Help needed to override Reviewer(s)

January 15, 2011

In following the Geocaching.com/Groundspeak Guidelines I am posting a message to this forums members to help me get an exception to the guideline wherein it is suggested that a cache be .1 mile from another cache. My initial reviewer denied to publish my cache based on the distance issue on my cache. I asked for an exception to the rule due to several factors(see the detail below) I felt were important and would lead to a great cache in a great location. There are few locations where this size and type of cache will provide a great deal of enjoyment because it is hidden in plain sight. I found the location by accident but knew immediately it would be terrific.

I asked my reviewer to forward my appeal request to the "reviewer committee" hoping for a favorable review and allowing the cache to be published. It was denied again today (solely due to the distance issue) so as I still feel strongly about this cache remaining at its current location, I am following the following "appeals" guideline..

According to the Geocaching.com appeal guideline: (Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived.)

My basis for asking for your (the Forum Members) support my cache in its current location is as follows:

This cache, GC2MANR has been archived (never published) due the physical location being too close to another existing cache (GC2D6N0 Dueling Autos).

I understand the "saturation guidelines" as written but I am hoping that the actual wording "should generally be separated", as well as the basic word "Guidelines" leaves some room to allow an exception in my case. This wording does not say "must be" or "can only be" so to me, the words do imply "flexibility".

I asked the appeal group to grant an exception for this cache in the spirit of the game and with what I believe to be a placement that only benefits the area and the game. As the reviewer accurately points out, I knew when I made the original submission this might be an issue but I also originally felt the 400 plus feet (walking distance) would be sufficient separation between the caches considering the physical impediments. I initially WALKED the distance (from my cache) down the sidewalk, across the parking lot, out the driveway, across a 2 lane street, down and around the street, across a second parking lot then around another building via another street to another parking lot then to the Dueling Autos cache site. I counted over 150 paces (@ approx 2.5 to 3 ft) which I rounded to the original 400 feet estimate for separation. AS the crow flies, yes, it is less than 300 feet but once again, across one parking lot, across and down a 2 lane street, across a 2nd parking lot, around the building into yet another parking lot to get to the South side of the building where the 2nd cache is located.

I feel this cache is uniquely different and challenging and would be a welcome asset to our area and the members of Geocaching.com. The specific location of this cache provides some of it's Uniqueness and Challenge and moved to a different location would make it just another box. I was able to get written permission from the owner which as you all know is not always an easy task. This particular cache can only be mounted on a building in plain sight to provide the inherent mis-direction needed to have the cache in plain view, yet totally hidden.

My 5 grand kids love the game and are eager to go out every chance they/we can and YES, sometimes we do wish some of the caches could be closer together. Parking in one area and collecting more than one cache is not a totally bad idea on occasion.

So, forum members, let me have it. What is your thought? Should someone be able to ask for and receive an exception based on a specific situation and not just a blanket rule?

The only people who gain from this cache being published are You the Geocaching members. But you loose the ability to hunt a unique cache and an enjoyable experience if it remains archived.

Is it possible to allow a cache to be published and let members decide it fate? If members who find it (or don't) feel it's location is detrimental to the game, then I would remove it but give them the chance to explore and report on it.

Thanks for your responses and hopefully your support!

Randy

January 15, 2011

Unfortunately, I can't view your cache because it has never been published. I understand your position from what you have written, but it would be unfair and premature to simply agree with you unless we've been able to see exactly what you are talking about. Certainly tough problem to solve. We can't see the cache page unless it's published, and it won't be published unless you are able to convince the reviewers to change their minds. Describing it in detail would also, more than likely, give away important details that would ruin the said cache.

Anyone have a solution so that we could get the information we need to make a call on this?

5.3k · January 15, 2011

I appreciate the tone and objectivity of your post. However, you didn't provide enough detail for me to make any kind of decision about whether this cache deserves an exception to the distance guidelines.

Without giving the cache away, here are a few questions to consider:

Is this the only location possible for the particular camouflage you are using?
Is the location at a spot that is required for the theme of the cache? Is there anything in theme further away?
Is there something unique about the cache location (history, etc.) that requires it to be there? Could it be moved another 100 feet yet keep that feature?

I am sure others will add more questions.

18.9k · January 15, 2011

I am aware of exceptions for large rivers with no nearby bridge, large cliffs, Interstate highway with no nearby exits, significant natural barriers that require crossing - all between the 2 caches. In all those cases the distance was more like 450+ feet as the crow flies.

Your cache sounds like a very typical urban cache that just doesn't sound significantly special with no real impediments to the next cache.

Therefore - my opinion - should NOT be published. Sorry.

Barring further details and explanations anyway......

Edited January 15, 2011 by StarBrand

1.8k · January 15, 2011

I appreciate the tone and objectivity of your post. However, you didn't provide enough detail for me to make any kind of decision about whether this cache deserves an exception to the distance guidelines.

Without giving the cache away, here are a few questions to consider:

Is this the only location possible for the particular camouflage you are using?

Is the location at a spot that is required for the theme of the cache? Is there anything in theme further away?

