail from a reviewer stating that they hate to retract caches but "there is so much wrong with this cache it needs to be retracted". This occured after a few ppl did not find it. Then, finally someone did as FTF. The only issue is the log book, which fell off in rain & I posted that I would replace it when I return home (I am out of state on vacation). I am clueless as what is "so much". A cache without a log book isn't valid. I don't know how it even got a FTF. What did they sign? If you tried to temporarily turn it into a codeword cache or virtual, that's another strike against it. You should have disabled it as soon as you found out there was no log. Quote Link to comment
+C.CrazyCache Posted August 24, 2010 Author Share Posted August 24, 2010 A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. I received an e-mail from a reviewer stating that they hate to retract caches but "there is so much wrong with this cache it needs to be retracted". This occured after a few ppl did not find it. Then, finally someone did as FTF. The only issue is the log book, which fell off in rain & I posted that I would replace it when I return home (I am out of state on vacation). I am clueless as what is "so much". A cache without a log book isn't valid. I don't know how it even got a FTF. What did they sign? If you tried to temporarily turn it into a codeword cache or virtual, that's another strike against it. You should have disabled it as soon as you found out there was no log. I could not disable it as I was driving to a vacation & stopped while passing by. I do not have a smart phone like many geocachers do. I did not temporarily try to turn it into anything nor do I know what a code word cache is. I did write on it so they knew they found it & I knew as well. Quote Link to comment
+geodarts Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 (edited) What everybody else has said: ask the reviewer for clarification. The reviewers in my area have been more than willing to answer specific questions or discuss specific issues. But before resubmitting a cache, make sure that the log book is in place, the coordinates are accurate, you have at least adequate permission for a cache to be placed there, and you have read the guidelines to make sure that the cache is not in a restricted area. Edited August 24, 2010 by mulvaney Quote Link to comment
+DragonsWest Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. I received an e-mail from a reviewer stating that they hate to retract caches but "there is so much wrong with this cache it needs to be retracted". This occured after a few ppl did not find it. Then, finally someone did as FTF. The only issue is the log book, which fell off in rain & I posted that I would replace it when I return home (I am out of state on vacation). I am clueless as what is "so much". A cache without a log book isn't valid. I don't know how it even got a FTF. What did they sign? If you tried to temporarily turn it into a codeword cache or virtual, that's another strike against it. You should have disabled it as soon as you found out there was no log. I could not disable it as I was driving to a vacation & stopped while passing by. I do not have a smart phone like many geocachers do. I did not temporarily try to turn it into anything nor do I know what a code word cache is. I did write on it so they knew they found it & I knew as well. What little I know from my foibles and gaffes a cache is generally not retracted or redacted for missing its log book. If the location is extremely unsafe (i.e. on a post in the middle of the median of I-75), restricted government property, in a US national park or monument I can see it being pulled. Also, if the location is quite inappropriate (i.e. outside an well known establishment of dubious repute, contrary to "Family-Friendly") Usual response from a reviewer is to archive it, not completely delete it. Could also be someone complained to Groundspeak about it, i.e. Local Law Enforcement ("we do not want a geocache placed here for [_reason_].") Quote Link to comment
sabrefan7 Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 no clue, suppose only the reviewer can give the detail. Yeah Quote Link to comment
GOF's Sock Puppet Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Take a deap breath...Let it out slowly...Better? This isn't the end of the world. Email the reviewer and ask for clarification. I'm sure they will let you know what the issue is and help you work through it. If it is something that can't be fixed you can always build another cache. Quote Link to comment
