Reviewer guidelines moan

[+TeamAH3]

So, I placed a small/regular cache recently that involves a tough climb across a fallen tree over a fast river - a pretty straight terrain 4. Unfortunately there is already a 1/1 nano stuck to a gate next to a main road 140m away so the reviewer won't approve my cache as it's too close. Obviously I can't move the tree or the river so I guess this cache won't get listed.

 

Well - it will, as I just put it on terracaching.com instead. Have fun with that dull nano geocaching.com... Sad that such dull caches can stop decent ones getting listed.

[Clan Riffster]

Uh... I'm thinking this post belongs either at Terracaching.com or PetulantCacheOwners.com, not here.

[+Coldgears]

So, I placed a small/regular cache recently that involves a tough climb across a fallen tree over a fast river - a pretty straight terrain 4. Unfortunately there is already a 1/1 nano stuck to a gate next to a main road 140m away so the reviewer won't approve my cache as it's too close. Obviously I can't move the tree or the river so I guess this cache won't get listed.

 

Well - it will, as I just put it on terracaching.com instead. Have fun with that dull nano geocaching.com... Sad that such dull caches can stop decent ones getting listed.

Honestly, climbing a tough tree over a fast river, and risking my life is not my cup of tea. Nor is spending 100's if not 1000's for the gear to do so safely. If given the choice I'd pick the nano, simply because I am able to (I'm sure many of the people in your area see it the same way.)

 

Have you tried E-mailing the CO? I'm sure he would be willing to accommodate...

Edited June 12, 2011 by Coldgears

[GOF and Bacall]

Why is it so many people come in here with the idea that "my cache should be above the rules"?

[knowschad]

I know you are feeling disappointed, but that is just the way it sometimes works out. First come, first serve. Put a watch on the nano, and if/when it gets archived, be the first one there to put your cache in. Nothing else you can do. Of course, you should have checked BEFORE you went through the work of hiding your cache. But that's how we learn.

[+wiseye]

HHmmm...lets see...place one cache..and the rules are wrong..yes, of course you should hold your breath until you turn blue...you have ever right to do so...you have been horribly mistreated..the world awaits you next cache....

[knowschad]

So, I placed a small/regular cache recently that involves a tough climb across a fallen tree over a fast river - a pretty straight terrain 4. Unfortunately there is already a 1/1 nano stuck to a gate next to a main road 140m away so the reviewer won't approve my cache as it's too close. Obviously I can't move the tree or the river so I guess this cache won't get listed.

 

Well - it will, as I just put it on terracaching.com instead. Have fun with that dull nano geocaching.com... Sad that such dull caches can stop decent ones getting listed.

Your first paragraph is what I responded to. That part wasn't so bad. I empathized with what that feels like.

 

Your second paragraph, however, is what caused so many critical responses. You are not entitled to an area just because, in your opinion, your cache is better than someone else's cache. That holds true on this listing site and on every other listing site that I'm aware of.

[+TeamAH3]

Uh... I'm thinking this post belongs either at Terracaching.com or PetulantCacheOwners.com, not here.

RatherDrunkCacheOwners.com actually.

[+steben6]

Uh... I'm thinking this post belongs either at Terracaching.com or PetulantCacheOwners.com, not here.

+1

[+TeamAH3]

So, I placed a small/regular cache recently that involves a tough climb across a fallen tree over a fast river - a pretty straight terrain 4. Unfortunately there is already a 1/1 nano stuck to a gate next to a main road 140m away so the reviewer won't approve my cache as it's too close. Obviously I can't move the tree or the river so I guess this cache won't get listed.

 

Well - it will, as I just put it on terracaching.com instead. Have fun with that dull nano geocaching.com... Sad that such dull caches can stop decent ones getting listed.

Your first paragraph is what I responded to. That part wasn't so bad. I empathized with what that feels like.

 

Your second paragraph, however, is what caused so many critical responses. You are not entitled to an area just because, in your opinion, your cache is better than someone else's cache. That holds true on this listing site and on every other listing site that I'm aware of.

No one said I was entitled to an area - but the guideline it just that, it suggests caches are not placed within 160m of others but this is not a hard and fast rule. I guess I'm just a bit depressed that an unimaginative nano is stopping my cache getting listed for the sake of +/- 20m. Still, tomorrow I'll be sober and won't care so much that I climbed a couple of times across that tree to place a cache that won't get listed.

