"Power Trail" question

[+Team Ibyopeach]

Does anyone know if there is a rule against power trails we were starting one and have had it shut down by our reviewer.

[GOF and Bacall]

Does anyone know if there is a rule against power trails we were starting one and have had it shut down by our reviewer.

 

What was the reason the reviewer gave?

[+StarBrand]

Does anyone know if there is a rule against power trails we were starting one and have had it shut down by our reviewer.

There must be more to the story as "power trails" are created frequently these days.

Edited January 31, 2011 by StarBrand

[+Chokecherry]

What were your caches attached to?

[+Tsnake]

I haven't seen any rules denying putting out a power trail. You most likely need to get clarification from the reviewer as why it is being denied. I know many locations have a power trail or circular with no problems.

[Keystone]

1. I split this discussion off from another thread, where the moderating team had already asked posters not to bring up specific issues.

 

2. A review of the OP's caches indicates that some early caches in the series had been published, but early searchers reported that the coordinates took them to posted property. The unpublished caches in the series contain reviewer notes referencing land manager approval issues and issues relating to posted property, but in the sample that I checked, I did not see any reference to "power trails" as a basis for refusing publication. That's good, because the power trail concept was nearly eliminated from the guidelines a few updates ago.

 

I would ask for the OP to explain in greater detail what was said by the reviewer about a "power trail." Perhaps this was mentioned in an email or in a page that I didn't check. At the same time, the OP should summarize whether adequate permission was obtained for any cache in the series that's on private property or for any cache on land managed by a land manager having a geocaching policy. These appear to be the issues that the reviewer discussed.

[+StarBrand]

1. I split this discussion off from another thread, where the moderating team had already asked posters not to bring up specific issues.

 

2. A review of the OP's caches indicates that some early caches in the series had been published, but early searchers reported that the coordinates took them to posted property. The unpublished caches in the series contain reviewer notes referencing land manager approval issues and issues relating to posted property, but in the sample that I checked, I did not see any reference to "power trails" as a basis for refusing publication. That's good, because the power trail concept was nearly eliminated from the guidelines a few updates ago.

 

I would ask for the OP to explain in greater detail what was said by the reviewer about a "power trail." Perhaps this was mentioned in an email or in a page that I didn't check. At the same time, the OP should summarize whether adequate permission was obtained for any cache in the series that's on private property or for any cache on land managed by a land manager having a geocaching policy. These appear to be the issues that the reviewer discussed.

 

I knew there was more to the story..... iron out the permission issues and lets see what you have created.

[+LukeTrocity]

1. I split this discussion off from another thread, where the moderating team had already asked posters not to bring up specific issues.

 

2. A review of the OP's caches indicates that some early caches in the series had been published, but early searchers reported that the coordinates took them to posted property. The unpublished caches in the series contain reviewer notes referencing land manager approval issues and issues relating to posted property, but in the sample that I checked, I did not see any reference to "power trails" as a basis for refusing publication. That's good, because the power trail concept was nearly eliminated from the guidelines a few updates ago.

 

I would ask for the OP to explain in greater detail what was said by the reviewer about a "power trail." Perhaps this was mentioned in an email or in a page that I didn't check. At the same time, the OP should summarize whether adequate permission was obtained for any cache in the series that's on private property or for any cache on land managed by a land manager having a geocaching policy. These appear to be the issues that the reviewer discussed.

 

I knew there was more to the story..... iron out the permission issues and lets see what you have created.

Theres always more to the story it seems eh?

[+TerraViators]

This is unsubstantiated but I heard that the caches were made of steel pipes, hidden under an elevated freeway that happened to run directly over a commuter rail with stops at courthouses, national parks and elementary schools every 1/10th of a mile. Also, the caches may have been buried and required a photo to log a find. Of course, like I said, this is all unsubstantiated. Other than that, they should be good to go.

[+Ecylram]

Theres always more to the story it seems eh?

 

It seems that every time someone posts a complaint about a reviewer there was some critical details left out.

[4wheelin_fool]

Does anyone know if there is a rule against power trails we were starting one and have had it shut down by our reviewer.

 

I saw a few during Grateful Dead concerts. They're definately illegal.

Edited January 31, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Does anyone know if there is a rule against power trails we were starting one and have had it shut down by our reviewer.