+currykev Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Please don't take the action of the reviewer too harshly. Sometimes they don't make it in time, before the drugstore closes. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 What little I know from my foibles and gaffes a cache is generally not retracted or redacted for missing its log book. If the location is extremely unsafe (i.e. on a post in the middle of the median of I-75), restricted government property, in a US national park or monument I can see it being pulled. Also, if the location is quite inappropriate (i.e. outside an well known establishment of dubious repute, contrary to "Family-Friendly") Usual response from a reviewer is to archive it, not completely delete it. Could also be someone complained to Groundspeak about it, i.e. Local Law Enforcement ("we do not want a geocache placed here for [_reason_].") Not my experience. The one cache that I logged that was later retracted was a code word cache. Essentially, a reviewer might not have known the cache had no log when it was published. Particularly when a cache owner changes the page after the cache was published, the reviewer may choose to retract the cache. This actually gives the cache owner an opportunity to fix the problem and resubmit the cache. Any reviewer notes posted during this period will be delete if the cache is republished. This issue here is not that the cache was retracted but the the reviewer hasn't been specific with the cache owner in telling him what needs to be corrected for the cache to be published. (The reviewer may have done so in a reviewer note that cache owner might see if he looks at his unpublished cache page) If a land manager asks that a cache be removed, it is more likely to get archived instead of retracted. That way the community can see the reason the cache was removed (even if we cannot search for archived caches ) There is no need for such a cache to go back in the review process, but if the cache owner is somehow able to get permission for the cache after the fact, they probably could ask to get it unarchived. Quote Link to comment
+DragonsWest Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Unless you are deleting your emails, too, you will have whatever comments the reviewer has made within emails from the reviewer. Quote Link to comment
+Harry Dolphin Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 Retraction is not done for something like a missing logbook. It's usually for serious breaches of guidelines. "It should never have been put there!" I've only found two caches that have since been retracted. One was in the stone wall of a protected historic ruin. That's a No-No. The other was an excellent mystery cache, which, unfortunately, was within 70' of another cache. Not sure why it was retracted, rather than just archived. There is a lot more wrong with the cache than just a missing log book. I'm sure that your reviewer will be happy to discuss when he/she/it has the time. Quote Link to comment
+buttaskotch Posted August 24, 2010 Share Posted August 24, 2010 "archived" caches can be read by searching for "hidden by". "retracted" caches....probably not so much. Best bet for the OP would be to engage in dialogue with the Reviewer. Forum discussion would only be guessing and wild speculation. Thats right can't see a retracted, but I would love to see what the cache was and as I said see all the hypothetical theories the forum members have and add my own to the giant conspiracy! Quote Link to comment
+C.CrazyCache Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 "archived" caches can be read by searching for "hidden by". "retracted" caches....probably not so much. Best bet for the OP would be to engage in dialogue with the Reviewer. Forum discussion would only be guessing and wild speculation. Thats right can't see a retracted, but I would love to see what the cache was and as I said see all the hypothetical theories the forum members have and add my own to the giant conspiracy! I can certainly say it is 1000% percent safe, easy & on proper ground. Yet, retracted. I personally think it was b/c whomever tried to find it & didn't, complained. Is that possible? The gc code was GC2DJ0B The reviewer stated that I should refresh his memory on how it is a puzzle cache. Which, it is not. I clearly wrote that in the cache & put it under other as opposed to traditional. The reviewer noted the reason you don't see "sign the wood log" caches is b/c they are not permitted. I don't even know what that means. I do know my cache had a tiny logbook that fell off. And, I do know it was retracted with the statement "so much wrong with it". I also know that the First to Find said it was unique cache & e-mailed me wondering (as I) why it would be retracted. Quote Link to comment
BCProspectors Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I clearly wrote that in the cache & put it under other as opposed to traditional. I think I might finally understand a litte bit of what's going on here. You selected the question mark option as your cache type thinking it meant other when the question mark actually means Puzzle Cache. You should have selected Traditional Cache. Quote Link to comment
7rxc Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I clearly wrote that in the cache & put it under other as opposed to traditional. I think I might finally understand a litte bit of what's going on here. You selected the question mark option as your cache type thinking it meant other when the question mark actually means Puzzle Cache. You should have selected Traditional Cache. My understanding is that ? simply means UNKNOWN.. not just a puzzle... it can be a cache with an unusual twist etc... I've seen a few like what I hear described... all with question marks but not really a 'puzzle', although that is the effect. It is the choice for non traditionals, but still requires a log and something to put the log in... Doug 7rxc Quote Link to comment
