Distance guidelines not always followed by reviewers

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

Has anyone had issues with reviewers allowing some caches to be closer than the 1/10th of a mile rule while enforcing the rule for others?

We had a cache at a historical/tourist spot get archived on May 1st, so I sped out there and placed a new cache in the exact location.

Got a note from the reviewer that it is within 500ft of another cache.

So confusing to me.

Edited May 3, 2011 by bramasoleiowa

[+Coldgears]

All you are going to get is speculation and arguements on these forums if you do not give an example. If you give an example we can probably figure out why the exception was made.

 

EDIT: OMG, my 700th post.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Coldgears

[+sword fern]

Has anyone had issues with reviewers allowing some caches to be closer than the 1/10th of a mile rule while enforcing the rule for others?

We had a cache at a historical/tourist spot get archived on May 1st, so I sped out there and placed a new cache in the exact location.

Got a note from the reviewer that it is within 500ft of another cache.

So confusing to me.

 

The reviewer must have had a reason. Why not contact the reviewer, as it seems more legit than having arguments on the forums.

[+mpilchfamily]

Its not a hard rule and is given some wiggle room for reviewers to sort out. Often the rule is set aside for a chache that may be inside the 1/10th mile as the bird flies but the cacher has to go much further to reach it.

[+BuckeyeClan]

Has anyone had issues with reviewers allowing some caches to be closer than the 1/10th of a mile rule while enforcing the rule for others?

We had a cache at a historical/tourist spot get archived on May 1st, so I sped out there and placed a new cache in the exact location.

Got a note from the reviewer that it is within 500ft of another cache.

So confusing to me.

 

Maybe someone else was just an eensy bit faster than you, and had already submitted a listing for the same spot as the archived listing, or very close to it. It may not be published yet, but if they submitted it before you submitted yours, it would have precedence proximity-wise.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

All you are going to get is speculation and arguements on these forums if you do not give an example. If you give an example we can probably figure out why the exception was made.

 

EDIT: OMG, my 700th post.

 

How about no example, but the facts:

GC23HJT was archived on May 1st and I replaced with GC2RJEY on the same day. (there was a previous cache to GC23HJT, which was GC1CJDC, in the same general location)

 

Apparently the cache, and the previous cache that a reviewer had approved, is within 500ft of a puzzle/mystery cache.

[+Dr. House]

There's an "issue" with VR's occasionally using good judgement as it pertains to the saturation guideline to allow a physical placement less than 528ft from the next closest physical placement??

 

My belief is that it does happen very infrequently and isn't really an issue.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

Has anyone had issues with reviewers allowing some caches to be closer than the 1/10th of a mile rule while enforcing the rule for others?

We had a cache at a historical/tourist spot get archived on May 1st, so I sped out there and placed a new cache in the exact location.

Got a note from the reviewer that it is within 500ft of another cache.

So confusing to me.

 

The reviewer must have had a reason. Why not contact the reviewer, as it seems more legit than having arguments on the forums.

 

Yes, but sometimes arguments and anecdotal evidence can help to figure out what to do or (most likely) not to do.

[+Harry Dolphin]

How about "Oops. I shouldn't have published that cache. But my hamster was tired/drunk. Oh, well. Since I published it, I'll let it stay."?

[GOF and Bacall]

never mind. My mind is not on my math tonight.

Edited May 3, 2011 by GOF and Bacall

[Keystone]

The OP's cache conflicts with a hidden waypoint of a multicache.

 

Upon further examination, the multicache stage was moved by its owner post-publication, placing it in conflict with the cache that was just archived. So, when a new cache was submitted at the same spot, the conflict with the relocated waypoint became apparent.

 

Of course, it's easier and funner to just blame the reviewer for being mean.

[+StarBrand]

I was going to say, It is important to remember that cache owners can move their own caches with a simple log entry. The conflict that did not exist at publication may have arisen long after publication due to a move log of a nearby cache. I've seen that in action a few times.

[+dfx]

I was going to say, It is important to remember that cache owners can move their own caches with a simple log entry. The conflict that did not exist at publication may have arisen long after publication due to a move log of a nearby cache. I've seen that in action a few times.

