Jump to content

Too Close for Comfort


Recommended Posts

Kinda funny first time I have seen this in our area there was a cache published in a Park, not to uncommon except for the fact it is only 230ft away from another cache in th same Park. Both are Traditionals....but you don't see that everyday....maybe Groundspeak is loosening the distance rule.. :laughing: :laughing:

 

If you want to check it out here are the GC numbers (sorry for not putting a direct link I don't know how)

 

GC2ZDWC

GC2VGC5

 

SS

Edited by Scubasonic
Link to comment

My understanding was that there are a few caches placed before the .1 mile recommendation, although I haven't looked to see how old those caches are.

Also another possibility is that a cache was moved a few hundred feet after publication. Moving a cache doesn't put it back in the review pool.

Link to comment

Thus why it is a guideline and not a 'rule'.

 

I know of one set in my area that defies any obvious explanation as to why they are only 310 feet apart.

 

I just thought it was funny as I have fought with Reviewers in my area when I submitted a cache one time that was 3 feet to close to another and mine was denied, and there was no discussion.....end of story. I can practically see the other cache from the new one that was published.

 

SS

Link to comment

Thus why it is a guideline and not a 'rule'.

 

I know of one set in my area that defies any obvious explanation as to why they are only 310 feet apart.

 

I just thought it was funny as I have fought with Reviewers in my area when I submitted a cache one time that was 3 feet to close to another and mine was denied, and there was no discussion.....end of story. I can practically see the other cache from the new one that was published.

 

SS

 

as far as I know, we have not yet perfected the robotic reviewer lol.

Kidding

 

This really goes to show that reviewers are all individuals, with different views on the flexibility of the guidelines. I've known some reviewers to be tougher than others.

Link to comment

That totally defies explaination, IMO! We've all heard of, but rarely actually seen, the exceptions due to a geographical or other barrier, but these caches sure have nothing like that, unless the paved path is considered an extreme barrier! There's got to be a story here,& I'd sure love to hear it!

Link to comment

That totally defies explaination, IMO! We've all heard of, but rarely actually seen, the exceptions due to a geographical or other barrier, but these caches sure have nothing like that, unless the paved path is considered an extreme barrier! There's got to be a story here,& I'd sure love to hear it!

ditto, if anyone knows, please share?

Link to comment

That totally defies explaination, IMO! We've all heard of, but rarely actually seen, the exceptions due to a geographical or other barrier, but these caches sure have nothing like that, unless the paved path is considered an extreme barrier! There's got to be a story here,& I'd sure love to hear it!

ditto, if anyone knows, please share?

 

I sent a message to the reviewer so we will see what he says, or if he even responds???

 

SS

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

That totally defies explaination, IMO! We've all heard of, but rarely actually seen, the exceptions due to a geographical or other barrier, but these caches sure have nothing like that, unless the paved path is considered an extreme barrier! There's got to be a story here,& I'd sure love to hear it!

ditto, if anyone knows, please share?

 

Keystone just posted in another thread about being flexible on the proximity guideline and gave an example of two caches, owned by the same person, that were published at the same time and were, if I remember correctly about 475 feet apart. The caches were on opposite sides of a multi lane interstate (I-95, if I recall). It doesn't sound like there would be such a significant physical barrier in a small park, and since both caches were published this year there isn't a grandfather issue. I suspect it's just one that fell through the cracks. I don't know the procedure that reviewers use for proximity checkes (or even if they all use the same procedure) but I imagine that proximity issues come up frequent in a high density cache area like Portland.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Zero excuse whatsoever.

 

I appreciate that our Reviewers are Volunteers, but if they can't handle the job competently along with the rest of their daily lives then they don't need to be in it!

 

I hear that all the time as an excuse... they are volunteers, they have a life, yada yada. I'm a volunteer too, in other communities, and if I get to where I can't balance everything (and it does happen) I ask for help.

 

'I'm over-worked' or 'I'm too busy to do what I do well' is never an acceptable excuse.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Zero excuse whatsoever.

 

I appreciate that our Reviewers are Volunteers, but if they can't handle the job competently along with the rest of their daily lives then they don't need to be in it!

 

I hear that all the time as an excuse... they are volunteers, they have a life, yada yada. I'm a volunteer too, in other communities, and if I get to where I can't balance everything (and it does happen) I ask for help.