 

What was the reason the reviewer gave?

 

I suspect that we'll find out that the that caches where not published due to some other guideline violation that's not part of the saturation guideline.

 

Here's how the cache saturation guideline reads now:

 

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. 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, especially by the same hider. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern."

 

I'd be interested to see if a group of caches met all other guidelines but somehow failed to meet this criteria. Ever since the "power trail" language was removed from the guidelines I've felt that this paragraph was superfluous. If a cache placement has never been denied *solely* because it violated that paragraph, what is the point of including the language in the guidelines?

[GOF and Bacall]

Does anyone know if there is a rule against power trails we were starting one and have had it shut down by our reviewer.

 

What was the reason the reviewer gave?

 

I suspect that we'll find out that the that caches where not published due to some other guideline violation that's not part of the saturation guideline.

 

Here's how the cache saturation guideline reads now:

 

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. 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, especially by the same hider. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern."

 

I'd be interested to see if a group of caches met all other guidelines but somehow failed to meet this criteria. Ever since the "power trail" language was removed from the guidelines I've felt that this paragraph was superfluous. If a cache placement has never been denied *solely* because it violated that paragraph, what is the point of including the language in the guidelines?

 

I've heard of this being cited as the reason for denial in park settings where there have been large numbers of hides. I don't know if it has been used recently.

[+M 5]

Almost made my day

[+CanadianRockies]

Here's how the cache saturation guideline reads now:

 

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. 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, especially by the same hider. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern."

 

I'd be interested to see if a group of caches met all other guidelines but somehow failed to meet this criteria. Ever since the "power trail" language was removed from the guidelines I've felt that this paragraph was superfluous. If a cache placement has never been denied *solely* because it violated that paragraph, what is the point of including the language in the guidelines?

I've always assumed this provision was left in because Groundspeak doesn't treat power trail caches exactly the same as standard caches.

 

If someone wants to create a power trail along a particularly scenic stretch of road, that would pretty much prevent others from placing standard caches near that road. If the road follows the top of a canyon, for example, a standard cache placed away from the canyon rim probably won't have much of a view. In cases like this, I hope Groundspeak reviewers would exercise some discretion and veto the power trail, perhaps using this rather vague provision to justify their actions.

 

Similarly, if the road has narrow shoulders and winding curves, it might be unwise to develop a power trail there. For standard caches, people usually are willing to safely park at a roadside turnout and walk 100 yards to the cache. For power caches, not so much.

Edited January 31, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+sbell111]

Here's how the cache saturation guideline reads now:

 

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. 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, especially by the same hider. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern."

 

I'd be interested to see if a group of caches met all other guidelines but somehow failed to meet this criteria. Ever since the "power trail" language was removed from the guidelines I've felt that this paragraph was superfluous. If a cache placement has never been denied *solely* because it violated that paragraph, what is the point of including the language in the guidelines?

I've always assumed this provision was left in because Groundspeak doesn't treat power trail caches exactly the same as standard caches.

 

If someone wants to create a power trail along a particularly scenic stretch of road, that would pretty much prevent others from placing standard caches near that road. If the road follows the top of a canyon, for example, a standard cache placed away from the canyon rim probably won't have much of a view. In cases like this, I hope Groundspeak reviewers would exercise some discretion and veto the power trail, perhaps using this rather vague provision to justify their actions.

I hope that this would never happen. After all, if caches in a power trail are placed in great locations, then anyone can go find those caches and experience that great location. One need not be power caching to find a cache along a power trail, after all.

Similarly, if the road has narrow shoulders and winding curves, it might be unwise to develop a power trail there. For standard caches, people usually are willing to safely park at a roadside turnout and walk 100 yards to the cache. For power caches, not so much.

Safety does not come into play when listing caches. If teh cache meets the guidelines and is rated properly, it's listed.

[Clan Riffster]

Almost made my day

Yeah, me too. (sigh...)

[+TerraViators]

idiot you cant put caches on private proptery. oh yeah you can just dont tell nobody

Has to be a puppet. Grammar and spelling that bad has to be on purpose. Entertaining, however.

[+niraD]

idiot you cant put caches on private proptery.

For the record, this is incorrect. I have two caches that are on private property. Groundspeak just requires "adequate permission". (Actually, mine both have explicit permission.)

