Caches too close together

[+GeePa]

I have noticed recently two cases (there may be more) in my area where there is a traditional cache placed less than .1 miles from the corrected location of a puzzle cache. I know because I have solved and found both puzzle caches. All caches are currently active. The traditionals were published after the puzzle caches. My understanding is that a cache cannot be placed within .1 miles of the actual cache location of the puzzle cache. In one case the traditional is only about 200 ft from the puzzle (I thought I was having a bad case of deja vu when I found it).

 

I am hesitant to report the problem or anything because I really like all the caches and hate to ruin the chance to find any of them for someone else.

 

My question is, how would you handle it? Should I just leave well enough alone (my inclination) or would you make a case of it?

[+Touchstone]

I would probably drop the Volunteer Reviewer a friendly, "hey, I noticed this when I was out and about today...", and let it go at that.

 

We have a small number of older Puzzle Caches that predate the Additional Waypoint feature on the site, so they crop up on rare occasions.

 

Unless it was an "oops" on the Reviewers part, there's probably a better than 50/50 chance they'll grandfather it.

[+sbell111]

I would not do anything.

[+niraD]

It's amazing how quickly the owner of an old puzzle cache can add a waypoint for the final location when a traditional cache shows up 300' from the puzzle final...

[+addisonbr]

Are the puzzle caches a few years old? I know that some of the older puzzles don't have their final waypoints in the system, which can create situations like this from time to time.

[+narcissa]

Sometimes people don't use the additional waymarks correctly, sometimes the cache pre-dates additional waypoints, sometimes people transpose digits. I know of a traditional and a puzzle final that are literally at the same coordinates as each other - placed at different elevations on the same structure, vertically aligned with each other. Both cache owners are aware of it and don't seem to care, so I'm not inclined to get in the middle of it.

 

Unless the proximity is causing an issue, it's probably not worth making an issue out of it.

 

If you have reason to think that someone has fudged one of their additional waypoints to get a cache approved, that's a different story. It doesn't sound like that's the case here, though.

[+edscott]

Did a puzzle a couple years ago that turned out to be about 90 feet from a stage of one of my Multis. Both caches are rather difficult and to date no one has done them both on the same day. So in this case at least it hasn't been a problem.

[GOF and Bacall]

If it is not causing an issue and it doesn't appear to be an intentional abuse of the system I wouldn't do anything.

[+kimgh]

Probably an error on the part of the reviewer. Where I live, there is a puzzle cache final within 20 feet of a traditional that was published later. The puzzle is an old one and may have been published before additional waypoints were required (I actually don't know when that change was made, but the puzzle was published in 2003, so I think it likely predates that change).

[+addisonbr]

the puzzle was published in 2003, so I think it likely predates that change

Yeah, it definitely predates the hidden waypoint requirement.

[hoosier guy]

I ran into that once. I found a cache in an old cemetery then went after a multi which lead me back to the old cemetery. That was kida confusing so I checked into it and found that in times pass the final for a multi was not always checked for proximity to other caches.

[+keehotee]

If it is not causing an issue and it doesn't appear to be an intentional abuse of the system I wouldn't do anything.

 

If it's not causing an issue and it doesn't appear to be an intentional abuse of the system - I'd drop a nice email to the local reviewer (and have done just this in the past) explaining the situation. They'll probably (hopefully) think the same way as yourself - and everybody else that knows the score - apply discretion, and leave them just as they are for the time being....

[+ventura_kids]

Don't be silly.

 

Log your find, and go find some more geocaches.

[jholly]

There was a time when proximity rules were not in effect.

 

GCGV0P - Original Stash Tribute Plaque hidden September 2003

GC92 - Un-Original Stash hidden October 2000

 

Distance apart - 73 feet.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Leave well enough alone, if you don't want to see any of them retracted. I've seen cases where this has come to the attention of the reviewers, and they have retracted the newer cache. In one case they were mere feet apart. In the other case, the mystery was newer. The mystery was far more interesting, but the traditional was a few days older. I have no idea why the CO just didn't rework the puzzle, and hide the cache the proper distace away. Oh, well.

[+GeePa]

Are the puzzle caches a few years old? I know that some of the older puzzles don't have their final waypoints in the system, which can create situations like this from time to time.

One of the puzzles was published back in '04 so that may explain that pair. However the other too close pair were both published this year ('10) one in April the other (Halloween themed) in October so the age is not an explanation there.

 

Anyway, thanks for all the feedback everyone. I am going to leave this one alone. For the second pair, I think the mystery is a really great challenging one and the traditional is part of a really cool Halloween themed series. Since one is only about 20 feet off a paved path while the other is another 150 ft back in the woods, I don't think it will cause any confusion.

 

Edited for clarification

Edited December 14, 2010 by GeePa

[+the4dirtydogs]

Don't be silly.

 

Log your find, and go find some more geocaches.

I have to agree. It really isn't a big deal. Cache On.

[+narcissa]

Don't be silly.

 

Log your "find," and go throw-down some more geocaches.

 

FYP

[+John in Valley Forge]

Don't be silly.

 

Log your "find," and go throw-down some more geocaches.

 

FYP

 

What's FYP?

[+addisonbr]

What's FYP?

Fixed Your Post

[AZcachemeister]

I've found a trad that was about 50 feet from the final of a puzzle.

I heard there was a similar situation down in Tucson where two caches shared the same lamppost skirt!

[GPS-Hermit]

When I place a cache I take the intended co-ords home and see what other caches are present using the Google maps thing - is there a better way! I guess the final of a puzzle would not show up so an approver might be some help?

Edited December 16, 2010 by GPS-Hermit

[+SwineFlew]

Dont waste your time on that, go find more caches.

[+addisonbr]

When I place a cache I take the intended co-ords home and see what other caches are present using the Google maps thing - is there a better way! I guess the final of a puzzle would not show up so an approver might be some help?

Both are good steps. If your cache is at all complicated - an intricate puzzle, or a container that needs to be specifically crafted for the spot, etc. - I'd get a coordinate reading and go home to create a cache page with those coordinates (making sure that you do NOT check the box that indicates that the cache is in place and active!). That will hold your place in the queue for the moment, and should ensure that if someone throws down a container later after you've been working on your idea for a couple of weeks you won't get blocked from your location.

 

After checking the Google Maps function, I'd then email the local reviewer to clear the coordinates with him/her (hidden multi waypoints, puzzle finals, etc.). If you get the all-clear, you're free to keep working on the cache with confidence.

[+Kyle98632]

I have to agree with the people here who are saying you really should just move on. Mistakes happen, and if these caches got though the review process and there is no problem outside cache saturation, let it be. In my city this summer there was a traditional cache published only 93 feet away from another traditional cache, and no one mentions it. I'm thinking because the first traditional is kinda covered by the start of a multi cache the reviewer didnt notice it was there.

[+niraD]

See also the knowledge books article:

Checking for Cache Saturation