[+Ecylram]

No one said I was entitled to an area - but the guideline it just that, it suggests caches are not placed within 160m of others but this is not a hard and fast rule. I guess I'm just a bit depressed that an unimaginative nano is stopping my cache getting listed for the sake of +/- 20m. Still, tomorrow I'll be sober and won't care so much that I climbed a couple of times across that tree to place a cache that won't get listed.

 

Didn't you check the area for nearby caches before submitting your cache?

[+lamoracke]

pretty standard rule of Geocaching to avoid saturation, do not see the problem. They beat you to the spot. Happens to everyone. Have fun with TerraCaching and having almost no one find it. I long surrendered on ever using that website again. Way too unfriendly in so many ways its not worth listing.

[+Walts Hunting]

What a shame that you can't throw other caches away to make way for yours. This is a terrible shame. You can put in on the alternate sites and I am sure it will get a find every few years. We will miss you.

[Bolivar Bill]

Can't you just move the cache another 20 meters but still have to cross the tree? I'd do one like that.

[+Student Camper]

"but this is not a hard and fast rule."

 

Actually, I find this to be a fairly "hard and fast" rule, It seems to be rarely, if ever, compromised.

There are, of course, exceptions for everything and there may have been for this, but I'm not aware of any.

[+StarBrand]

"but this is not a hard and fast rule."

 

Actually, I find this to be a fairly "hard and fast" rule, It seems to be rarely, if ever, compromised.

There are, of course, exceptions for everything and there may have been for this, but I'm not aware of any.

I'm aware of several exceptions. Because somebody thinks their cache is 'cooler' does not happened to be one of the reasons an exception is granted.

[knowschad]

So, I placed a small/regular cache recently that involves a tough climb across a fallen tree over a fast river - a pretty straight terrain 4. Unfortunately there is already a 1/1 nano stuck to a gate next to a main road 140m away so the reviewer won't approve my cache as it's too close. Obviously I can't move the tree or the river so I guess this cache won't get listed.

 

Well - it will, as I just put it on terracaching.com instead. Have fun with that dull nano geocaching.com... Sad that such dull caches can stop decent ones getting listed.

Your first paragraph is what I responded to. That part wasn't so bad. I empathized with what that feels like.

 

Your second paragraph, however, is what caused so many critical responses. You are not entitled to an area just because, in your opinion, your cache is better than someone else's cache. That holds true on this listing site and on every other listing site that I'm aware of.

No one said I was entitled to an area - but the guideline it just that, it suggests caches are not placed within 160m of others but this is not a hard and fast rule. I guess I'm just a bit depressed that an unimaginative nano is stopping my cache getting listed for the sake of +/- 20m. Still, tomorrow I'll be sober and won't care so much that I climbed a couple of times across that tree to place a cache that won't get listed.

 

Consider it to be a hard & fast rule. If there are any exceptions these days, I doubt anybody here has heard of them. Well, maybe 10 feet or so.

 

And yes, you very much sounded as though you felt entitled, which is why I said that.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

There are two things that I do before I put a cache out. Well, there are more but these two are within the scope of this conversation.

 

1. I look at the GC map, to see if there are any caches close to where I want to put mine. If not, goto step #3.

 

2. If there is a cache close, and I think there's a good possibility it might be less than 160m / 528 ft, I put the coordinates of the cache that was there first in my GPS, and head out to the site I picked out. If I'm over, great. Goto step #3. If not, I find another spot.

 

Pretty simple, really.

[Clan Riffster]

Can't you just move the cache another 20 meters but still have to cross the tree?

Bill, must you interject common sense into every conversation?

[+Coldgears]

Can't you just move the cache another 20 meters but still have to cross the tree?

Bill, must you interject common sense into every conversation?

I'm assuming that another 20 meters and it's either at the bottom of a "rapid river" or it's on the other side of the "river" in which, tree crossing would not be necessary and it would not be a T4.

[Mr.Yuck]

Can't you just move the cache another 20 meters but still have to cross the tree?

Bill, must you interject common sense into every conversation?

 

Despite doomsday scenarios being presented, I've actually only seen one lame-assed micro in my almost 8 yr. Geocaching career that was blocking "better" caches from being placed. This was a magnetic micro stuck to a trailhead sign in a town park. The micro is long gone, and there are caches there now. So just wait them out.

 

Of course you're in The Netherlands I see, so go ahead and list on Terracacing, or the Opencaching family of websites, if you can't wait.