 

'I'm over-worked' or 'I'm too busy to do what I do well' is never an acceptable excuse.

 

So a reviewer needs to be perfect? That would certainly limit the potential candidates.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

I am the reviewer who published the cache that is being discussed here, and I've just archived the cache with this note of explanation:

 

Hello,

I am the reviewer who published your Little Prairie Cache on July 6. Unfortunately, I failed to notice that there was an existing premium member cache, GC2VGC5, located only 173 feet away, and published your cache in error. I've archived your cache to give you an opportunity to find a new spot for your cache that's at least the minimum required distance of 528 feet away from existing nearby caches. When you do, please submit a new cache listing that's at least 528 feet away from nearby caches and you'll have a fresh start with your new cache.

 

I apologize for the oversight on my part. Thank you for your contribution to geocaching.

 

Wizard of Ooze

Volunteer Reviewer

Link to comment

I agree that if they are constantly struggling they should let people know/ask for help/step down as appropriate, but we are all only human and do make mistakes.

Just because on one day they may have a lot going on and get something wrong doesn't make them 'incompetent' at the job! It's when further mistakes start creeping in/become more regular that I think your answer applies.

 

(Sorry, we seem to have digressed!)

Link to comment

I am the reviewer who published the cache that is being discussed here, and I've just archived the cache with this note of explanation:

 

Hello,

I am the reviewer who published your Little Prairie Cache on July 6. Unfortunately, I failed to notice that there was an existing premium member cache, GC2VGC5, located only 173 feet away, and published your cache in error. I've archived your cache to give you an opportunity to find a new spot for your cache that's at least the minimum required distance of 528 feet away from existing nearby caches. When you do, please submit a new cache listing that's at least 528 feet away from nearby caches and you'll have a fresh start with your new cache.

 

I apologize for the oversight on my part. Thank you for your contribution to geocaching.

 

Wizard of Ooze

Volunteer Reviewer

 

being human sometimes happens to all of us!!

Link to comment

I am the reviewer who published the cache that is being discussed here, and I've just archived the cache with this note of explanation:

 

Hello,

I am the reviewer who published your Little Prairie Cache on July 6. Unfortunately, I failed to notice that there was an existing premium member cache, GC2VGC5, located only 173 feet away, and published your cache in error. I've archived your cache to give you an opportunity to find a new spot for your cache that's at least the minimum required distance of 528 feet away from existing nearby caches. When you do, please submit a new cache listing that's at least 528 feet away from nearby caches and you'll have a fresh start with your new cache.

 

I apologize for the oversight on my part. Thank you for your contribution to geocaching.

 

Wizard of Ooze

Volunteer Reviewer

 

being human sometimes happens to all of us!!

Even we dogs

Link to comment

Well, that knocks the wind out of that theory. I was thinking maybe all was fine when both were published and then someone move their cache within the saturation limits. Oh, well, just a simple mistake on the part of the reviewer. Putting mark on calendar ...

Link to comment

Oh, no! A reviewer MADE A MISTAKE! Worse, they honestly owned up to it in a public forum! We must immediately rework the whole system - in the meantime, everyone is directed to take cover at opencloning.com, where the offending mistake may not have yet been duplicated...

 

... okay, who slipped the sarcasm pills into my coffee?

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Zero excuse whatsoever.

 

I appreciate that our Reviewers are Volunteers, but if they can't handle the job competently along with the rest of their daily lives then they don't need to be in it!

 

I hear that all the time as an excuse... they are volunteers, they have a life, yada yada. I'm a volunteer too, in other communities, and if I get to where I can't balance everything (and it does happen) I ask for help.

 

'I'm over-worked' or 'I'm too busy to do what I do well' is never an acceptable excuse.

 

That's a ridiculous attitude. You've never made a mistake? Reviewers are not super-human. The Wiz is extremely competent.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Zero excuse whatsoever.

 

I appreciate that our Reviewers are Volunteers, but if they can't handle the job competently along with the rest of their daily lives then they don't need to be in it!

 

I hear that all the time as an excuse... they are volunteers, they have a life, yada yada. I'm a volunteer too, in other communities, and if I get to where I can't balance everything (and it does happen) I ask for help.