[+CanadianRockies]

Similarly, if the road has narrow shoulders and winding curves, it might be unwise to develop a power trail there. For standard caches, people usually are willing to safely park at a roadside turnout and walk 100 yards to the cache. For power caches, not so much.

Safety does not come into play when listing caches. If teh cache meets the guidelines and is rated properly, it's listed.

I certainly hope safety comes into play, even if it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines. According to the Geocachers' Creed: "When placing or seeking geocaches, I will...Not endanger myself or others."

 

If you want something from the guidelines, then this one seems open-ended enough to cover situations where vehicles coming around blind curves have to suddenly swerve to avoid unsafely parked vehicles or, worse, geocachers crossing the road: "Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public." Do we really want to give geocaching a black eye with seriously unsafe behavior?

 

And if the actions of the cache owner, reviewer, and/or Groundspeak constitute reckless disregard for the safety of others, then they could be legally liable for gross negligence.

Edited February 2, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+sbell111]

Similarly, if the road has narrow shoulders and winding curves, it might be unwise to develop a power trail there. For standard caches, people usually are willing to safely park at a roadside turnout and walk 100 yards to the cache. For power caches, not so much.

Safety does not come into play when listing caches. If teh cache meets the guidelines and is rated properly, it's listed.

I certainly hope safety comes into play, even if it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines. According to the Geocachers' Creed: "When placing or seeking geocaches, I will...Not endanger myself or others."

 

If you want something from the guidelines, then this one seems open-ended enough to cover situations where vehicles coming around blind curves have to suddenly swerve to avoid unsafely parked vehicles or, worse, geocachers crossing the road: "Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public." Do we really want to give geocaching a black eye with seriously unsafe behavior?

 

And if the actions of the cache owner, reviewer, and/or Groundspeak constitute reckless disregard for the safety of others, then they could be legally liable for gross negligence.

If a cache seeker chooses to park illegally on an active roadway, I fail to see how the blame can be placed on the cache owner or GS.

 

The bottom line is that each of us is responsible for our own safety. As long as a cache is not misrepresented through bad coords or incorrect ratings, all is well.

[+briansnat]

Similarly, if the road has narrow shoulders and winding curves, it might be unwise to develop a power trail there. For standard caches, people usually are willing to safely park at a roadside turnout and walk 100 yards to the cache. For power caches, not so much.

Safety does not come into play when listing caches. If teh cache meets the guidelines and is rated properly, it's listed.

I certainly hope safety comes into play, even if it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines. According to the Geocachers' Creed: "When placing or seeking geocaches, I will...Not endanger myself or others."

 

If you want something from the guidelines, then this one seems open-ended enough to cover situations where vehicles coming around blind curves have to suddenly swerve to avoid unsafely parked vehicles or, worse, geocachers crossing the road: "Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public." Do we really want to give geocaching a black eye with seriously unsafe behavior?

 

And if the actions of the cache owner, reviewer, and/or Groundspeak constitute reckless disregard for the safety of others, then they could be legally liable for gross negligence.

 

Safety is not considered when reviewing caches. The Geocacher's Creed is not considered, only the GC.Com guidelines.

 

Now if there is no reasonable legal way to access the cache, that could prevent it from being publsihed. It's why you won't see many caches along Interstate shoulders unless there is reasonable legal access.

Edited February 2, 2011 by briansnat

[+CanadianRockies]

Similarly, if the road has narrow shoulders and winding curves, it might be unwise to develop a power trail there. For standard caches, people usually are willing to safely park at a roadside turnout and walk 100 yards to the cache. For power caches, not so much.

Safety does not come into play when listing caches. If teh cache meets the guidelines and is rated properly, it's listed.

I certainly hope safety comes into play, even if it's not explicitly stated in the guidelines. According to the Geocachers' Creed: "When placing or seeking geocaches, I will...Not endanger myself or others."

 

If you want something from the guidelines, then this one seems open-ended enough to cover situations where vehicles coming around blind curves have to suddenly swerve to avoid unsafely parked vehicles or, worse, geocachers crossing the road: "Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public." Do we really want to give geocaching a black eye with seriously unsafe behavior?

 

And if the actions of the cache owner, reviewer, and/or Groundspeak constitute reckless disregard for the safety of others, then they could be legally liable for gross negligence.