[+Sioneva]

pretty standard rule of Geocaching to avoid saturation***, do not see the problem. They beat you to the spot. Happens to everyone. Have fun with TerraCaching and having almost no one find it. I long surrendered on ever using that website again. Way too unfriendly in so many ways its not worth listing.

 

*** Alcohol saturation is a different matter.

[+Ambient_Skater]

If there is a cache close, and I think there's a good possibility it might be less than 160m / 528 ft, I put the coordinates of the cache that was there first in my GPS, and head out to the site I picked out. If I'm over, great. Goto step #3. If not, I find another spot.

 

Pretty simple, really.

Wouldn't it be simpler to measure the distances in Google Earth?

[+Vater_Araignee]

If there is a cache close, and I think there's a good possibility it might be less than 160m / 528 ft, I put the coordinates of the cache that was there first in my GPS, and head out to the site I picked out. If I'm over, great. Goto step #3. If not, I find another spot.

 

Pretty simple, really.

Wouldn't it be simpler to measure the distances in Google Earth?

Or even simpler with GSAK.

[+Ambient_Skater]

Obviously I can't move the tree or the river...

But you can. All you need is an excavator, a dump truck, and a lot of gravel for the river.

[+briansnat]

Of course you're in The Netherlands I see, so go ahead and list on Terracacing, or the Opencaching family of websites, if you can't wait.

 

Doesn't he want people to actually find his cache?

[+Bear and Ragged]

Uh... I'm thinking this post belongs either at Terracaching.com or PetulantCacheOwners.com, not here.

RatherDrunkCacheOwners.com actually.

 

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

If there is a cache close, and I think there's a good possibility it might be less than 160m / 528 ft, I put the coordinates of the cache that was there first in my GPS, and head out to the site I picked out. If I'm over, great. Goto step #3. If not, I find another spot.

 

Pretty simple, really.

Wouldn't it be simpler to measure the distances in Google Earth?

Or even simpler with GSAK.

Yes, and yes. Sometimes you have to keep your examples "simple". Knowhatimean?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

"but this is not a hard and fast rule."

 

Actually, I find this to be a fairly "hard and fast" rule, It seems to be rarely, if ever, compromised.

There are, of course, exceptions for everything and there may have been for this, but I'm not aware of any.

 

Yes, there are exceptions but they're not very common. There have been cases where a cache which is less than 528 feet from another cache has been published when there is a significant physical barrier between it and an existing cache. However, what the OP is asking for is an allowance based on the subjective quality of the cache. Reviewers don't factor in the quality of the cache when determining if a cache should or should not be published, nor should they.

[Glennren]

You could muggle the nano if your desperate...

[+vincenzosi]

You could muggle the nano if your desperate...

 

I was thinking that, but didn't have the testicular fortitude to say so.

[Mr.Yuck]

Of course you're in The Netherlands I see, so go ahead and list on Terracacing, or the Opencaching family of websites, if you can't wait.

 

Doesn't he want people to actually find his cache?

 

When he sobers up he'll figure that out.

[+CanadianRockies]

I've actually only seen one lame-assed micro in my almost 8 yr. Geocaching career that was blocking "better" caches from being placed.

I'm rather curious about how you made such a determination, unless, of course, you've only encountered a single lame-assed micro in your career.

[+DanOCan]

Can't you just move the cache another 20 meters but still have to cross the tree? I'd do one like that.

 

This was my immediate thought too -- you've crossed the river and the tree, just walk another 20m or so and hide the cache there.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

So, I placed a small/regular cache recently that involves a tough climb across a fallen tree over a fast river - a pretty straight terrain 4. Unfortunately there is already a 1/1 nano stuck to a gate next to a main road 140m away so the reviewer won't approve my cache as it's too close. Obviously I can't move the tree or the river so I guess this cache won't get listed.

 

Well - it will, as I just put it on terracaching.com instead. Have fun with that dull nano geocaching.com... Sad that such dull caches can stop decent ones getting listed.

Wah!

 

My guess is that Groundspeak, if they responded to such drivel at all, would respond with "We don't want all the geocachers, just the ones willing to follow the guidelines!"

 

At least that's my response.

Edited June 12, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Mushroom finder]

So are you going to be disappointed when someone finds your cache by approaching from the other side of the creek where they don't have to cross the tree? Looks to me like there are plenty of places to start from on both sides of the creek.

