My cache was retracted...not sure why

[+C.CrazyCache]

 

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.

 

Exactly my bingo, my question..is this ok with a log book attached?

[+C.CrazyCache]

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.

 

Reviewers speculate. And some have, yet others don't, possess the experience as the geo forum members do. I appreciate the speculation from the forum to further understand the dynamics of Groundspeak & the reviewers.

[+roziecakes]

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 And, I do know it was retracted with the statement "so much wrong with it".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.

 

I wonder if the reviewer retracted the wrong cache and meant to retract another one, if your cache doesn't match anything they said...

[+roziecakes]

 

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.

 

Exactly my bingo, my question..is this ok with a log book attached?

 

I have found several caches like that, in fact; I own one. I suppose it would be to the reviewer's discretion whether or not that type of cache is allowed.

[+wimseyguy]

It might also depend on how aware the reviewer was of the exact construction of that type of cache. But if it didn't contain any sort of log that can be signed, just a code word that needed to be sent as confirmation of a find, it would get archived in a flash. And if it was very new, perhaps retracted.

[GOF and Bacall]

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.

 

Reviewers speculate. And some have, yet others don't, possess the experience as the geo forum members do. I appreciate the speculation from the forum to further understand the dynamics of Groundspeak & the reviewers.

 

So far all we have in this thread is speculation. The only way to find out why the cache was retracted is to as the reviewer. When we know why we can discuss the situation. Until then nothing anyone says means spit. Email the reviewer. Ask questions. I am sure the reviewer would be more than willing to explain their position.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

Reviewers speculate. And some have, yet others don't, possess the experience as the geo forum members do. I appreciate the speculation from the forum to further understand the dynamics of Groundspeak & the reviewers.

 

So far all we have in this thread is speculation.

 

On the other hand, speculation can be fun. My turn.

 

In the OP the C.Crazycache stated that the cache is "A flat, magnetic cache placed on a public road near a ballfield." I suspect that it's not actually "on" the public road but near a public road "near a ballfield". Since we don't know anything about this ballfield it's hard to tell if there are any permission issues. Ball fields are typically in city managed parks. City parks have policies, which sometimes include specific language about geocaches.

 

Next there is the puzzle/unknown cache type vs other cache size. "Other" for the cache size actually works well for this type of container, especially if there is a corresponding increase in the difficulty rating. In another response the C.Crazycache states "I had not seen anywhere that said a ? is a puzzle cache." Although the guidelines do not specifically state that a ? icon is for a unknown/mystery cache the section on unknown/mystery caches in the guidelines does specifically mention puzzle caches. Presumably, the CO looked at the cache listing after it was published and the large blue question mark next to the cache name should have been a clue. I don't know if it's a universal policy but typically a reviewer requires an additional waypoint for an unknown/mystery cache to specify the final coordinates. While it's certainly possible that the published coordinates and final coordinates are the same, that extra step should have provided an indicator that there was something different about the cache. Obviously there was some confusion by the CO regarding mystery/unknown type vs. other size. That confusion may have been exacerbated by the missing log sheet, prompting the finder(s) to wonder if they were supposed to write on the back or front of the magnetic sheet. Since the finder saw it as a puzzle they may have assumed that a code word needed to be written. Since we don't have a copy of the original cache description it's hard to tell if it contained language that suggested it was a code word cache both to the finder and to the reviewer. It's also hard to tell how much the reviewer may have assumed from the logs that were written since we haven't seen those either. Simply the fact that it was causing confusion for the finders may have been a contributing cause for it to be retracted.

 

Although it hasn't been mentioned, another issue may be related to accurate coordinates. I've owned a magnetic sheet cache myself and it got it's share of DNFs (it's now archived for an unrelated reason to the type of container it uses) but if the coordinates were off that could also explain the DNFs that were posted before the cache size was changed.

 

Finally, the CO has mentioned several times that they are unable to fix the log sheet that detached from the magnetic sheet due to being out of town on vacation. Although the vacation cache guidelines is typically for preventing caches placed while on vacation, if I took a six month vacation in Europe (I wish) I couldn't personally maintain any caches close to where I live for an extended period of time. If the reviewer was told that the cache couldn't be fixed due to being on vacation, that pretty much tells the reviewer that the cache is not going to be maintained, at least for some period of time. That may have contributed to the retraction.

 

Of course, it could also be that the reviewer is human, and was having a bad day and rather than try to work out all the issue they say, decided to retract the cache the cache entirely rather than try to deal with every issue.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

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.

Reviewers speculate. And some have, yet others don't, possess the experience as the geo forum members do. I appreciate the speculation from the forum to further understand the dynamics of Groundspeak & the reviewers.

 

Be aware that the Reviewers have LOTS of geocaching experience. LOTS! Or they would not have been selected as Reviewers by Groundspeak.

 

 

You should either work this out via communication with your Reviewer or you should file an appeal with the appeals@geocaching.com email address and let the appeal process work.

[+buttaskotch]

What I don't understand is why isn't the OP just giving us what was written verbatim in the retraction message along with cache description, etc.

