A general question for a reviewer

[+teadams]

Over the Memorial day weekend I finished placing a couple of caches in a local preserve. I placed a few there last year as well, all with permission. 2 of the ones I placed this year have not been approved and I am at a loss as to how to fix the problem, as I believe their location is fine. The problem - to close to waypoints for the Multi-cache that is located in the same preserve.

If you look at GCQMZ5 you will get an idea of what I am up against. You are given 4 locations and a clue. Only one of these locations has anything actually at it. The other 3 are waypoint in name only with nothing at them. finding the correct spot and you get 4 more locations, again with only one having anything actually at it. And on it goes. I have done this multi and have maintained a record of where each real physical way point is located and also where each way point with nothing at it is located.

One of the caches is .2 mile away from the nearest real waypoint but only 380 feet away form a vacant waypoint.

The second is .1 mile away rom the nearest real waypoint but only 177 feet away from a vacant waypoint.

 

Do reviewer know which waypoints are real and which are merely 'placeholders'? If not, how would they know that my cache locations are good (at least looking at the guidelines they appear to me to be good)?

 

The second cache I do plan on moving slightly to try and get it a couple of hundred feet more away from the vacant waypoint.

 

Tim

[+Smilin' Dawg]

Can you write the reviewer and tell them which waypoints are physical waypoint and which are not? The reviewers might not have looked close enough at them to make the proper decision. It is OK to nicely ask the reviewer to double check his or her decision. Give them what facts you have and ask for a explenation.

[jholly]

For a while now you had to provide the reviewer all waypoints for your multis. Not sure about if they are "vacant" or not. But my first pass guess is if your cache that is to close to the vacant waypoint is approved the game of battleships is on. If caches are approved at less than 528 feet from the vacant point then placing a bunch of caches will now revel the vacant locations and the complexity of the multi is quite a bit less.

[+Bear and Ragged]

If it's a 'the cache could here or here' thing, and then your cache gets placed within the guideline proximity to one spot, it does rather say 'this is not really the cache spot' for the other cache.

 

As such, I can see the reviewers decision not to let you have the spot.

[+Coldgears]

If it's a 'the cache could here or here' thing, and then your cache gets placed within the guideline proximity to one spot, it does rather say 'this is not really the cache spot' for the other cache.

 

As such, I can see the reviewers decision not to let you have the spot.

At first I was about to go full on against this reviewer. I've never had someone post something so logical that changed my opinion completely. I never looked at it like that!

 

Thanks!

 

I agree with reviewer then.

[+Harry Dolphin]

AFAIK, (which is not always a lot)... The restriction is not placing a cache, or part of a cache, within 528' of an actual 'object' place by a CO. A 'possible' waypoint should not affect that, unless there is something place by the CO there. Dispensation might have been given in this case, but it seems to be against the guidelines. 'Physical' object. (Would include the spray paint on the bridge, the magnetized sheet under the bridge railing &c) If the CO had placed a MKH with a note: "Wrong. Try again." Then that might/should count. But, if there is nothing there, then no resrictions should exist for that spot. Guidelines are for 'physical object', not 'mythical spot'.

[+terrkan78]

The knowledge books are pretty clear...the cache saturation guidelines don't apply to "stages of multi-caches or puzzle caches entered as a 'question to answer' or a 'reference point.'"

 

Maybe the multi that you're up against doesn't have its waypoints marked as reference points? (Even though it sounds like they should be?)

 

If there's some unspoken rule that you need to stay more than .1 away from multi/puzzle reference points just because someone might try to battleship the multi/puzzle, then I hadn't heard that one before, and something really ought to be mentioned in the knowledge books or guidelines.

 

Only a reviewer can tell you for sure what the problem is with your submitted cache.

[+teadams]

Can you write the reviewer and tell them which waypoints are physical waypoint and which are not? The reviewers might not have looked close enough at them to make the proper decision. It is OK to nicely ask the reviewer to double check his or her decision. Give them what facts you have and ask for a explenation.