 

'I'm over-worked' or 'I'm too busy to do what I do well' is never an acceptable excuse.

 

Little harsh really man,just was making an observation in my post, everybody makes a mistake sometimes. Ooze is really good reviewer in our area, he usually doesn't miss a beat.............and in realty now that he has seen my post here I have to do some MAJOR sucking up otherwise I'll never get anymore of my future caches published !!!! :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

 

I'm SCREWED !!

 

SS

Link to comment

Our local reviewer has been kind enough to pass 2 of my caches that are not in the guidelines. This however is because of the terrain. One is across a river up a bluff like, and the other is down a large slop like 400 feet. Doesn't really matter tho the more in that area the nicer the reward, one more smiley without having to travel, can't complain eh

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Zero excuse whatsoever.

 

I appreciate that our Reviewers are Volunteers, but if they can't handle the job competently along with the rest of their daily lives then they don't need to be in it!

 

I hear that all the time as an excuse... they are volunteers, they have a life, yada yada. I'm a volunteer too, in other communities, and if I get to where I can't balance everything (and it does happen) I ask for help.

 

'I'm over-worked' or 'I'm too busy to do what I do well' is never an acceptable excuse.

 

Little harsh really man,just was making an observation in my post, everybody makes a mistake sometimes. Ooze is really good reviewer in our area, he usually doesn't miss a beat.............and in realty now that he has seen my post here I have to do some MAJOR sucking up otherwise I'll never get anymore of my future caches published !!!! :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

 

I'm SCREWED !!

 

SS

You're really screwed now, the he is a she.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Zero excuse whatsoever.

 

I appreciate that our Reviewers are Volunteers, but if they can't handle the job competently along with the rest of their daily lives then they don't need to be in it!

 

I hear that all the time as an excuse... they are volunteers, they have a life, yada yada. I'm a volunteer too, in other communities, and if I get to where I can't balance everything (and it does happen) I ask for help.

 

'I'm over-worked' or 'I'm too busy to do what I do well' is never an acceptable excuse.

 

WOW. Especially when it's such an easy mistake to fix once discovered.

 

I'm glad most people are willing to forgive mistakes since most of us are mere mortals.

Link to comment

TAR- lighten up. It was just a mistake. An honest mistake. We all make 'em.

 

the cache he missed was a premium member cache so maybe the maps weren't displaying those when he looked at them. I've had the maps suddenly quit displaying the premium member caches many times and I've always been a member.

 

TAR- if you've never made a mistake in your life, then you're the first.

Link to comment

Is it possible that the caches started further apart, but were then moved closer to each other (which can be done without involving the volunteer reviewers)?

There's a limit to the distance a cache owner can move a cache without reviewer involvement (I think the distance is 100 feet). So if two caches started out 528 feet apart, and each cache was moved 100 feet by its owner directly towards the other cache, they'd still be 328 feet apart.

 

In any case, this particular mystery has been solved, and the newer of the two caches have been archived.

Link to comment

Is it possible that the caches started further apart, but were then moved closer to each other (which can be done without involving the volunteer reviewers)?

 

Good grief I never thought about that, refresh my memory - how far can you move a cache? If you can start at .10 how close can you move them?

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Is it possible that the caches started further apart, but were then moved closer to each other (which can be done without involving the volunteer reviewers)?

 

Good grief I never thought about that, refresh my memory - how far can you move a cache? If you can start at .10 how close can you move them?

You can move them up to .1 miles, and then you get an automated message to talk to a Reviewer, I believe.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Zero excuse whatsoever.

 

I appreciate that our Reviewers are Volunteers, but if they can't handle the job competently along with the rest of their daily lives then they don't need to be in it!

 

I hear that all the time as an excuse... they are volunteers, they have a life, yada yada. I'm a volunteer too, in other communities, and if I get to where I can't balance everything (and it does happen) I ask for help.

 

'I'm over-worked' or 'I'm too busy to do what I do well' is never an acceptable excuse.

I guess I am only somewhat surprised by this response TAR. Sadly. Keep in mind that you were once a reviewer. As the one who took over the area that you previously reviewed, seeing these words written by you is rather disappointing. Did you write that? Really?