I don't mean to be rude, but OP has been active enough on this thread whilst on vacation, responding to various questions within the thread but not giving out the pertinent info rather wanting the speculation to mount?

It just seems to be a little strange to me.

I know nothing the thread says is really going to change the reviewers mind. I am just curious as to what prompted the retraction with so much "wrong with it"

And Nymphsatyr's comment of perhaps the wrong cache was retracted does make a little sense, but again without anything to really go on we are just as confused as OP.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

What I don't understand is why isn't the OP just giving us what was written verbatim in the retraction message along with cache description, etc.

I don't mean to be rude, but OP has been active enough on this thread whilst on vacation, responding to various questions within the thread but not giving out the pertinent info rather wanting the speculation to mount?

It just seems to be a little strange to me.

I know nothing the thread says is really going to change the reviewers mind. I am just curious as to what prompted the retraction with so much "wrong with it"

And Nymphsatyr's comment of perhaps the wrong cache was retracted does make a little sense, but again without anything to really go on we are just as confused as OP.

 

What I don't understand is why the OP didn't start by asking the reviewer for an explanation. Seems to me like the smart thing to do.

[Clan Riffster]

On the other hand, speculation can be fun. My turn.

Agreed. These are the forums. A place to ponder, praise, gripe and speculate. While it's true that the only person who can provide an accurate answer for the cache owner's complaint is the reviewer who retracted it, I hardly see that as a reason to not have this thread. Civil communication harms no one, and might lead to a better understanding of related issues.

 

From here in the cheap seats, there does appear to be a few issues with this cache:

 

1 ) It had no container. Contrary to Prime Suspect's musings, slapping a scrap of paper between a magnetic sheet and a metal object is not viewed by all reviewers as meeting the definition of "container". Some will say it's fine, others will not.

 

2 ) It had no log. What i don't understand is, if the owner was able to write something on it, why not just replace the log while he was there? It appears, from what the owner mentioned, that he was planning on using what he wrote as a means to verify that folks really found the cache.

 

3 ) It was at the posted coordinates, yet the owner listed it as a mystery type, then thought he fixed it by changing the size to "other".

 

Could one or more of these have led to the retraction? Maybe. Only the reviewer knows for sure. But it's still fun to speculate.

These issues demonstrate, to me at least, that the owner did not read the guidelines, even though he checked the box claiming otherwise.

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

I did not mean to say that the thread should not exist, or that we shouldn't keep a conversation going. My point is that if the OP actually wants to get to the bottom of this he needs to start with the reviewer. The rest of us are just poking it with a stick and saying "Well huh. Will you look at that? What is it?"

[+ChileHead]

This log book unglued & needs replacement, yet I am on vacation right now & not in state. Yet, they retracted it.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem with retraction is. The cache isn't really viable right now, as it doesn't have a logbook. What's the problem with waiting till you get back and repair the cache to have it republished when it is complete? Why let it sit out there in an unloggable state while you are away? I'm sure you don't want people signing your cache container because the logbook is missing!

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

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".

As far as I know, this kind of thing happens when there is a complaint that you probably don't even know about, like the kind that comes from property owners, law enforcement, or the Govt. It probably has nothing to do with geocachers, otherwise the action would have been disabling or archival, not retraction(which I beleive is complete removal from any public view)

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

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.

Umm...in english, that does not qualify as a quote. I beleive that's a paraphrase or something like that.

[+Chrysalides]

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.

You might be confusing a few things.

 

A Unknown / mystery / puzzle cache is a cache type.

 

A "other" is a cache size.

 

You cannot change the cache type after a cache has been published. That is probably the main reason why the listing was retracted. Work with the reviewer - there's little we plebs can do to help you. The reviewers and mods who read this may be able to offer better advice as they can see the cache listing.

 

Good luck with the cache.

[+J the Goat]

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.

Umm...in english, that does not qualify as a quote. I beleive that's a paraphrase or something like that.

 

Fair enough.

[+tozainamboku]

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".

As far as I know, this kind of thing happens when there is a complaint that you probably don't even know about, like the kind that comes from property owners, law enforcement, or the Govt. It probably has nothing to do with geocachers, otherwise the action would have been disabling or archival, not retraction(which I beleive is complete removal from any public view)

I think that people have the wrong idea. A retraction is not something worse than archiving. Retraction simple undoes a Publish and put the cache back in the review state where issues can be worked out between the reviewer and the cache owner.

 

In general when a land owner or manager asks that cache be removed, the cache is archived. There may be some rare occasion where they ask that the page (or at least the coordinates) be removed completely. My understanding is that this generally can be done by Groundspeak editing the the cache page to set some bogus coordinates and remove any information from the description that might be used to determine the location.

 

Retraction is used when a reviewer mistakenly clicks the publish button before the review process is complete. I'd bet that better than 99% of the time the cache is retracted immediately after being published. The OP cache seems to fall in that less than 1% of the time that reviewer does not realize the mistake until later. Usually someone will inform the reviewer that cache is in violation of some guideline. The reviewer then looks at the cache page and sees something they missed the first time they reviewed it. Something that should have triggered a flag that something might be wrong that the reviewer should have asked the cache owner about before publishing. By retracting the cache, the review is giving the cache owner the chance to go through the cache review process and fix any issues.