 

I have written the reviewer (twice) about one of my caches and gave him the coordinates of the 3 waypoints as well as information about them and pointed out the guidelines where I think my cache _should_ be acceptable. I asked if he knew which of the waypoints 'live' and which were just 'placeholders'. So far I've not received an answer which was the reason of my post - to see other reasons why my cache might be rejected.

[+teadams]

If it's a 'the cache could here or here' thing, and then your cache gets placed within the guideline proximity to one spot, it does rather say 'this is not really the cache spot' for the other cache.

 

As such, I can see the reviewers decision not to let you have the spot.

At first I was about to go full on against this reviewer. I've never had someone post something so logical that changed my opinion completely. I never looked at it like that!

 

Thanks!

 

I agree with reviewer then.

 

I really don't think my caches would cause that type of a problem. Looking for the Multi, the owner suggests you use a Topo map and uses UTM coordinates. I'm using the more standard WGS 84. Certainly you can convert them but the clues ('closest to a beaver dam') would get you to look at the map, not other caches that might, or might not be, in any certain area.

The original comment however is a valid one that I had thought about but didn't really spend much time with.

[+Coldgears]

If it's a 'the cache could here or here' thing, and then your cache gets placed within the guideline proximity to one spot, it does rather say 'this is not really the cache spot' for the other cache.

 

As such, I can see the reviewers decision not to let you have the spot.

At first I was about to go full on against this reviewer. I've never had someone post something so logical that changed my opinion completely. I never looked at it like that!

 

Thanks!

 

I agree with reviewer then.

 

I really don't think my caches would cause that type of a problem. Looking for the Multi, the owner suggests you use a Topo map and uses UTM coordinates. I'm using the more standard WGS 84. Certainly you can convert them but the clues ('closest to a beaver dam') would get you to look at the map, not other caches that might, or might not be, in any certain area.

The original comment however is a valid one that I had thought about but didn't really spend much time with.

All you can do is wait for a reviewer response now...

[+DanOCan]

I will be curious to see what the final decision on this one is.

 

My take on it:

 

If there is something physical placed at the fake waypoints that tells a seeker he/she is in the wrong spot, then the proximity guideline would apply and your location would be denied.

 

If there is nothing at the fake waypoints then your cache should be approved, and if it makes solving the Multi less complicated for someone who understands the guidelines? Oh well. At that point, those waypoints are really no different than the bogus coordinates for a Puzzle cache and shouldn't be subjected to the proximity guideline.

 

I'm not a reviewer so it doesn't matter at all what I think though.

[knowschad]

I dunno, DanOCan... I don't think this is as straightforward as that, and I guess it will come down to how the reviewer chooses to handle it. If I'm reading this right, allowing a new cache to be placed near one of those four waypoints would compromise the other cache's "puzzle", like playing that battleships game. What if he then asked to hide caches near the other waypoints? I think it will be interesting to see what happens.

[+Hemlock]

I'm not a reviewer so it doesn't matter at all what I think though.

I am a reviewer, but not for NH so it doesn't matter what I think either, but...

 

I would not publish the new cache. 1. The waypoints of the older multi are marked as "stages of a multicache" which protects them from encroachment. The reviewer side of me is not going to second-guess whether they should really be classified that way or not. 2. The player side of me doesn't want to ruin the puzzle as set by the other hider.

 

Of course your reviewer may or may not agree with my interpretation.

[+CanadianRockies]

Dispensation might have been given in this case, but it seems to be against the guidelines. 'Physical' object. (Would include the spray paint on the bridge, the magnetized sheet under the bridge railing &c)

I hope a geocacher wouldn't apply spray paint on a bridge...at least not without permission.

[+DanOCan]

I dunno, DanOCan... I don't think this is as straightforward as that, and I guess it will come down to how the reviewer chooses to handle it. If I'm reading this right, allowing a new cache to be placed near one of those four waypoints would compromise the other cache's "puzzle", like playing that battleships game. What if he then asked to hide caches near the other waypoints? I think it will be interesting to see what happens.

 

I understand that point.

 

My concern becomes that then this sort of guideline could start to apply to any sort of puzzle cache. The current guideline says the true coordinates for a puzzle should be within 2-3km of the bogus coordinates. In theory, that means any cache placed within that space is allowing someone to help "battleship" the final.