If a cache seeker chooses to park illegally on an active roadway, I fail to see how the blame can be placed on the cache owner or GS.

 

The bottom line is that each of us is responsible for our own safety. As long as a cache is not misrepresented through bad coords or incorrect ratings, all is well.

What if it wasn't simply a typical active roadway but one with narrow shoulders and winding curves, as in the example I gave?

 

Yes, each of us must take significant responsibility for our own safety. But that doesn't always mean others are free from responsibility.

 

If I rent a car from a company that knew it had a leaky brake line, am I entirely to blame for any accident because I didn't give it a more thorough inspection before driving?

 

If the builders of a new office tower improperly secured a window and it comes crashing down on me on a windy day, am I entirely to blame for any injury because I wasn't being more cautious?

 

If a doctor carelessly prescribes the wrong medication for the conditions I describe, am I entirely to blame for any consequences because I didn't get a second opinion?

 

I think blame sometimes can be shared.

 

There are situations where people shouldn't do certain things but are likely to do so. People shouldn't have a plugged-in TV sitting on the edge of the bathtub when they bathe, but some predictably will. When it's easy to foresee these likely-to-occur situations, then I think it behooves us to mitigate them when it is practical to do so. That's why most building codes have special requirements for electrical outlets in bathrooms.

 

If a cache owner creates a power trail on a dangerous stretch of road, it doesn't require much imagination to foresee situations when many geocachers will give in to the temptation and engage in unsafe behavior for the sake of a quick find. If it's predictable that dangerous situations are likely to occur, I'm guessing most cache owners would assume some responsibility and opt not to create such a power trail. If some did and the dangerous situation was obvious, then I hope most reviewers would veto the proposed trail.

 

Let's all remember that if your disregard for another person's safety is reckless enough, you could be legally liable for gross negligence.

[+CanadianRockies]

Safety is not considered when reviewing caches. The Geocacher's Creed is not considered, only the GC.Com guidelines.

Then Groundspeak might want to have a lawyer review this policy. As far as I can determine, Washington state is not one of the relatively few U.S. jurisdictions where a "terms of use" waiver might indemnify itself, its employees, and its volunteers from gross negligence. It probably is unwise to allow reviewers to recklessly disregard the safety of others when they approve caches.

 

I can understand how it can be difficult to determine from afar just how safe a specific cache placement might be. But if you are aware that a cache placement is likely to cause someone grave bodily harm, are you saying you have no power to veto it?

[GOF and Bacall]

Where and when did you study law?

[+Ecylram]

Safety is not considered when reviewing caches. The Geocacher's Creed is not considered, only the GC.Com guidelines.

I can understand how it can be difficult to determine from afar just how safe a specific cache placement might be. But if you are aware that a cache placement is likely to cause someone grave bodily harm, are you saying you have no power to veto it?

 

Well, there is a cache on the International Space Station. Every launch there has a significant risk of death. There are also caches in the bottom of the ocean, (supposedly) a radiation-filled room, on the sides of cliffs and even in woods with mountain lions and other carnivorous critters. Not to mention the danger of driving to a cache.

 

Geocaching.com is a cache listing website, not an omnipotent demi-god. They do not have the power to eliminate geocaching risks, that's up to the Geocacher.

 

Having said that, I'd bet that if a Reviewer got notice of a cache sitting inches from a live high-voltage power line they'd disable it and contact the owner.

[+CanadianRockies]

Where and when did you study law?

Just to be clear, I'm not a lawyer nor am I offering legal advise. My advise to Groundspeak is to have a lawyer review their policy of not taking safety into consideration when they review caches.

 

You don't have to be a lawyer to understand the basics of gross negligence. If their actions recklessly disregard the safety of others, then they might be liable for gross negligence. Maybe not, but probably worth having their lawyer take a look. I'm just trying to be helpful here.

[+CanadianRockies]

Safety is not considered when reviewing caches. The Geocacher's Creed is not considered, only the GC.Com guidelines.

I can understand how it can be difficult to determine from afar just how safe a specific cache placement might be. But if you are aware that a cache placement is likely to cause someone grave bodily harm, are you saying you have no power to veto it?