 

I find it amusing that people are speculating that the OPs cache had some serious problem that required any evidence that it was ever published to be removed from Geocaching.com. Instead, it is much more likely the reviewer saw some problems on the cache page that the cache owner can fix. The main problem with this thread is that the cache owner is not sure why the cache was retracted. I find hard to believe that the reviewer did not spell out the specific issues either in an email to the cache owner or in a reviewer note on the cache page.

Edited August 27, 2010 by tozainamboku

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

I did not mean to say that the thread should not exist, or that we shouldn't keep a conversation going. My point is that if the OP actually wants to get to the bottom of this he needs to start with the reviewer. The rest of us are just poking it with a stick and saying "Well huh. Will you look at that? What is it?"

 

STICK POKING!! THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOOD AT! WHERE'S MY STICK????

[+J the Goat]

I did not mean to say that the thread should not exist, or that we shouldn't keep a conversation going. My point is that if the OP actually wants to get to the bottom of this he needs to start with the reviewer. The rest of us are just poking it with a stick and saying "Well huh. Will you look at that? What is it?"

 

STICK POKING!! THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOOD AT! WHERE'S MY STICK????

 

It's only worth poking if it's dead.

 

Ya, where's my stick, I want a turn with this one too.

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

Well huh. Will you look at that? What is it?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

This log book unglued & needs replacement, yet I am on vacation right now & not in state. Yet, they retracted it.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem with retraction is. The cache isn't really viable right now, as it doesn't have a logbook. What's the problem with waiting till you get back and repair the cache to have it republished when it is complete? Why let it sit out there in an unloggable state while you are away? I'm sure you don't want people signing your cache container because the logbook is missing!

 

Isn't that what a "Temporarily Disable" log type is for? Would you suggest Reviewers retract a cache when the log gets full?

[+J the Goat]

Well huh. Will you look at that? What is it?

 

Huh.....

 

I'm not sure. Poke it again and see if it moves.

[+Prime Suspect]

This log book unglued & needs replacement, yet I am on vacation right now & not in state. Yet, they retracted it.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding what the problem with retraction is. The cache isn't really viable right now, as it doesn't have a logbook. What's the problem with waiting till you get back and repair the cache to have it republished when it is complete? Why let it sit out there in an unloggable state while you are away? I'm sure you don't want people signing your cache container because the logbook is missing!

 

Isn't that what a "Temporarily Disable" log type is for? Would you suggest Reviewers retract a cache when the log gets full?

No. People can add their own sheet, or usually find a spot to sign. I've seen reports of "full" logbooks, where the backs of all the pages are completely blank.

[Clan Riffster]

STICK POKING!! THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOOD AT! WHERE'S MY STICK????

So much anger, so few pixels.

[+addisonbr]

Retraction is used when a reviewer mistakenly clicks the publish button before the review process is complete. I'd bet that better than 99% of the time the cache is retracted immediately after being published. The OP cache seems to fall in that less than 1% of the time that reviewer does not realize the mistake until later.

I've "witnessed" (by virtue of my watchlist) five retractions in my area. The reasons were varied.

 

One was a new hide by a 0 find / 0 hide cacher that had proximity issues; the coords were changed but to inside a zoo (very difficult to tell that on the satellite maps). Furthermore multiple finders couldn't find the container after publication, which raised the possibility that the original container was never moved (or possibly never originally placed). The local reviewer retracted the listing to give the CO a chance to get it all worked out behind the scenes.

 

Another was a proximity issue with a high profile puzzle final in the area. The listing was retracted the following morning, possibly to protect the integrity of the puzzle solution.

 

A third was a simple proximity issue. What made the retraction interesting in my book was that it was after two months had elapsed and a number of finds.

 

The final two were published on small canal bridges; they were retracted about a week later when that became clear to the local reviewer. It caused a lot of tension in our area between the CO and cachers on both sides of the issue.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've "witnessed" (by virtue of my watchlist) five retractions in my area. The reasons were varied.

...

A third was a simple proximity issue. What made the retraction interesting in my book was that it was after two months had elapsed and a number of finds.

 

That's the one that confused me. Loved both caches. Spectacular views! Enjoyed the mystery cache. My guess is that the mystery cache owner did not list the proper coords for the final. (Not telling the truth to the reviewer is a no-no.) It would have been so easy to rework the puzzle, and hide the cache final more than .10. We did have a similar issue nearby with a traditional placed about 6" from the final of a muti. But that was before multis had to list the final coords, so the reviewer didn't realize the proximity problem. I cannot remember if that was retracted or archived.

There was another retracted nearby. Too close to the nesting site of a protected bird. (Vultures are protected?!?) CO neither archived it, not made it 'unavailable' during nesting season. So the reviewer retracted it to avoid problems with cachers annd nesting protected birds..