Is there something unique about the cache location (history, etc.) that requires it to be there? Could it be moved another 100 feet yet keep that feature?

I am sure others will add more questions.

Is there any way the owners of adjacent cache (s) can accommodate your request?

Had a similar issue about a year ago, I was 2 feet too close to an existing cache. The owner of the adjacent cache and I got our heads to-gether and we each moved 2 feet and made it happen.

The chance of getting a variance, in my experience, is rather remote ... gently approach the cache owners of the adjacent cache (s) to see if something might be worked out.

18.9k · January 15, 2011

...Had a similar issue about a year ago, I was 2 feet too close to an existing cache. The owner of the adjacent cache and I got our heads to-gether and we each moved 2 feet and made it happen.

...

Wow!! 2 feet is really lost in the noise of accuracy - I would have just edited the coords by .001 minute - effectly greater than 2 feet but less than 7 or so (usually).

10.1k · January 15, 2011

I'd have to say that it's unfortunate, but you are out of luck. Exceptions to the proximity guidelines are rare, and usually based in 'ya can't there from here without a major detour'. Example: I have a cache at a scenic overlook. 287 feet away is a very interesting talus cave. Far too close for another cache, so I picked which of the two would make the more interesting cache. Beathe deeply. Say "Oh, well, I gave it a good try", and move on. It ain't gonna happen.

5.7k · January 15, 2011

A member for almost 3 years with no hides or finds? How close is your cache to the listed one?

1.8k · January 15, 2011

...Had a similar issue about a year ago, I was 2 feet too close to an existing cache. The owner of the adjacent cache and I got our heads to-gether and we each moved 2 feet and made it happen.

...

Wow!! 2 feet is really lost in the noise of accuracy - I would have just edited the coords by .001 minute - effectly greater than 2 feet but less than 7 or so (usually).

The bummer was compounded by the fact that a Cal Trans Survey Crew informed me that I had sufficient buffer distance per their transit readings. Go figure.

Edited January 15, 2011 by humboldt flier

19k · January 15, 2011

Ouch!! As one who has built complex caches designed for one particular spot, I really feel your pain. I know all too well that feeling of seeing a spot, having the lightbulb moment, and then making it all come together. I really hope that you can still get your cache hidden somewhere or sometime. But (and aside from the fact that I have never, ever heard of a reviewer's decision being reversed based on our opinions), your cache is considerably too close to the other cache. As the crow flies (or, as the GPS reads) is the distance that is used. I just don't see an exception being made.

January 15, 2011

Less than 300 feet from the other cache? With all you have said, I have to agree with Harry Dolphin, you should move on.

2.8k · January 15, 2011

Looking at the map of the caches near by i can see why no exception is being made. IF the are was more saturated with caches then maybe i can see an exception. But there is all sorts of available area for a cache to be hidden just south of the Dueling Autos cache. Looks like Lake Olympia could use a nice cache near it. Sure it surrounded by homes but a spot could be found.

Area Map

I'm sure a similar spot to the one you have chosen can be found in that area.

Edited January 15, 2011 by mpilchfamily

3.3k · January 15, 2011

Without some sort of a physical barrier that clearly separates the caches I see no reason to allow your requested exception to the distance guidelines.

1.2k · January 15, 2011

Nope. About once month someone comes and asks if they too can bend the saturation guidelines. This is the one that Groundspeak sticks too unless there's a MAJOR roadblock. So maybe if the Great Wall separated your cache from the other it would be okay. But a parking lot and a road not so much. I'm sure you can find a similar spot for your hide.

1.4k · January 15, 2011

In following the Geocaching.com/Groundspeak Guidelines I am posting a message to this forums members to help me get an exception to the guideline wherein it is suggested that a cache be .1 mile from another cache. My initial reviewer denied to publish my cache based on the distance issue on my cache. I asked for an exception to the rule due to several factors(see the detail below) I felt were important and would lead to a great cache in a great location. There are few locations where this size and type of cache will provide a great deal of enjoyment because it is hidden in plain sight. I found the location by accident but knew immediately it would be terrific.

I asked my reviewer to forward my appeal request to the "reviewer committee" hoping for a favorable review and allowing the cache to be published. It was denied again today (solely due to the distance issue) so as I still feel strongly about this cache remaining at its current location, I am following the following "appeals" guideline..

According to the Geocaching.com appeal guideline: (Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived.)

My basis for asking for your (the Forum Members) support my cache in its current location is as follows:

This cache, GC2MANR has been archived (never published) due the physical location being too close to another existing cache (GC2D6N0 Dueling Autos).

Just forget it and move on, my experience has been if the reviewer says no it is a NO............I always like being pummeled into submission

Scubasonic

I understand the "saturation guidelines" as written but I am hoping that the actual wording "should generally be separated", as well as the basic word "Guidelines" leaves some room to allow an exception in my case. This wording does not say "must be" or "can only be" so to me, the words do imply "flexibility".