 

Despite doomsday scenarios being presented, I've actually only seen one lame-assed micro in my almost 8 yr. Geocaching career that was blocking "better" caches from being placed. This was a magnetic micro stuck to a trailhead sign in a town park. The micro is long gone, and there are caches there now. So just wait them out.

 

My guess is that the nano is gonna win the stare down. Somehow I suspect that it will only take one or two good rains before a cache hidden in a drain pipe near a creek washes away.

[+joranda]

Of course you're in The Netherlands I see, so go ahead and list on Terracacing, or the Opencaching family of websites, if you can't wait.

 

Doesn't he want people to actually find his cache?

 

I think that is why he is trying to get it published.

[jholly]

Of course you're in The Netherlands I see, so go ahead and list on Terracacing, or the Opencaching family of websites, if you can't wait.

 

Doesn't he want people to actually find his cache?

 

I think that is why he is trying to get it published.

Of course he wants it published, but the attitude is my ammo can trumps your nano.

[+Shop99er]

So, I placed a small/regular cache recently that involves a tough climb across a fallen tree over a fast river - a pretty straight terrain 4. Unfortunately there is already a 1/1 nano stuck to a gate next to a main road 140m away so the reviewer won't approve my cache as it's too close. Obviously I can't move the tree or the river so I guess this cache won't get listed.

 

Well - it will, as I just put it on terracaching.com instead. Have fun with that dull nano geocaching.com... Sad that such dull caches can stop decent ones getting listed.

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

I will add myself to those suggesting:

 

1) Move your ammo can a little further away from the nano. If the goal is to get them to cross the river via the tree, as long as it is on the 'far side' of the tree from normal access it accomplishes its goal.

2) Politely ask the nano owner to move/archive their cache, explaining your cache idea and the proximity issue. I recommend not mentioning in that message that you think their nano is lame.

[Mr.Yuck]

I've actually only seen one lame-assed micro in my almost 8 yr. Geocaching career that was blocking "better" caches from being placed.

I'm rather curious about how you made such a determination, unless, of course, you've only encountered a single lame-assed micro in your career.

 

Simple. There is a Town Park in a semi-rural area about 25 miles from me. This Town Park has a Nature Trail out back behind the baseball fields. The first ever cache placed in this Town Park was a zero-difficulty micro on the trailhead sign. This blocked the first 528 of the Nature Trail from having a "cache in the woods" so to speak.

 

I've seen many complaints that a micro could block out a "better" cache, but it's pretty much the only time I've ever personally observed such a situation. There is now an ammo box about 300 feet from the long since archived micro.

[+CanadianRockies]

I've actually only seen one lame-assed micro in my almost 8 yr. Geocaching career that was blocking "better" caches from being placed.

I'm rather curious about how you made such a determination, unless, of course, you've only encountered a single lame-assed micro in your career.

Simple. There is a Town Park in a semi-rural area about 25 miles from me. This Town Park has a Nature Trail out back behind the baseball fields. The first ever cache placed in this Town Park was a zero-difficulty micro on the trailhead sign. This blocked the first 528 of the Nature Trail from having a "cache in the woods" so to speak.

 

I've seen many complaints that a micro could block out a "better" cache, but it's pretty much the only time I've ever personally observed such a situation.

So it's possible you could have actually seen dozens of other "lame" micros that are blocking "better" caches from being placed nearby, but you just aren't aware that other people might have wanted to place their caches in those vicinities.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I've actually only seen one lame-assed micro in my almost 8 yr. Geocaching career that was blocking "better" caches from being placed.

I'm rather curious about how you made such a determination, unless, of course, you've only encountered a single lame-assed micro in your career.

 

Simple. There is a Town Park in a semi-rural area about 25 miles from me. This Town Park has a Nature Trail out back behind the baseball fields. The first ever cache placed in this Town Park was a zero-difficulty micro on the trailhead sign. This blocked the first 528 of the Nature Trail from having a "cache in the woods" so to speak.

 

I've seen many complaints that a micro could block out a "better" cache, but it's pretty much the only time I've ever personally observed such a situation. There is now an ammo box about 300 feet from the long since archived micro.

 

A "better" cache wasn't blocked...you just had to go further to place it. I would only consider that micro as blocking a placement if you had a specific need for a spot or there was something of interest within 528 feet of the trailhead (waterfall, cave, weird looking tree, etc). For example, let's say I have a huge container that I'm looking to place and 300' from the trailhead sign, I find a huge tree that is away from the trails and has a hollowed out trunk that would shield my container perfectly. Before I can get everything all set, someone slaps a micro on the sign and effectively blocks me from using that tree. I search the rest of the park/woods and find no other spot that will work, so I've been "blocked" by the micro. If I was looking to place an ammo can in a stump or behind a tree, that micro wouldn't have blocked me...I could just go a little further and find a new spot.