+C.CrazyCache Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 I clearly wrote that in the cache & put it under other as opposed to traditional. I think I might finally understand a litte bit of what's going on here. You selected the question mark option as your cache type thinking it meant other when the question mark actually means Puzzle Cache. You should have selected Traditional Cache. My understanding is that ? simply means UNKNOWN.. not just a puzzle... it can be a cache with an unusual twist etc... I've seen a few like what I hear described... all with question marks but not really a 'puzzle', although that is the effect. It is the choice for non traditionals, but still requires a log and something to put the log in... Doug 7rxc THANK YOU. I agree that a ? does not mean a puzzle cache. It means unknown. Nowhere does it say a ? is a puzzle cache. Maybe they need to make their own icon for a puzzle cache. Quote Link to comment
Motorcycle_Mama Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx Mystery or Puzzle Caches The "catch-all" of cache types, this form of cache can involve complicated puzzles you will first need to solve to determine the coordinates. Due to the increasing creativity of geocaching this becomes the staging ground for new and unique challenges. Quote Link to comment
Andronicus Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 The ? is also used for Challange caches. Quote Link to comment
+ZSandmann Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I see two issues. 1. The use of the "?" Mystery/Puzzle cache type instead of Traditional. I think what you wanted was the "Unknown" or "Other" option under Cache Size. 2. A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently. Still even with those two problems I see perhaps a grounds to Archive but not Retract the cache. Quote Link to comment
MisterEFQ Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 What is a "sign the wood log"? Quote Link to comment
+ZSandmann Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 There are some older caches where the log (log book) was an actual log (piece of wood). Thus no container, and no log = no cache. Quote Link to comment
+TreasureKid's Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently. We have a bunch of this type of cache around this area. Possibly out before this rule came into effect but I think they are kinda neat. Quote Link to comment
+ZSandmann Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I think they are neat too when used creatively, and likely new ones still get published just because the cache type isn't mentioned on the page. Quote Link to comment
+Polar B's Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently. Just out of curiosity, where is this written? I can't find it in the guidelines. Quote Link to comment
+ZSandmann Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Specific containers aren't mentioned in the guidelines, I have just been told that sheet magnets are not "containers" and a geocache must have a container. Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently. Just out of curiosity, where is this written? I can't find it in the guidelines. The guidelines say a cache must be a container with a log sheet. Some interpret this to mean that a flat magnetic sheet needs to have a pocket (container) and a removable log sheet that is kept in the pocket in order for it to be a cache. Others find no problem in writting on the back of the sheet. Quote Link to comment
+J the Goat Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I see two issues. 1. The use of the "?" Mystery/Puzzle cache type instead of Traditional. I think what you wanted was the "Unknown" or "Other" option under Cache Size. 2. A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently. Still even with those two problems I see perhaps a grounds to Archive but not Retract the cache. If you're going to quote guidelines, please do so accurately. They say no such thing. Quote Link to comment
+C.CrazyCache Posted August 25, 2010 Author Share Posted August 25, 2010 I see two issues. 1. The use of the "?" Mystery/Puzzle cache type instead of Traditional. I think what you wanted was the "Unknown" or "Other" option under Cache Size. 2. A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently. Still even with those two problems I see perhaps a grounds to Archive but not Retract the cache. If you're going to quote guidelines, please do so accurately. They say no such thing. To clarify, I originally posted my cache (flat magnetic as a ? cache). Then, a few said they couldn't find this "puzzle cache". So, I changed the listing to an OTHER cache, since it was by no means a puzzle cache & that was stated it in the cache listing. I had not seen anywhere that said a ? is a puzzle cache. Anyway, it was changed to an OTHER cache & it was found. It does have a log book (small in a tiny ziploc bag attached to the back of the flat cache). This log book unglued & needs replacement, yet I am on vacation right now & not in state. Yet, they retracted it. Quote Link to comment