I asked the appeal group to grant an exception for this cache in the spirit of the game and with what I believe to be a placement that only benefits the area and the game. As the reviewer accurately points out, I knew when I made the original submission this might be an issue but I also originally felt the 400 plus feet (walking distance) would be sufficient separation between the caches considering the physical impediments. I initially WALKED the distance (from my cache) down the sidewalk, across the parking lot, out the driveway, across a 2 lane street, down and around the street, across a second parking lot then around another building via another street to another parking lot then to the Dueling Autos cache site. I counted over 150 paces (@ approx 2.5 to 3 ft) which I rounded to the original 400 feet estimate for separation. AS the crow flies, yes, it is less than 300 feet but once again, across one parking lot, across and down a 2 lane street, across a 2nd parking lot, around the building into yet another parking lot to get to the South side of the building where the 2nd cache is located.

I feel this cache is uniquely different and challenging and would be a welcome asset to our area and the members of Geocaching.com. The specific location of this cache provides some of it's Uniqueness and Challenge and moved to a different location would make it just another box. I was able to get written permission from the owner which as you all know is not always an easy task. This particular cache can only be mounted on a building in plain sight to provide the inherent mis-direction needed to have the cache in plain view, yet totally hidden.

My 5 grand kids love the game and are eager to go out every chance they/we can and YES, sometimes we do wish some of the caches could be closer together. Parking in one area and collecting more than one cache is not a totally bad idea on occasion.

So, forum members, let me have it. What is your thought? Should someone be able to ask for and receive an exception based on a specific situation and not just a blanket rule?

The only people who gain from this cache being published are You the Geocaching members. But you loose the ability to hunt a unique cache and an enjoyable experience if it remains archived.

Is it possible to allow a cache to be published and let members decide it fate? If members who find it (or don't) feel it's location is detrimental to the game, then I would remove it but give them the chance to explore and report on it.

Thanks for your responses and hopefully your support!

Randy

3.3k · January 15, 2011

In following the Geocaching.com/Groundspeak Guidelines I am posting a message to this forums members to help me get an exception to the guideline wherein it is suggested that a cache be .1 mile from another cache. My initial reviewer denied to publish my cache based on the distance issue on my cache. I asked for an exception to the rule due to several factors(see the detail below) I felt were important and would lead to a great cache in a great location. There are few locations where this size and type of cache will provide a great deal of enjoyment because it is hidden in plain sight. I found the location by accident but knew immediately it would be terrific.

I asked my reviewer to forward my appeal request to the "reviewer committee" hoping for a favorable review and allowing the cache to be published. It was denied again today (solely due to the distance issue) so as I still feel strongly about this cache remaining at its current location, I am following the following "appeals" guideline..

According to the Geocaching.com appeal guideline: (Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived.)

My basis for asking for your (the Forum Members) support my cache in its current location is as follows:

This cache, GC2MANR has been archived (never published) due the physical location being too close to another existing cache (GC2D6N0 Dueling Autos).

Just forget it and move on, my experience has been if the reviewer says no it is a NO............I always like being pummeled into submission

Scubasonic

I understand the "saturation guidelines" as written but I am hoping that the actual wording "should generally be separated", as well as the basic word "Guidelines" leaves some room to allow an exception in my case. This wording does not say "must be" or "can only be" so to me, the words do imply "flexibility".

I asked the appeal group to grant an exception for this cache in the spirit of the game and with what I believe to be a placement that only benefits the area and the game. As the reviewer accurately points out, I knew when I made the original submission this might be an issue but I also originally felt the 400 plus feet (walking distance) would be sufficient separation between the caches considering the physical impediments. I initially WALKED the distance (from my cache) down the sidewalk, across the parking lot, out the driveway, across a 2 lane street, down and around the street, across a second parking lot then around another building via another street to another parking lot then to the Dueling Autos cache site. I counted over 150 paces (@ approx 2.5 to 3 ft) which I rounded to the original 400 feet estimate for separation. AS the crow flies, yes, it is less than 300 feet but once again, across one parking lot, across and down a 2 lane street, across a 2nd parking lot, around the building into yet another parking lot to get to the South side of the building where the 2nd cache is located.

I feel this cache is uniquely different and challenging and would be a welcome asset to our area and the members of Geocaching.com. The specific location of this cache provides some of it's Uniqueness and Challenge and moved to a different location would make it just another box. I was able to get written permission from the owner which as you all know is not always an easy task. This particular cache can only be mounted on a building in plain sight to provide the inherent mis-direction needed to have the cache in plain view, yet totally hidden.

My 5 grand kids love the game and are eager to go out every chance they/we can and YES, sometimes we do wish some of the caches could be closer together. Parking in one area and collecting more than one cache is not a totally bad idea on occasion.

So, forum members, let me have it. What is your thought? Should someone be able to ask for and receive an exception based on a specific situation and not just a blanket rule?

The only people who gain from this cache being published are You the Geocaching members. But you loose the ability to hunt a unique cache and an enjoyable experience if it remains archived.

Is it possible to allow a cache to be published and let members decide it fate? If members who find it (or don't) feel it's location is detrimental to the game, then I would remove it but give them the chance to explore and report on it.

Thanks for your responses and hopefully your support!

Randy

Scubasonic - would you care to highlight your comments so the rest of us do not have to attempt to wade through the rest of the post to find your response? Just a thought.