 

I'd be concerned that people can start holding spaces without having to actually hide anything there, simply by creating one of these "multiple paths to the final" multis. I could easily take a city park and prevent anyone else from hiding there with a single cache.

 

(Yes, I know this is a 'slippery slope' argument which I normally don't like to use, but my caching experience is that some cacher somewhere will try and take something to the extreme if allowed.)

 

I don't have a firm opinion on this one because I can see both sides. That's why, if I had to put my "judge and jury" hat on I'd need some sort of solid priciple to hang my decision on which is why I felt the "physical object = proximity applies, nothing physical = no proximity issue" was as good as any.

[AZcachemeister]

I'm not a reviewer so it doesn't matter at all what I think though.

I am a reviewer, but not for NH so it doesn't matter what I think either, but...

 

I would not publish the new cache. 1. The waypoints of the older multi are marked as "stages of a multicache" which protects them from encroachment. The reviewer side of me is not going to second-guess whether they should really be classified that way or not. 2. The player side of me doesn't want to ruin the puzzle as set by the other hider.

 

Of course your reviewer may or may not agree with my interpretation.

 

So, by this logic, I could place Stage 1 of my multi on one side of a very large park, create a plethora of potential Stage 2 waypoints peppered ALL OVER the park (only one of which actually has a physical container with co-ordinates), and then put the final on the other side of the park. Thus effectively 'claiming' the entire park for myself and preventing any new caches?

 

Do I have this right?

[jholly]

I'm not a reviewer so it doesn't matter at all what I think though.

I am a reviewer, but not for NH so it doesn't matter what I think either, but...

 

I would not publish the new cache. 1. The waypoints of the older multi are marked as "stages of a multicache" which protects them from encroachment. The reviewer side of me is not going to second-guess whether they should really be classified that way or not. 2. The player side of me doesn't want to ruin the puzzle as set by the other hider.

 

Of course your reviewer may or may not agree with my interpretation.

 

So, by this logic, I could place Stage 1 of my multi on one side of a very large park, create a plethora of potential Stage 2 waypoints peppered ALL OVER the park (only one of which actually has a physical container with co-ordinates), and then put the final on the other side of the park. Thus effectively 'claiming' the entire park for myself and preventing any new caches?

 

Do I have this right?

I think you got it.

[+Coldgears]

I'm not a reviewer so it doesn't matter at all what I think though.

I am a reviewer, but not for NH so it doesn't matter what I think either, but...

 

I would not publish the new cache. 1. The waypoints of the older multi are marked as "stages of a multicache" which protects them from encroachment. The reviewer side of me is not going to second-guess whether they should really be classified that way or not. 2. The player side of me doesn't want to ruin the puzzle as set by the other hider.

 

Of course your reviewer may or may not agree with my interpretation.

 

So, by this logic, I could place Stage 1 of my multi on one side of a very large park, create a plethora of potential Stage 2 waypoints peppered ALL OVER the park (only one of which actually has a physical container with co-ordinates), and then put the final on the other side of the park. Thus effectively 'claiming' the entire park for myself and preventing any new caches?

 

Do I have this right?

Better yet, do it in a 10 square mile forest. Have a list of about 1500 potential waypoints inside the cache, but make sure to make it the first one on the list, and clearly label it as the correct one.

 

Woala, every cache in 10 square miles can be yours... just disable that waypoint. GENIUS!

[+Lil Devil]

So, by this logic, I could place Stage 1 of my multi on one side of a very large park, create a plethora of potential Stage 2 waypoints peppered ALL OVER the park (only one of which actually has a physical container with co-ordinates), and then put the final on the other side of the park. Thus effectively 'claiming' the entire park for myself and preventing any new caches?

If you were to do this, that says a lot more about you than it does about the guidelines.

 

And I think the local cachers will solve this pretty easily

[+Shop99er]

It doesn't matter if the Wp is "vacant" or not. It's a waypoint for an established cache, and you have to be 528 feet from it.

[+FunnyNose]

My reviewer to me once that if it's a physical component placed by a geocacher is then subject to the 528 foot proximity rule.