+DanOCan Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 To clarify, I originally posted my cache (flat magnetic as a ? cache). Then, a few said they couldn't find this "puzzle cache". So, I changed the listing to an OTHER cache, since it was by no means a puzzle cache & that was stated it in the cache listing. I had not seen anywhere that said a ? is a puzzle cache. Anyway, it was changed to an OTHER cache & it was found. It does have a log book (small in a tiny ziploc bag attached to the back of the flat cache). This log book unglued & needs replacement, yet I am on vacation right now & not in state. Yet, they retracted it. I want to be sure we're not confusing "cache size" with "cache type". In terms of "cache type", the Unknown type ("?" symbol) is typically used for puzzles. There is no option to change the type from a '?' cache to "Other" since they are one and the same. There is, however, an "Other" option when you are selecting the cache size. I'm wondering if it was originally published as a Unknown cache type which caused confusion for some seekers since it sounds like it was a Traditional. Then, someone found it and remembered that Groundspeak frowns on the "magnetic sheet" style of caches and reported it to the reviewer who decided with all the confusion to simply retract the listing until everything can get sorted out. Without knowing exactly what the reviewer had to say and without being able to see the listing it's pretty much impossible to know the full story. Quote Link to comment
+ZSandmann Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I see two issues. 1. The use of the "?" Mystery/Puzzle cache type instead of Traditional. I think what you wanted was the "Unknown" or "Other" option under Cache Size. 2. A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield. Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently. Still even with those two problems I see perhaps a grounds to Archive but not Retract the cache. If you're going to quote guidelines, please do so accurately. They say no such thing. I am not quoting guidelines, as I said the guidelines do not single out specific cache types if they did they would be pages long. "Thou shalt hide clear film cans but not black ones, thou may hide match tubes, but not Altoids tins..." I am repeating what I have been told by a Reviewer. Under the current Groundspeak guidelines a cache must have a log and a container, a sheet magnet is not a sufficient container. I will repeat what I said above, I like these type of hides when used creatively, I believe they are caches. But I am not a Reviewer. Quote Link to comment
+radak9 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently. Just out of curiosity, where is this written? I can't find it in the guidelines. The guidelines say a cache must be a container with a log sheet. Some interpret this to mean that a flat magnetic sheet needs to have a pocket (container) and a removable log sheet that is kept in the pocket in order for it to be a cache. Others find no problem in writting on the back of the sheet. So something like this is still allowed as long as there is a bag (zip sealed) on the back, correct? The Tag Geocache is incredibly thin! It is not much thicker then a credit card yet still able to hold a log! This cache is completely magnetic with a special holder on the back to hold a log securely. It comes with a random set of numbers and letters on it so that the geocache blends in looking just like a utility number tag. Even with the log in there it lays nice and flat on the surface. Quote Link to comment
+ZSandmann Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I was under the impression it was not radak, baggie or no. But if a Reviewer would clarify I would be much obliged. Quote Link to comment
+radak9 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 (edited) I was under the impression it was not radak, baggie or no. But if a Reviewer would clarify I would be much obliged. I would be curious to know as well. I found an LPC a few weeks ago that was just a log inside a mini baggie under the skirt. What is considered the "container" for that? Is it the bag or the skirt? If that type of magnet cach with a bag attached to the back and a log inside of it is not allowed, how could a camo taped ziplock bag thrown under a bush be considered following the guidelines? Because it's a larger bag? Edited August 25, 2010 by radak9 Quote Link to comment
MisterEFQ Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 For what it is worth, I have found one of those recently. It was placed on 2/25/2010 for a Scavenger Hunt/Rally. I know that doesnt prove anything though. And it didnt have a pocket. You had to write on the back. Quote Link to comment