19k · January 15, 2011

Looking at the map of the caches near by i can see why no exception is being made. IF the are was more saturated with caches then maybe i can see an exception. But there is all sorts of available area for a cache to be hidden just south of the Dueling Autos cache. Looks like Lake Olympia could use a nice cache near it. Sure it surrounded by homes but a spot could be found.

Area Map

I'm sure a similar spot to the one you have chosen can be found in that area.

If I read him right, he designed his cache to be hidden in plain sight in one particular location. I had one once that was a fake bronze "Load Limit" plaque on a steel footbridge, cast from a mold I made of a real plaque on a similar bridge. I would not have been able to simply find another hollow tree to hide that in, could I?

2.8k · January 15, 2011

Here is hoping its not too location specific. But we won't know till he comes back and possibly gives us some more detail about the hide itself and why it can't be relocated.

That bridge plaque is an awesome idea! Where you able to post it or was a safety issue raised for replacing or duplicating the plaque?

January 15, 2011

I still think they should up the saturation guidelines to .25 mile or higher.

January 15, 2011

Thanks for the reply's so far although I'm still hoping for a better outcome. Yes, there is much area around to place other types of caches and I have intentions of doing so. This location, actually, not the location but the physical structure of this particular spot. The cache has to be attached to a building (only a building) or it doesn't work at all and must be like right in your face to make it fun.

The theme of this cache and site are also tied together, "South of the Keys" has a special meaning and is specifically tied to this one location. Losing this particular spot destroys this cache.

There would be no benefit in talking with the Dueling Autos cache owner as they would have to move their cache over 300 feet to accommodate my cache and get within the .1 mile. I wouldn't ask anyone to do that.

This area is a suburb shopping area with a Walgreens Drug store on the corner, a 4-5 business strip center (my location is the southern most business in this center), then the two parking lots and the 2 lane street to the first auto store, then another driveway then the second auto store. The Dueling Autos cache is between the two auto stores.

For those interested, I don't have any finds or hides listed because I hunt with my Grandkids as a team and they do all the logging. This is however my first attempted hide.

I am really disappointed in knowing that great cache sites get passed by in order to satisfy an arbitrary guideline. Most of you state that You never see an exception made or a reviewer overturned. That doesn't mean it can't happen, it just means the requester did not present their cases in such detail as needed to make a convincing argument.

In my opinion, this is not a business, it is a game and meant for fun, enjoyment and challenge and was obviously incorporated with Guidelines instead of fixed rules or laws. Guidelines should be administered with emphasis on the intent of the operation and not so rigid as to have the guideline overshadow the purpose of the organization.

I am still hoping for some positive support in my quest to allow this cache be published.

4.1k · January 15, 2011

Since you are the only one who could do this......

Please click on your Geocaching map on the cache page in question.

Now, Zoom out till the other cache is showing. Please take a "Snapshot" this page. You can do this by pressing "Print Screen" on your computer.

Now go to your photo program and draw some lines from your cache to the other in question showing how you would have to travel to get there.

For now you could download this picture to your currently archived cache so you may post a link to this forum for all to see and understand a little more of what you are talking about.

I would like to see if it would be possible to drive a car between the two caches or just to walk it.

I also would like to ask, do you know the owner of the other cache? Would you be willing to ask him if he would consider changing his cache to either a multi with his being stage 1 and yours being the final stage? Or possibly placing the coordinates of your cache into the lid of his cache with his blessings, for a bonus cache to his?

This looks like this may be the only way to solve this with a good out-come for you to keep your cache alive.

Shirley~

January 15, 2011

Sorry for your disappointment, but too many people think that THEIR cache is awesome and should get an exception. The reviewers have a hard enough job as it is, without these extra special requests. The more granted, the more will be asked for and referenced to successful exceptions. These types of things just seem to snowball. I also hate to say it, but "attached to a building" can bring up a whole new couple of issues. I would suggest a couple of things, since I like the idea of creative hides and it's obvious that you are trying hard to do that.

1---Really try to adjust the theme/container to fit another locaton, without the issues. I've had to do that, and the second idea ended up even better than the first.

2---If you are not already, get involved in the local group if there is one. Some places even have a local reviewer, or a reviewer that shows up to meetings in their area occasionally. I know our local reviewer and it is a lot easier to work thru issues with an aquanitence for me.

3---Don't get discouraged if this one doesn't go your way. I only think they should make exceptions for major obstructions. Rivers, levels of trails on a hill/mountain, etc...

21.9k · January 15, 2011

I applaud the OP for fairly summarizing the facts of his appeal, and also for not disparaging his volunteer cache reviewer. He was just as polite when corresponding with the reviewer.

The only facts I have to add are (1) the distance between the caches is 277 feet as the crow flies; and (2) the denial went to the Lackeys at Groundspeak on appeal, where the denial was upheld -- the cache wasn't brought before the reviewer group. Had the reviewers voted as a group in our forum, I would have voted "no."

So, I encourage everyone to be extra nice to someone who is properly following the appeals process on their first cache placement. I would like to see more imaginative hides from this owner, even if this first one can't be published.