 

"Update coordiantes" logs are not a problem because reviewers get a copy of those and can/will check the new cache location against other caches when it happens. However, edits of other waypoints for multis and mysteries seem to go unnoticed and silent, without a reviewer ever hearing of it. I think this is a fundamental problem of the underlying system.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

 

Of course, it's easier and funner to just blame the reviewer for being mean.

 

 

Oh, I didn't think they were mean. I just thought something fishy was going on. I get bullheaded and tunnel-vision when things don't add up in my brain.

[+WRASTRO]

Thanks to Keystone for suppling the missing information on this mystery and to the OP for being open minded when learning of the missing information.

[+tozainamboku]

The OP's cache conflicts with a hidden waypoint of a multicache.

 

Upon further examination, the multicache stage was moved by its owner post-publication, placing it in conflict with the cache that was just archived. So, when a new cache was submitted at the same spot, the conflict with the relocated waypoint became apparent.

 

Of course, it's easier and funner to just blame the reviewer for being mean.

So when the multicache owner moved the waypoint post publication it was in conflict with the previous cache and didn't get archived? Good to know if I want to hide a multicache and have a waypoint too close to an existing cache. I can just move it after it gets published

[+Max and 99]

 

"Update coordiantes" logs are not a problem because reviewers get a copy of those and can/will check the new cache location against other caches when it happens. However, edits of other waypoints for multis and mysteries seem to go unnoticed and silent, without a reviewer ever hearing of it. I think this is a fundamental problem of the underlying system.

 

Now that is interesting information. Good to know!

[+TomToad]

Actually, reviewers do not see small increments when caches are moved. I'm not sure what the distance required is before a note is sent to the reviewer, but I know that people have moved caches 40-50' without a problem.

[+Markwell]

Actually, reviewers do not see small increments when caches are moved. I'm not sure what the distance required is before a note is sent to the reviewer, but I know that people have moved caches 40-50' without a problem.

How do you know that the reviewer didn't get the note? My guess is that the reviewer DID get the note on a 40-50' move, but didn't say anything because that's perfectly acceptable...

[+Dr. House]

 

"Update coordiantes" logs are not a problem because reviewers get a copy of those and can/will check the new cache location against other caches when it happens. However, edits of other waypoints for multis and mysteries seem to go unnoticed and silent, without a reviewer ever hearing of it. I think this is a fundamental problem of the underlying system.

 

Actually, reviewers do not see small increments when caches are moved. I'm not sure what the distance required is before a note is sent to the reviewer, but I know that people have moved caches 40-50' without a problem.

How do you know that the reviewer didn't get the note? My guess is that the reviewer DID get the note on a 40-50' move, but didn't say anything because that's perfectly acceptable...

 

Agreed with Markwell. Simply because nothing happened to the physical stage that moved on the original multi doesn't mean that these things aren't once again reviewed by VR's. It is simply a guideline, after all.

 

In our area, I see various caches (generally multis and puzzles) disabled quite often for what I suspect is this exact reason. The fact that it isn't necessarily broadcast to the general caching public, doesn't mean that it isn't caught.

[+TomToad]

Actually, reviewers do not see small increments when caches are moved. I'm not sure what the distance required is before a note is sent to the reviewer, but I know that people have moved caches 40-50' without a problem.

How do you know that the reviewer didn't get the note? My guess is that the reviewer DID get the note on a 40-50' move, but didn't say anything because that's perfectly acceptable...

Ok, maybe I don't know. I do believe at one time that was the case, which is why some COs would try stuff like this http://coord.info/GC2P5ZE

Typically, that type of action would fly under the radar until a cacher would complain; but by the looks of it, the reviewer picked up on it right away this time.

[+lamoracke]

there is a distance moving the primary coordinate....but if you move a multi's 2nd waypoint or the final location...these are just waypoints and no notification is sent out, well, that at least the masses see. Course, I bet folks move waypoints without even updating the waypoint coordinates on the site many times.

 

I have changed the coords of my final waypoint sometimes, I often have wondered if the reviewers get an email notification on this or not, because I do not get one as the CO, nor do other users.