+ZSandmann Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Well that's the thing, how often do people explain their container i nthe listing? One in twenty caches I find as a mention of the container. Quote Link to comment
MisterEFQ Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Your right, there isnt a description of that cache on the page. Like I said....doesnt prove anything! I would hate to find out these are not allowed. I think they are pretty cool. The one by my house is on the side of a electric car charge station that I never knew existed. Quote Link to comment
+tonibunny Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 I think they're clever hides, and can be really audacious in their placement - I agree, it would be awful to hear they're not allowed Quote Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 A cache without a log book isn't valid. I don't know how it even got a FTF. What did they sign? If you tried to temporarily turn it into a codeword cache or virtual, that's another strike against it. You should have disabled it as soon as you found out there was no log. I could not disable it as I was driving to a vacation & stopped while passing by. I do not have a smart phone like many geocachers do. I did not temporarily try to turn it into anything nor do I know what a code word cache is. I did write on it so they knew they found it & I knew as well. Yeah. That smells like a code-word cache. Quote Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently. A magnetic sheet is allowed as a container as long as it has a replaceable sheet of paper (waterproof, preferably). The magnetic sheet contains the log between itself and whatever it is stuck to. It's been like that for quite a while. Quote Link to comment
+ZSandmann Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Flat magnetic sheet caches are no longer allowed under the guidelines as TPTB believe a sheet magnet is not a "container". You may agree or disagree (I disagree) but that is where we are currently. A magnetic sheet is allowed as a container as long as it has a replaceable sheet of paper (waterproof, preferably). The magnetic sheet contains the log between itself and whatever it is stuck to. It's been like that for quite a while. That isn't the way it was explained to me but I am glad to hear that this is the case. Quote Link to comment
+Chokecherry Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Was permission granted for placing the cache where it was placed/ Quote Link to comment
+buttaskotch Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 "archived" caches can be read by searching for "hidden by". "retracted" caches....probably not so much. Best bet for the OP would be to engage in dialogue with the Reviewer. Forum discussion would only be guessing and wild speculation. Thats right can't see a retracted, but I would love to see what the cache was and as I said see all the hypothetical theories the forum members have and add my own to the giant conspiracy! I can certainly say it is 1000% percent safe, easy & on proper ground. Yet, retracted. I personally think it was b/c whomever tried to find it & didn't, complained. Is that possible? The gc code was GC2DJ0B The reviewer stated that I should refresh his memory on how it is a puzzle cache. Which, it is not. I clearly wrote that in the cache & put it under other as opposed to traditional. The reviewer noted the reason you don't see "sign the wood log" caches is b/c they are not permitted. I don't even know what that means. I do know my cache had a tiny logbook that fell off. And, I do know it was retracted with the statement "so much wrong with it". I also know that the First to Find said it was unique cache & e-mailed me wondering (as I) why it would be retracted. Can you copy and paste the notation that the reviewer sent so there is no paraphrasing? A note to the reviewer to also say that initially it was coded puzzle in error then changed to "other" (though in my opinion it is a traditional cache) due to an error, and that you felt it should have been disabled rather than retracted (due to the fact that you are on vacation)and would have been remedied once you came home. And for the reviewer to let you know what "so much is wrong with it" so you won't repeat the "mistake" again in the future. But then again w/o seeing the actual quote in the note its all speculation on our part (well everything is speculation period) Quote Link to comment
+Chokecherry Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Without seeing the cache page, cache, logs, complaints, and what the review actually said it's only bits and pieces of the story. Even with all that it's only going to be a partial story/truth. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Why not hash this out with the reviewer? There is really no point in bringing it here because nobody here can help you. Without hearing directly from the reviewer, everything is speculation. If in the end you don't like the reviewer's answer there is always an appeal to Groundspeak. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.