4.2k · January 15, 2011

I don't see any reason that your cache should not be subject to the same guidelines as my cache. A $50 deposit into my PayPal account might change my mind.

January 15, 2011

Since you are the only one who could do this......

Shirley~

Thanks Shirley

I've done the picture and uploaded it to the cache page.

South of the Keys

I drew the black line for the shortest walk. If you drove you would want to stay on the roads and only drive into the parking lots rather than thru them. That would add a few more feet but does not overcome the "as the crow flies distance".

I really like the suggestion of combining the two caches into a multi-cache and if this request fails, I will contact the other cache owner and talk with them before completely giving up.

I find it interesting that this "saturation/distance" subject is considered a hot topic or often questioned but I did a search of the forum and did not find much info on the issue. I am going to research it again as I must have screwed up the search.

Thanks for your help..

Randy

Edited January 15, 2011 by BBDawg

21.9k · January 15, 2011

Here is the image that BBDawg is trying to share with the community.

6k · January 15, 2011

Looks like two shopping centers to me. I would see no reason to allow an exception to the distance rule.

January 15, 2011

Looks like two shopping centers to me. I would see no reason to allow an exception to the distance rule.

One is outside a Cafe and the other is outside a Discount Auto Parts Store. Is this an issue I am not aware of? They are NOT commercial caches.

There is NO RULE on this issue, only "guidelines". A rule would be definitive and solve the issue but guidelines leave the door open to leeway and exceptions. I am asking for an exception because there are no negative issues for allowing these two caches to exist in this particular area at the distances proposed. It seems to be a win win to publish this cache as proposed.

If there is a negative could you enlighten me, which might help me understand the opposition to this issue and my request. I do see others who would like to see the guideline relaxed but not much explanation as to why not. I have searched the term "saturation" and actually find little that deals with anyone asking for an exemption for a particular cache nor do I find any reasons for the strict .1 mile guideline.

Please do not think I am being a smartaxx, I am not, I am trying to understand something I just do not understand..

Thanks

Randy

January 15, 2011

Here is the image that BBDawg is trying to share with the community.

Thanks Keystone!!!

11.2k · January 15, 2011

Distance "rules" here are lax, so it sometimes depends on where you live and who's reviewing the caches.

I have moved my cache slightly to accomodate another cacher who could not place their cache elsewhere (it was to bring attention to an Eagle Project).

8.3k · January 15, 2011

Looks like two shopping centers to me. I would see no reason to allow an exception to the distance rule.

One is outside a Cafe and the other is outside a Discount Auto Parts Store. Is this an issue I am not aware of? They are NOT commercial caches.

There is NO RULE on this issue, only "guidelines". A rule would be definitive and solve the issue but guidelines leave the door open to leeway and exceptions. I am asking for an exception because there are no negative issues for allowing these two caches to exist in this particular area at the distances proposed. It seems to be a win win to publish this cache as proposed.

If there is a negative could you enlighten me, which might help me understand the opposition to this issue and my request. I do see others who would like to see the guideline relaxed but not much explanation as to why not. I have searched the term "saturation" and actually find little that deals with anyone asking for an exemption for a particular cache nor do I find any reasons for the strict .1 mile guideline.

Please do not think I am being a smartaxx, I am not, I am trying to understand something I just do not understand..

Thanks

Randy

The way I look at it is the saturation guidelines are rules for those of us that hide caches and guidelines for those that review cache listings. That way the ones that review listings have room to allow a listing that normally would be denied if it was a rule. The famous battleship hide that Keystone allowed would be a fine example.

1.4k · January 15, 2011

Looks like two shopping centers to me. I would see no reason to allow an exception to the distance rule.

One is outside a Cafe and the other is outside a Discount Auto Parts Store. Is this an issue I am not aware of? They are NOT commercial caches.

There is NO RULE on this issue, only "guidelines". A rule would be definitive and solve the issue but guidelines leave the door open to leeway and exceptions. I am asking for an exception because there are no negative issues for allowing these two caches to exist in this particular area at the distances proposed. It seems to be a win win to publish this cache as proposed.

If there is a negative could you enlighten me, which might help me understand the opposition to this issue and my request. I do see others who would like to see the guideline relaxed but not much explanation as to why not. I have searched the term "saturation" and actually find little that deals with anyone asking for an exemption for a particular cache nor do I find any reasons for the strict .1 mile guideline.

Please do not think I am being a smartaxx, I am not, I am trying to understand something I just do not understand..

Thanks

Randy

The comment about the shopping centers, in my eyes, had nothing to do with a commercial aspect of any of the caches. The proximity guideline exceptions are usually made based on essentially insurmountable obstacles. A couple of streets and a few buildings don't meet that description.

I am sorry that your first cache is causing you this much trouble, and I hope it doesn't hinder your creative ideas in the future. That being said, you should give this one up. Groundspeak has denied your placement, and to my knowledge that's the final decision. Your support here has been non-existant (that's to say that we've all said "bad idea", I think we all appreciate your tactful request).