[+CanadianRockies]

It doesn't matter if the Wp is "vacant" or not. It's a waypoint for an established cache, and you have to be 528 feet from it.

It depends on what "vacant" means. In this thread, I believe people are using it to mean "non-physical," in which case the 528-foot guideline usually doesn't apply.

 

See this guideline:

 

Physical elements of different geocaches should generally be at least 0.10 miles apart. This separation is 528 ft or 161 m. A physical stage is defined as any stage that contains a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a container or a tag with the next set of coordinates. Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and/or a question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

Edited June 12, 2011 by CanadianRockies

[Pup Patrol]

 

If you look at GCQMZ5 you will get an idea of what I am up against.

 

Um, can you confirm that GC code? GCQMZ5 is in Austria.

[+Onslow Fisherman]

I don't have a firm opinion on this one because I can see both sides. That's why, if I had to put my "judge and jury" hat on I'd need some sort of solid priciple to hang my decision on which is why I felt the "physical object = proximity applies, nothing physical = no proximity issue" was as good as any.

I wanted to place a cache that was part of a series that was to be within 50ft of a "non container" WP for someone else's Multi. Our reviewer applied the principle quoted above.

 

nothing physical = no proximity issue

 

and approved my placement. I thought that very reasonable and within the Rules.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Onslow Fisherman

[+JL_HSTRE]

The issue is that using "Stages Of A Multicache" waypoint (as I understand it) implies your cache is a physical container, be it a bison or ammo can or whatever. In other words, this stage/waypoint could be a cache in its own right if the CO designed it that way. Thus treating physical stages the same as Traditionals/etc in the proximity guidelines.

 

If the physical stages were exempt from the proximity rules then there is nothing to stop Cacher A from laying out a multi then having Cacher B place a Traditional right next to one (or all) of the stages, spoiling and/or confusing those attempting the multi.

 

If the CO erroneously has their non-physical stages (i.e. "Reference Points" / "Questions To Answer") listed as "Stages Of A Multicache" in their waypoint type a Reviewer usually has no real way to know this. Even if a cacher said "I've done the multi and there aren't physical stages" I think the Reviewer is supposed to go by what the CO submitted?

 

So, by this logic, I could place Stage 1 of my multi on one side of a very large park, create a plethora of potential Stage 2 waypoints peppered ALL OVER the park (only one of which actually has a physical container with co-ordinates), and then put the final on the other side of the park. Thus effectively 'claiming' the entire park for myself and preventing any new caches?

 

Has anyone ever actually tried such a stunt?

Edited June 12, 2011 by Joshism

[+Too Tall John]

Ok, so at first, I was a bit confused. GCQMZ5 is in Austria, and isn't a multi, as I was expecting from the OP.

 

So, I went and looked at their profile. First, noticed that they're fellow Granite Staters! Second, found that they have found GCQZM5.

 

From the sounds of it, each possible answer has been waypointed? Try emailing the cache owner, mrducky, and see if they'll change any of the waypoints, on the cache page they're all hidden anyways and the cache itself is more about using UTM than about anything else. Can't hurt to ask, and mrducky seems nice enough guy, he might just help you out!

[+webscouter.]

One of the problems you may be running up against in your particular location is that each stage is unknown. There might be a container there but you don't know until you search. If you place your cache stages there they may be misidentified as the containers for the other cache.

[jholly]

Has anyone ever actually tried such a stunt?

yes

[+Lil Devil]

Try emailing the cache owner, mrducky, and see if they'll change any of the waypoints, on the cache page they're all hidden anyways and the cache itself is more about using UTM than about anything else. Can't hurt to ask, and mrducky seems nice enough guy, he might just help you out!

Best idea in this thread.

[+teadams]

If it's a 'the cache could here or here' thing, and then your cache gets placed within the guideline proximity to one spot, it does rather say 'this is not really the cache spot' for the other cache.

 

As such, I can see the reviewers decision not to let you have the spot.

At first I was about to go full on against this reviewer. I've never had someone post something so logical that changed my opinion completely. I never looked at it like that!

 

Thanks!