Well, there is a cache on the International Space Station. Every launch there has a significant risk of death. There are also caches in the bottom of the ocean, (supposedly) a radiation-filled room, on the sides of cliffs and even in woods with mountain lions and other carnivorous critters. Not to mention the danger of driving to a cache.

Please don't misunderstand my comments. I'm not saying people have no responsibility for their own safety. In fact, in Post #23, I said, "Yes, each of us must take significant responsibility for our own safety."

 

The point I was making is that legally, you probably cannot completely disregard the effects of your actions on the safety of others. If there are people on the street below, you likely should think twice before tossing a beer bottle off the rooftop restaurant twenty floors above.

 

It's absurd to say people should bear absolutely no responsibility for their own safety. It's also silly to suggest we are 100% responsible for our own safety or that we bear absolutely no responsibility for the consequences of our actions on others.

 

Geocaching.com is a cache listing website, not an omnipotent demi-god. They do not have the power to eliminate geocaching risks, that's up to the Geocacher.

I never claimed Groundspeak or its reviewers are ominpotent demi-gods. Indeed, I pointed out (in the passage you quoted above): "I can understand how it can be difficult to determine from afar just how safe a specific cache placement might be."

 

Nor did I ever suggest that they have the power to eliminate geocaching risks. That would be absurd. What I suggested is that, if they are aware that a cache placement is likely to cause someone grave bodily harm, then perhaps they should take that information into consideration. And if that's against Groundspeak policy, then their lawyer probably should review that policy, in my humble opinion. Seriously, I'm trying to be helpful here.

 

Having said that, I'd bet that if a Reviewer got notice of a cache sitting inches from a live high-voltage power line they'd disable it and contact the owner.

Or, if the submitted cache description indicates the cache is inches from a live, exposed high-voltage line, then I'm hoping the reviewer wouldn't publish it in the first place (at least until changes were made). Really, I think we're on the same page here.

Edited February 3, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[+StarBrand]

Safety is not considered when reviewing caches. The Geocacher's Creed is not considered, only the GC.Com guidelines.

Then Groundspeak might want to have a lawyer review this policy. As far as I can determine, Washington state is not one of the relatively few U.S. jurisdictions where a "terms of use" waiver might indemnify itself, its employees, and its volunteers from gross negligence. It probably is unwise to allow reviewers to recklessly disregard the safety of others when they approve caches.

 

I can understand how it can be difficult to determine from afar just how safe a specific cache placement might be. But if you are aware that a cache placement is likely to cause someone grave bodily harm, are you saying you have no power to veto it?

 

I don't think Groundspeak or any of the volunteer reviewers want to be in the business of deciding what is safe enough and what is not safe enough. If even one cache is declined by them for safety issues, that is tacitly stating that all other published caches are deemed "safe" enough. From a legal standpoint that is a far more dangerous position to hold.

 

Cachers come in all shapes and sizes and ages and abilities. Any cacher that does not feel perfectly comfortable or safe in getting a particular cache should avoid it.

[+CanadianRockies]

Safety is not considered when reviewing caches. The Geocacher's Creed is not considered, only the GC.Com guidelines.

Then Groundspeak might want to have a lawyer review this policy. As far as I can determine, Washington state is not one of the relatively few U.S. jurisdictions where a "terms of use" waiver might indemnify itself, its employees, and its volunteers from gross negligence. It probably is unwise to allow reviewers to recklessly disregard the safety of others when they approve caches.

 

I can understand how it can be difficult to determine from afar just how safe a specific cache placement might be. But if you are aware that a cache placement is likely to cause someone grave bodily harm, are you saying you have no power to veto it?

 

I don't think Groundspeak or any of the volunteer reviewers want to be in the business of deciding what is safe enough and what is not safe enough.

I'm not talking about "safe enough" versus "not safe enough." I'm talking about whether or not someone is aware that a cache placement is likely to cause grave bodily harm. (A lawyer might add other considerations as well.) If it's a borderline decision, then, personally, I'd err on the side of caution for legal and moral reasons.

 

If even one cache is declined by them for safety issues, that is tacitly stating that all other published caches are deemed "safe" enough. From a legal standpoint that is a far more dangerous position to hold.

If I apply this logic, then can I assume that if one published cache has a "near cliffs" attribute, then all published caches without a "near cliffs" attribute aren't near cliffs? I don't think so.