[+DanOCan]

There was a period of time where every garbage can in the area was getting a micro attached to it. I found a roadside turnout that didn't have a micro yet and went out to hide a Regular size container there, making sure to keep the garbage can within the proximity circle of my cache.

 

Why is we never hear anyone complain about good caches blocking crappy ones?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Take your chainsaw, find a tree 600' up or downstream, drop the tree across the stream, hide your cache. Really, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

[Mr.Yuck]

I've actually only seen one lame-assed micro in my almost 8 yr. Geocaching career that was blocking "better" caches from being placed.

I'm rather curious about how you made such a determination, unless, of course, you've only encountered a single lame-assed micro in your career.

Simple. There is a Town Park in a semi-rural area about 25 miles from me. This Town Park has a Nature Trail out back behind the baseball fields. The first ever cache placed in this Town Park was a zero-difficulty micro on the trailhead sign. This blocked the first 528 of the Nature Trail from having a "cache in the woods" so to speak.

 

I've seen many complaints that a micro could block out a "better" cache, but it's pretty much the only time I've ever personally observed such a situation.

So it's possible you could have actually seen dozens of other "lame" micros that are blocking "better" caches from being placed nearby, but you just aren't aware that other people might have wanted to place their caches in those vicinities.

 

I'm actually confused by yours and Crow T Robot's (not the famous reviewer of a very similar name) posts. I am most certainly an advocate for small or regular sized caches in the woods. In my area, which I'm very familiar with, that is really the only example I can think of of a micro blocking other cache placements. Of course I'm not a reviewer, and don't see what is rejected on a regular basis. I dunno man, are you guys on the same sheet of music here, that a micro blocking other caches is extremely rare, if it even happens at all, or are you telling me it happens much more often than I'm aware of?

 

Or you both could be of the dance around in circles holding hands singing Kum-ba-yah "no cache is lame" genre. I seriously don't get where you guys are going with this.

[+coman123]

And over 50 percent of the caches you have found are micros,

Followed by 27 percent being small

 

So obviously you do not mind Micros and smalls that much, seeing over 3/4 of your caches are them.

 

And the only cache you had listed on GC.com is a micro ???????????????

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

I'm actually confused by yours and Crow T Robot's (not the famous reviewer of a very similar name) posts. I am most certainly an advocate for small or regular sized caches in the woods. In my area, which I'm very familiar with, that is really the only example I can think of of a micro blocking other cache placements. Of course I'm not a reviewer, and don't see what is rejected on a regular basis. I dunno man, are you guys on the same sheet of music here, that a micro blocking other caches is extremely rare, if it even happens at all, or are you telling me it happens much more often than I'm aware of?

 

Or you both could be of the dance around in circles holding hands singing Kum-ba-yah "no cache is lame" genre. I seriously don't get where you guys are going with this.

 

I have no idea how often caches are blocked by other caches. And yes, the micro on a sign, in this instance, is a lame cache. But what I was refuting was that it was blocking other caches from being placed. It wasn't. Blocking other caches from being placed within 528' of the trailhead? Yes, but not from being placed further down the line. If you were just going to park an ammo can behind a tree or in a stump, you could do that .10 of a mile up the trail and get your cache published.

[+CanadianRockies]

I dunno man, are you guys on the same sheet of music here, that a micro blocking other caches is extremely rare, if it even happens at all, or are you telling me it happens much more often than I'm aware of?

I don't know about Crow T Robot, but I'm suggesting that you probably aren't aware how often "lame" micros block "better" caches from being placed at particular locations. I don't know how you would be aware of how often this occurs. Even reviewers are very unlikely to be aware of all the cases.

 

I've had "better" caches that I've wanted to place at scenic or interesting places. When I checked, however, "lame" micros were too close to the spots I had selected. I never revealed this to our local reviewers or anyone else. I'm fairly sure this also has happened to numerous other people.

[+Rifleman68]

personally id send the Nano owner a email and ask him to pull his Nano for you. tell him you have a cool 4/4 hid with loot to go to close to his and cant move it..he might not be a whiner and archive his listing for yours. i would