 

I agree with reviewer then.

 

I really don't think my caches would cause that type of a problem. Looking for the Multi, the owner suggests you use a Topo map and uses UTM coordinates. I'm using the more standard WGS 84. Certainly you can convert them but the clues ('closest to a beaver dam') would get you to look at the map, not other caches that might, or might not be, in any certain area.

The original comment however is a valid one that I had thought about but didn't really spend much time with.

All you can do is wait for a reviewer response now...

 

and I'm still waiting! Haven't heard word one from the review after he gave me the initial 'to close' response, even thought I've asked him twice to please verify the info and if he knew which waypoints has stuff at them and which were just dummy placeholders.

 

I'm now thinking of making it a puzzle cache but guess I would have the same problem even then.

[+teadams]

Try emailing the cache owner, mrducky, and see if they'll change any of the waypoints, on the cache page they're all hidden anyways and the cache itself is more about using UTM than about anything else. Can't hurt to ask, and mrducky seems nice enough guy, he might just help you out!

Best idea in this thread.

 

While this might sound like a good idea, it really isn't. mrducky is using laminated plastic tags tied to trees with all of the next 'choices' for you to check out. As such, he would need to verify each 'new spot' (at least IF the reviewer is making you avoid _all_ waypoints), make new laminated plastic tags, go out, remove the old and replace with the new.

 

This weekend, weather permitting, I will be moving one and checking out a couple of new spots for the other.

 

Still haven't figured out why I've never gotten an answer to my questions sent directly to the reviewer!

[+teadams]

It doesn't matter if the Wp is "vacant" or not. It's a waypoint for an established cache, and you have to be 528 feet from it.

 

Not according to the guidelines. Looking at the pictures at <http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=304#saturation> it shows as acceptable placing something 400 ft (122m) for, as the guideline call it "non-physical stage with no physical elements placed by the cache owner"

[+teadams]

 

If you look at GCQMZ5 you will get an idea of what I am up against.

 

Um, can you confirm that GC code? GCQMZ5 is in Austria.

 

Sorry - it's GCQZM5. In New Hampshire. Sorry for the Typo, and if your in the area, that multi is a fun one to do!

[+teadams]

One of the problems you may be running up against in your particular location is that each stage is unknown. There might be a container there but you don't know until you search. If you place your cache stages there they may be misidentified as the containers for the other cache.

 

I've done the Multi and know that there is only a physical presents at one of the 4 locations given at any of the waypoints so my caches should not cause a problem that way.

[+Lil Devil]

Still haven't figured out why I've never gotten an answer to my questions sent directly to the reviewer!

How did you send your questions to the reviewer? If it was via a note on the page, it's possible he hasn't seen it. Did he disable the page? It's likely he'll never see the page again unless you enable it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Dispensation might have been given in this case, but it seems to be against the guidelines. 'Physical' object. (Would include the spray paint on the bridge, the magnetized sheet under the bridge railing &c)

I hope a geocacher wouldn't apply spray paint on a bridge...at least not without permission.

And you think it's never happened? Would you like to buy a bridge?

 

But, to OP: Not sure of the time frame. Originally, additional waypoints were not recorded.

Then they were listed, but did not differentiate between physial and non-physical. Now, there is a differentiation. But I'm not sure if the COs understand the difference.

If the stage that interferes with your cache is not anything physical, then you should be able to explain that to the reviewer. "It says: Take the second letter or every word on the plaque..." But if it's a nano witha message:

"Nope. You Guessed Wrong", then you may be out of luck

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Try emailing the cache owner, mrducky, and see if they'll change any of the waypoints, on the cache page they're all hidden anyways and the cache itself is more about using UTM than about anything else. Can't hurt to ask, and mrducky seems nice enough guy, he might just help you out!

Best idea in this thread.

 

While this might sound like a good idea, it really isn't. mrducky is using laminated plastic tags tied to trees with all of the next 'choices' for you to check out. As such, he would need to verify each 'new spot' (at least IF the reviewer is making you avoid _all_ waypoints), make new laminated plastic tags, go out, remove the old and replace with the new.