 

I am going to go with the caches in the original post, but it applies generally. Wiz has done an outstanding job in taking on reviewer duties. She took on a busy area in BC from me and now has additional help there. She knew when to ask for it and got it. She is so well respected in her community. At GeoWoodstock, I had some long conversations with people around her area. We chatted some about her. I had no idea about some of the things she has done up there before putting on the reviewer hat. Such a class act. Such a great person. Such a simple mistake, easy to make. You throw her under the bus for that? Knowing the people up there pretty well, your comments won't sit well with the community there. I know it is offensive to me, and I feel like I am still a part of that community is a small way (waves, miss you folks). I said in another topic that we are all human. You, me, even Keystone. OK, maybe not Keystone. Your comments above show how human you are. You are pretty far off base here. As I try to strive to learn from my mistakes, I hope that you will learn from yours as well. You made a pretty good one with that post.

Link to comment

Is it possible that the caches started further apart, but were then moved closer to each other (which can be done without involving the volunteer reviewers)?

 

I got both FTFs on these caches there was no movement at all on either one, but again not a big deal really.

 

SS

Link to comment

WOW. Especially when it's such an easy mistake to fix once discovered.

I'm not so sure the owner of the archived cache would feel the same way, though.

 

You and Alabama Rambler go ahead and string the reviewer up by his toe nails if it makes you feel better. I learned something about rocks and glass houses growing up. Since I tend to make a lot of dumb mistakes I am willing to give the reviewer a little slack on this one. He did archive the too close cache once it was pointed out.

 

Now if he has a history of making these kind of mistakes you guys may be onto something. But I haven't heard any mention of that yet.

Link to comment

The Wiz has not only been reviewing new caches, but also unarchiving a whole whack of TEAM caches and putting them up for adoption. Errors happen, even to wizards. He had the decency to admit to and apologize for his mistake both on the cache page and here in the forums. Deserves a pat on the back IMO! We need our volunteers, and I am grateful we have them.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

Zero excuse whatsoever.

 

I appreciate that our Reviewers are Volunteers, but if they can't handle the job competently along with the rest of their daily lives then they don't need to be in it!

 

I hear that all the time as an excuse... they are volunteers, they have a life, yada yada. I'm a volunteer too, in other communities, and if I get to where I can't balance everything (and it does happen) I ask for help.

 

'I'm over-worked' or 'I'm too busy to do what I do well' is never an acceptable excuse.

 

Little harsh really man,just was making an observation in my post, everybody makes a mistake sometimes. Ooze is really good reviewer in our area, he usually doesn't miss a beat.............and in realty now that he has seen my post here I have to do some MAJOR sucking up otherwise I'll never get anymore of my future caches published !!!! :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:

 

I'm SCREWED !!

 

SS

You're really screwed now, the he is a she.

 

DANG I'm Double SCREWED..........Shhhish

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

 

Im not buying it Brian!

Link to comment

WOW. Especially when it's such an easy mistake to fix once discovered.

I'm not so sure the owner of the archived cache would feel the same way, though.

 

You and Alabama Rambler go ahead and string the reviewer up by his toe nails if it makes you feel better. I learned something about rocks and glass houses growing up. Since I tend to make a lot of dumb mistakes I am willing to give the reviewer a little slack on this one. He did archive the too close cache once it was pointed out.

 

Now if he has a history of making these kind of mistakes you guys may be onto something. But I haven't heard any mention of that yet.

 

I didn't "string the reviewer up by the toe nails". I simply said what I said. Please don't read any more into my posts than I put in them.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

 

Im not buying it Brian!

What aren't you buying? That people are human and make mistakes sometimes? :huh: It must be nice being you.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

 

Im not buying it Brian!

What aren't you buying? That people are human and make mistakes sometimes? :huh: It must be nice being you.

Link to comment

Maybe it's just a mistake.

 

Could be. Picture after a hard day at work you have dinner and spend a little time with the family. Once the kids are in bed you check the queue and see over 100 caches awaiting review. It's late and you're tired but you have to get up early so you avoid a cup of coffee. Bleary eyed, you try to get through the queue as quickly as possible. Oops, there was a proximity issue you missed. Happens.

 

Im not buying it Brian!

What aren't you buying? That people are human and make mistakes sometimes? :huh: It must be nice being you.

 

He missed a comma. :lol:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...