The multi idea is a great one, hopefully the other cache owner is willing to go for it. I would be if your cache were as neat as you make it sound and you approached me as you have in the forums so far. (and not many get a ringing endorsement like you did from Keystone, so kudos there too.)

Good luck.

7.3k · January 15, 2011

You can always put the other cache on a watchlist, and if it's archived in the future, you can submit your cache again (make a page quickly, before anyone else plops one down nearby).

I've done this with areas that I like, and it sometimes works out.

38.2k · January 15, 2011

277 feet as the crow flies? I'd have to say I agree with your reviewer. If it was a matter of 20 feet I might feel some sympathy for you, but 277 feet is barely over half the required distance.

2.4k · January 15, 2011

I guess the main thing missing here for me, is the absolute uniqueness of this cache; what it is that makes it so special it must have this exception.

I understand you don't want to "give it away" in the forums.

Since this cache is so special and can't be placed anywhere else, you might show your idea to the guy with the auto cache and let him decide.

Other than that, I can't see a reason for the exception. Someone else spoke well when they said, everyone thinks their cache is the absolute best cache that must have that exception. The reviewers are left with the difficult position of saying no, when it is a really great cache.

You have handled this all very well, as Keystone said. I really appreciate your honesty and your politeness and how you've handled this.

You're obviously very creative and talented. Please look around. You found this one great spot, this will give you more ideas for other great spots. Keep an eye on the auto cache. Many caches have limited lives. Owners move out of the area, or get tired of maintenance, etc. Keep this idea, and you may be able to use it in the future. In the meantime, use it to fuel the fire of your next great idea. This next one will be even better because you'll have the experience on knowing the guidelines.

Keep up the good work!!! You're caches will be well-known one day.

5.7k · January 15, 2011

277 feet as the crow flies? I'd have to say I agree with your reviewer. If it was a matter of 20 feet I might feel some sympathy for you, but 277 feet is barely over half the required distance.

Yep, what this guy said.

January 15, 2011

The nearby Dueling Autos cache is described as "Just another P&G for the numbers" and was placed by someone with 30+ similar caches. Ask the owner of that one very politely if you could archive or relocate their cache a few hundred feet. You've got nothing to lose and I'd say the likelihood of success is much higher than this approach in the forums.

It would be a big can of worms to start making exceptions for caches where people claim it's necessary to walk more than 500ft. It's pretty simple to figure out how far you are from the nearest cache. Stand where you intend to place the cache and use your GPSr to show you how far the nearest caches are. If you do this before you place the next cache you wont have this problem again.

8k · January 15, 2011

There is NO RULE on this issue, only "guidelines". A rule would be definitive and solve the issue but guidelines leave the door open to leeway and exceptions. I am asking for an exception because there are no negative issues for allowing these two caches to exist in this particular area at the distances proposed. It seems to be a win win to publish this cache as proposed.

While it is correct that it's a guideline and exceptions can be made, exceptions aren't made because there are no negatives. Exceptions are made when there are exceptional conditions (such as a natural barrier between the locations that would require a long trip to get around). "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." In the case where exceptions are made the new cache is essentially in a new area where there are few or no other caches, and that area while close to an existing cache is separated from it by some barrier. I don't think I've ever seen an exception given because "I have a really great idea for a cache and it has to go here but there is already a cache 277 feet away".

The negative BTW, is that if the reviewers made that exception for you they would have to make it for everyone who says "My cache idea is special and it has to go here". Reviewers don't want have to decide which caches are "Wow" enough to deserve guideline exceptions.

8.9k · January 15, 2011

There would be no benefit in talking with the Dueling Autos cache owner as they would have to move their cache over 300 feet to accommodate my cache and get within the .1 mile. I wouldn't ask anyone to do that.

I'm glad you are concerned with the cache owners feelings regarding moving the cache. I think you should also be concerned about encroaching on their cache's stated minimal territorial boundary - 528 feet. The way I've always seen it successful is to look at 528 as the absolute bare minimum line for acceptable distance from another physical container of a cache. I believe the reason that it's a "guideline" is that accuracy of units may vary. The cache may indeed be 535 feet off, but the readings may be off by 30 feet, so the cache could be either 505 feet away of 565 feet away. I've also seen reviewers make exceptions for significant elevation change or impassable barriers (the river without bridge thing). But if cachers going in with the expectation that anything less than 528 feet will not be published, they'd have a better experience. Use the 528 feet as a minimum standard and not a goal for which to shoot.

For the specifics listed above, I see nothing that shows that this cache is unique enough or presents enough barriers to make this a significantly different cache hide from the other one in the area. However, uniqueness is not the only reason for the minimum standard. Re-read this part of the saturation guideline:

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.

I believe that your suggested placement does not bring people to a new area, and would increase the number of caches hidden in the area to an unacceptable level.

1.2k · January 15, 2011

I guess the main thing missing here for me, is the absolute uniqueness of this cache; what it is that makes it so special it must have this exception.

I understand you don't want to "give it away" in the forums.

Since this cache is so special and can't be placed anywhere else, you might show your idea to the guy with the auto cache and let him decide.