 

I guess I'm confused. Are there laminated tags at the dummy waypoints? What Too Tall John was suggesting was asking the CO to edit the waypoint style in the cache listing (change it from Stages of a multicache to Reference Point). As long as there isn't anything physically at each waypoint, dummy or otherwise, he wouldn't have to change a thing in the field. By changing the WP to a Reference Point, that dummy waypoint would no longer be subject to the saturation guideline. As long as there is nothing physically at the waypoint, the CO might be willing to make the change and free up the spot for your cache. If there is something there, such as a laminated tag, then it needs to be listed as Stages of a multicache and block off a 528' circle.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I also wanted to mention that if a CO has a 10 stage multi, each stage can be set to be a Stages, Reference Point or Question to Answer. It's not a case that all waypoints have to be listed as either Stages or Reference. So, the CO could set just the one waypoint as a reference point to free up the location for your cache while keeping the rest of the waypoints as Stages of a Multicache. It wouldn't hurt to ask.

[+palmetto]

How did you send your questions to the reviewer? If it was via a note on the page, it's possible he hasn't seen it. Did he disable the page? It's likely he'll never see the page again unless you enable it.

 

Your cache is disabled. No one has it on watch, so no one sees the reviewer notes you've been posting.

 

I don't know whether your reviewer would prefer that you email directly with the GC Code, and ask that he consider your question, or just enable it to make it visible again.

[+teadams]

Still haven't figured out why I've never gotten an answer to my questions sent directly to the reviewer!

How did you send your questions to the reviewer? If it was via a note on the page, it's possible he hasn't seen it. Did he disable the page? It's likely he'll never see the page again unless you enable it.

 

I posted a note on the page and resubmitted (enabled) it. I also (IIRC) emailed him directly through the web site.

[+teadams]

Try emailing the cache owner, mrducky, and see if they'll change any of the waypoints, on the cache page they're all hidden anyways and the cache itself is more about using UTM than about anything else. Can't hurt to ask, and mrducky seems nice enough guy, he might just help you out!

Best idea in this thread.

 

While this might sound like a good idea, it really isn't. mrducky is using laminated plastic tags tied to trees with all of the next 'choices' for you to check out. As such, he would need to verify each 'new spot' (at least IF the reviewer is making you avoid _all_ waypoints), make new laminated plastic tags, go out, remove the old and replace with the new.

 

I guess I'm confused. Are there laminated tags at the dummy waypoints? What Too Tall John was suggesting was asking the CO to edit the waypoint style in the cache listing (change it from Stages of a multicache to Reference Point). As long as there isn't anything physically at each waypoint, dummy or otherwise, he wouldn't have to change a thing in the field. By changing the WP to a Reference Point, that dummy waypoint would no longer be subject to the saturation guideline. As long as there is nothing physically at the waypoint, the CO might be willing to make the change and free up the spot for your cache. If there is something there, such as a laminated tag, then it needs to be listed as Stages of a multicache and block off a 528' circle.

 

As for your confusion - from the posting of the multi "The correct answer will lead you to the next waypoint. The incorrect answers will lead you astray. There is nothing to find at the coordinates given by the incorrect answers."

I'm off to move at least one of the caches in a few minutes so the problem will be solved, I hope, later this week.

[+teadams]

How did you send your questions to the reviewer? If it was via a note on the page, it's possible he hasn't seen it. Did he disable the page? It's likely he'll never see the page again unless you enable it.

 

Your cache is disabled. No one has it on watch, so no one sees the reviewer notes you've been posting.

 

I don't know whether your reviewer would prefer that you email directly with the GC Code, and ask that he consider your question, or just enable it to make it visible again.

 

When I update my listing and resubmit it, doesn't it go back to the reviewer?

[+palmetto]

When I update my listing and resubmit it, doesn't it go back to the reviewer?

 

Unfortunately, I don't know what you mean by either term, "update" or "resubmit".

 

What I see is a disabled, unpublished cache with some reviewer notes, by you, posted since the cache was disabled by the reviewer. That disable log by the reviewer says, "Re-enable when ready" and at the top of cache page you have the standard language

 

Cache issues:

 

*The reviewers will not see this listing until you enable it.