 

Cachers come in all shapes and sizes and ages and abilities. Any cacher that does not feel perfectly comfortable or safe in getting a particular cache should avoid it.

I've repeatedly noted: "Yes, each of us must take significant responsibility for our own safety." Again, my point is that we also bear some responsibility when we know our actions are likely to effect the safety of others. I'm glad Groundspeak offers the "Hazards" attributes. I use them when I decide it's appropriate. I also mention hazards in my cache description page. I'm not saying everybody has to do this, but it makes me feel better.

 

What I don't think should be optional is publishing a cache if you know it's likely to cause grave bodily harm. If a cache ever was submitted for review and the description noted it was located inches away from a live, exposed high-voltage wire, then do you really think Groundspeak should publish the cache?

[Keystone]

Does anyone know if there is a rule against power trails

Quoting from the original post, to remind everyone of the thread subject.

 

The discussion has strayed off topic and no, it is not a particularly helpful tangent.

[+sbell111]

To the thread's topic:

 

If the caches in question have adequate permission and otherwise meet the guidelines, they should be listed. In this case, the reviewer apparently has a question as to whether they have adequate permission, since some of them appear to be on posted property.

 

In order to get the caches listed, the cache owner should either 1) explain that explicit permission was received for the caches on posted property, 2) move the affected caches off of posted property, or 3) provide evidence of some kind that the referenced caches were not on posted property.

[+sbell111]

Does anyone know if there is a rule against power trails

Quoting from the original post, to remind everyone of the thread subject.

 

The discussion has strayed off topic and no, it is not a particularly helpful tangent.

I started a new thread to discuss the safety issue.

[+briansnat]

oops

Edited February 3, 2011 by briansnat

[+Team Ibyopeach]

Does anyone know if there is a rule against power trails we were starting one and have had it shut down by our reviewer.

[+Team Ibyopeach]

We had problem with a few hides Problem was resolved we are not allowed to use the same name on all caches and consecutive numbers

[+TerraViators]

We had problem with a few hides Problem was resolved we are not allowed to use the same name on all caches and consecutive numbers

Are you certain? I don't believe there is anything in the guidelines about that. I've seen several in my area. What about the E.T. Highway?

[Keystone]

We had problem with a few hides Problem was resolved we are not allowed to use the same name on all caches and consecutive numbers

Are you certain? I don't believe there is anything in the guidelines about that. I've seen several in my area. What about the E.T. Highway?

You're correct; there has been no change in policy regarding the naming of caches.

 

I know that some reviewers make helpful suggestions designed to make caches download better into GPS units that truncate the cache name, but that advice is non-binding.

 

I suspect there has been another misperception, as was the case for the original post. I wouldn't know for sure unless I saw the original advice given by the reviewer on this point.

[+M 5]

We had problem with a few hides Problem was resolved we are not allowed to use the same name on all caches and consecutive numbers

Are you certain? I don't believe there is anything in the guidelines about that. I've seen several in my area. What about the E.T. Highway?

You're correct; there has been no change in policy regarding the naming of caches.

 

I know that some reviewers make helpful suggestions designed to make caches download better into GPS units that truncate the cache name, but that advice is non-binding.

 

I suspect there has been another misperception, as was the case for the original post. I wouldn't know for sure unless I saw the original advice given by the reviewer on this point.

 

That would be an awesome guideline change though!!!

[Mr.Yuck]

We had problem with a few hides Problem was resolved we are not allowed to use the same name on all caches and consecutive numbers

Are you certain? I don't believe there is anything in the guidelines about that. I've seen several in my area. What about the E.T. Highway?

You're correct; there has been no change in policy regarding the naming of caches.

 

I know that some reviewers make helpful suggestions designed to make caches download better into GPS units that truncate the cache name, but that advice is non-binding.

 

I suspect there has been another misperception, as was the case for the original post. I wouldn't know for sure unless I saw the original advice given by the reviewer on this point.

 

That would be an awesome guideline change though!!!

 

Yes indeed it would. There's a guy in my area who puts like 50 dots in front of and behind his cache names. Like this. I'm serious: ..............................................Cache name...................................

 

So they show up in your GPS as: ...........

 

Fortunately, I ignore most of his hides, although I study them on a one-by-one basis as they are published, before making a decision.