Other than that, I can't see a reason for the exception. Someone else spoke well when they said, everyone thinks their cache is the absolute best cache that must have that exception. The reviewers are left with the difficult position of saying no, when it is a really great cache.

You have handled this all very well, as Keystone said. I really appreciate your honesty and your politeness and how you've handled this.

You're obviously very creative and talented. Please look around. You found this one great spot, this will give you more ideas for other great spots. Keep an eye on the auto cache. Many caches have limited lives. Owners move out of the area, or get tired of maintenance, etc. Keep this idea, and you may be able to use it in the future. In the meantime, use it to fuel the fire of your next great idea. This next one will be even better because you'll have the experience on knowing the guidelines.

Keep up the good work!!! You're caches will be well-known one day.

+1

January 15, 2011

THANK YOU ALL for your input! I am obviously among a group of very dedicated, knowledgeable and professional quality enthusiast who are dedicated to the sport. I appreciate being a part of your group and look forward to my continued involvement! I also want to openly Thank the reviewers who so freely volunteer and spend their time to help make and maintain this great community. I am sure there are minor rewards for your efforts but I am also sure there are more headaches than most of us would want to deal with.

I am "throwing in the towel" in my quest for an exception for this cache but will make a final observation before I'm gone, on this one. I do find it ironic that you have given me options that would allow me to "beat the system" but can not get a simple "exception" to add (what I feel) would be a really nice addition to the Geocaching community. I'm sorry guys, I still just do not understand - BUT that is MY problem, not yours. I would like to have allowed members who searched for and found this cache to make the decision of whether it was worthy of an exception or not - but not to be..

Just FYI, one of the things that made this cache special, other that what I have already noted, is that the Cafe Owner had agreed to give every person who found this cache a "completely free - no strings" sandwich of their choice. (This is a Cuban Style cafe (thus the name "South of the keys" (Cuba)) and the food is fantastic, especially their line of fresh made-to-order sandwiches. Their hot pressed cuban sandwich is fabulous and my wife says the cheese steak sandwich is the best she has ever had). There was just a note in the cache to the finder to come in and get a free sandwich if they wanted to..

I know the treasure is not the goal (which is why I have not mentioned it before) but added to the uniqueness and challenge of finding the actual cache, this could have been a great geocache for our members.

So, with these particulars now known you can see why this particular cache would not work anywhere else and I have decided to "Not, try to beat the System" and will just move on. I do not feel it appropriate to involve the other CO in my delima of having to beat the system to make this work.

And yes, I remain disappointed that I was unable to secure an exception for this cache location.

But Again, Thanks to All

Randy

January 15, 2011

The nearby Dueling Autos cache is described as "Just another P&G for the numbers" and was placed by someone with 30+ similar caches. Ask the owner of that one very politely if you could archive or relocate their cache a few hundred feet. You've got nothing to lose and I'd say the likelihood of success is much higher than this approach in the forums.

I agree that you seem too reluctant to drop the existing CO a note asking if he would be willing to archive his Cache. I think because your Cache means so much to you that you think the other CO would be hurt by your request. It is very possible that the CO just saw a empty spot and put in a P&G because he didn't have the time to do anything more. And his comment "Just another P&G for the numbers" to me means he even admits it is nothing special and just wanted to give people something to do.

We have a CO in our area who does some great caches, but at the same time will throw out 5 or 10 P&Gs before a weekend if nothing has posted in a while so the other Cachers have some new targets for the weekend to get our "fix". These caches mean nothing to him and he has been more then glad to archive them when asked if someone wanted to put something with more creativity in.

Edited January 15, 2011 by KI4HLW

2.3k · January 15, 2011

THANK YOU ALL for your input! I am obviously among a group of very dedicated, knowledgeable and professional quality enthusiast who are dedicated to the sport. I appreciate being a part of your group and look forward to my continued involvement! I also want to openly Thank the reviewers who so freely volunteer and spend their time to help make and maintain this great community. I am sure there are minor rewards for your efforts but I am also sure there are more headaches than most of us would want to deal with.

I am "throwing in the towel" in my quest for an exception for this cache but will make a final observation before I'm gone, on this one. I do find it ironic that you have given me options that would allow me to "beat the system" but can not get a simple "exception" to add (what I feel) would be a really nice addition to the Geocaching community. I'm sorry guys, I still just do not understand - BUT that is MY problem, not yours. I would like to have allowed members who searched for and found this cache to make the decision of whether it was worthy of an exception or not - but not to be..

Just FYI, one of the things that made this cache special, other that what I have already noted, is that the Cafe Owner had agreed to give every person who found this cache a "completely free - no strings" sandwich of their choice. (This is a Cuban Style cafe (thus the name "South of the keys" (Cuba)) and the food is fantastic, especially their line of fresh made-to-order sandwiches. Their hot pressed cuban sandwich is fabulous and my wife says the cheese steak sandwich is the best she has ever had). There was just a note in the cache to the finder to come in and get a free sandwich if they wanted to..

I know the treasure is not the goal (which is why I have not mentioned it before) but added to the uniqueness and challenge of finding the actual cache, this could have been a great geocache for our members.