 

 

Reviewer notes are NOT forwarded to reviewers. They're just laying there on the cache page. When the cache is first seen on queue, the notes are there. If after an initial review, the reviewer wants to continue to see notes as email, they have to put the cache on Watch.

\

[+terrkan78]

So it sounds like the multi you've been up against doesn't have its waypoints marked as "reference points" (or "non-physical" stages), but instead has them marked as regular waypoints (per Hemlock's response way up above). It makes sense then that a reviewer would deny yours, because he'd have no way of knowing the stages were non-physical.

 

But one question all this raises in my mind is whether a laminated tag is a "non-physical" waypoint or not. I mean, technically there is something physical (a laminated tag). If I was setting up a multi like that (and I might some day), I honestly wouldn't know what to call my waypoints.

 

The other question all this raises is the intriguing possibility that a multi/puzzle could have all its interim waypoints properly marked as reference points (non-physical) and could *still* block others from putting new caches within .1 of each non-physical stage, even though the knowledge books specifically state otherwise, just because a reviewer is concerned that the new cache might "hurt" the pre-existing multi/puzzle. That seems really wrong.

[+teadams]

When I update my listing and resubmit it, doesn't it go back to the reviewer?

 

Unfortunately, I don't know what you mean by either term, "update" or "resubmit".

 

What I see is a disabled, unpublished cache with some reviewer notes, by you, posted since the cache was disabled by the reviewer. That disable log by the reviewer says, "Re-enable when ready" and at the top of cache page you have the standard language

 

Cache issues:

 

*The reviewers will not see this listing until you enable it.

 

 

Reviewer notes are NOT forwarded to reviewers. They're just laying there on the cache page. When the cache is first seen on queue, the notes are there. If after an initial review, the reviewer wants to continue to see notes as email, they have to put the cache on Watch.

\

 

When I added my notes by editing the site page, I checked the 2 boxes at the bottom of the listing and then hit the 'resubmit' button. I have totally missed the check box at the top of the page on the re-submitts so guess it's my fault that I've heard nothing. Since I've moved both caches earlier today I will now check it and resubmit.

Thanks for finally getting it into my thick head I was missing that one more step.

[+Team OPJim]

Part of the problem is that the "multi" in question is a bit of a hybrid: it is a multi-stage cache but it is also a puzzle cache. If the rules are followed, then having one of you caches "near" a false waypoint could result in someone finding your cache and thinking it was the next stage. Short of moving your own caches, the only other option is asking the CO of the multi to move a "false stage."

 

As far as contacting reviewers, I have found that emailing them directly is much more effective that adding a log to the cache. I've also found that they were generally very helpful. However, they tend to be quite rigid on the 528 feet rule. I had one disallowed for being only 400 feet horizontally from another cache, even though it was up a 200 foot cliff and it took approximately 20 minutes to hike from one site to the other. Alas, they are reviewing based on google maps, and don't see the area and the terrain.

[Keystone]

As far as contacting reviewers, I have found that emailing them directly is much more effective that adding a log to the cache. I've also found that they were generally very helpful.

While all reviewers aspire to be helpful, different reviewers will have different preferences about communication. For a pending cache submission, I prefer for all communication to appear as logs on the cache page. If you send me an email about a pending cache, you will receive a form letter telling you to leave a reviewer note on the cache page. The point is, follow the instructions given by YOUR reviewer regarding the preferred means of communication. There are at least three different commonly preferred methods.

 

However, they tend to be quite rigid on the 528 feet rule. I had one disallowed for being only 400 feet horizontally from another cache, even though it was up a 200 foot cliff and it took approximately 20 minutes to hike from one site to the other. Alas, they are reviewing based on google maps, and don't see the area and the terrain.

You will find great flexibility as the distance approaches 528 feet. You will find great flexibility when the conflict is with a hidden waypoint, but again, within a tolerable band of distance.

 

But... show me where in the guidelines is there recognition that a "natural barrier" automatically qualifies a cache for an exception to the cache saturation guideline? (Hint: it isn't there.) Any such flexibility is due solely to your reviewer's good graces.