So, with these particulars now known you can see why this particular cache would not work anywhere else and I have decided to "Not, try to beat the System" and will just move on. I do not feel it appropriate to involve the other CO in my delima of having to beat the system to make this work.

And yes, I remain disappointed that I was unable to secure an exception for this cache location.

But Again, Thanks to All

Randy

I went to a cache in a business that had a similar thing going on and was really not into the commercialization of the geocache or the hobby with that particular cache. I didn't find it special or unique but rather a business using my hobby to push their wares.

January 15, 2011

Sorry guy, doesn't look like this is going to happen. As a last result you could contact the other cache owner and see if they would remove theirs?

6k · January 15, 2011

I honestly don't know how you would get past the commercial prohibition. The sandwich might be free but you certainly would buy a drink and maybe some chips or whatever. Forcing you go interact with the business would seem outside the bounds of that rule. As to it being exceptional because you get a sandwich I don't really buy.

January 15, 2011

Unless you are the luckiest geocacher in all of history, this sort of thing will happen! We've had to drop all sorts of planned geocaches when we realized our proposed location was too close to another cache. It takes a while for a new cacher to realize that it may seem like "all the good spots are taken!" Just suck it up and try placing your cache somewhere else. Those of us who have had similar experiences with the cache saturation rule are not going to be too sympathetic to your reasoning that you are more entitled than others to place your cache wherever you want it.

January 15, 2011

I think the situation described by the OP is a great example of the need for gc.com to give reviewers more flexibility and discretion in implementing the saturation guidelines. As I understand it, the saturation guidelines were designed with three things in mind:

1) Preventing confusion among finders regarding which cache they have found.

2) Minimizing wear-and-tear to the landscape

Looking at the map posted by the OP, its hard to see how allowing him to place his cache would be detrimental in terms of either consideration above. With respect to number #1, what is the likelihood that a seeker of one cache would find the other? Although there are buildings that would like impair GPS reception, there are no trees and I don't think I have ever had reception so poor that I would have been hundreds of feet off in the type of terrain pictured. In terms of #2, this is a parking lot and explicit permission has been obtained for the cache from the property owner.

Feel free to point out what likely harm would result (in terms of consequences of the saturation exception) from allowing this particular cache to be placed in the desired location.

I am not arguing that the Reviewer made the wrong call given the guidelines and the practice of rarely granting exceptions. Rather, I am arguing that reviewers should be permitted (and encouraged) to exercise more discretion.

6.5k · January 15, 2011

I'm a bit late to the party, but want to add my $.03 adjusting for inflation. I applaud the OP for maintaining outstanding character throughout this discussion. I doubt you realize just how rare that is in this forum with similar discussions. I hope your grandchildren learn as much from you as I hope I have from my grandparents. (but it took a bit of maturing to realize this). :rolleyes:

I have to agree with the majority of posters here who felt that the reviewers and lackeys were consistent in the applications of the guidelines in the denial of this new cache. Geocaching is just a hobby/game with guidelines. But the main reason most of us do it is to be taken to neat new places, or shown a clever method of hiding something in plain sight like the hound's cited bridge plaque cache. It's too close for an exception and is still just a shopping center, albeit the other side of one.

A quick edit to reply to the geo-peeps post above-the confusion between caches phrasing has been removed from the guidelines. That was never an issue here. The only use of that word is in this sentence: "To reduce confusion and alarm when a cache is discovered accidentally, clearly label your container on the outside with appropriate information to say it is a geocache.

I think it's neat that the store owner was willing to comp a sandwich to visiting geocachers. But I have to wonder if he would be so willing to do so if your cache was 5 miles away in a nearby park? If not, then this does have commercial aspects to it that may not have factored into the decision to deny your placement, but may have if they were known. Essentially the shop owner was using allowing your cache as a lure to drum up more business.

Here's one way to find out-move your container to that park I mentioned, or somewhere else that complies with the guidelines and is a neat place to share. Since the saturation guideline doesn't apply to virtual stages of multis (items that are already in place), you can use something at the restaurant like the building number or the number on the lamppost at the posted coords, and then create a simple math puzzle to lead to the actual cache container that is placed elsewhere. Then if cachers want to they could return to the cafe for the freebie.

Editing to add a quick clarification to the post made above by geo-peeps. The phrase containing issue #1-confusion between caches was removed from the guidelines a while back once the accuracy of our hand held recreation devices made that a moot point. You don't mention what #3 is, but Markwell already did in his post further up the thread: "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"

Edited January 15, 2011 by wimseyguy

19k · January 15, 2011

Here is hoping its not too location specific. But we won't know till he comes back and possibly gives us some more detail about the hide itself and why it can't be relocated.

That bridge plaque is an awesome idea! Where you able to post it or was a safety issue raised for replacing or duplicating the plaque?

Let's not let this take us off topic, but here are some pictures.

7.4k · January 15, 2011

I have to side with the reviewers on this as well - it's just not far enough, and there isn't really a barrier.

The sandwich thing makes me even less inclined to support this cache.

Help needed to override Reviewer(s)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment