Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
thebruce0

GC280PA - Ironman Cache a day challenge

Recommended Posts

If any appeal goes through or there's any official update, please post here, as I too will if I have any. Otherwise, there's not much else to say (which would be productive, at least).

 

I spoke to the Sargents at GHAGAFAP and they said that, just as expected, the reply they received from appeals was a flat out "no" without further explanation. They also said that they won't make a new listing because they feel it wouldn't be fair to the past finders.

Share this post


Link to post

I am still trying to understand what the D/T has to do with finding caches 365 days in a row. I assume it doesn't matter if you are a paying customer or not. I would assume the rules apply equally to both.

Share this post


Link to post

If you don't get why the D/T rating of this particular cache is important, then let it go. it's akin to the age old "numbers" debate again. Everybody has different reasons for playing, personal goals, and expectations of the system that's set up. If you're going to debate "I play some way and I don't get why someone else plays another way", then please don't debate.

And leave the dead horse be.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

If you don't get why the D/T rating of this particular cache is important, then let it go. it's akin to the age old "numbers" debate again. Everybody has different reasons for playing, personal goals, and expectations of the system that's set up. If you're going to debate "I play some way and I don't get why someone else plays another way", then please don't debate.

And leave the dead horse be.

 

Nothing better than beating a dead horse when you have nothing better to do. In this case though the horse is not dead yet, at least for me. Unless I missed something I don't think I ever got an answer why the D/T of this cache is so important. I guess I will try the direct approach. Specifically why does this cache have to be a 5/5?

Share this post


Link to post
Specifically why does this cache have to be a 5/5?

 

oh oh oh *raises hand* I know, I know!

 

Because... it's a challenge cache! And there's two parts to it: 1) the challenge, and 2) the cache!

Now that the original cache is gone (or well, the cache is still there, but the listing has been blessed with a big red DENIED stamp), we're talking about a replacement cache.

In order to be a proper replacement cache, both parts of the challenge cache (challenge and cache) have to be equivalent to the original.

Since the original was on an island and was rated T5, any replacement cache therefore would also have to be on an island (or equivalent) and rated T5.

 

Amirite? :D

Share this post


Link to post

More specifically, I think the OP wants to have a challenge cache with a true D/T of 5/5 on his resume. A lot of challenge caches are 5/5 because of the challenge aspect. The terrain rating is often over stated. In this case, it truly is a 5/5.

Share this post


Link to post

so what's the holdup? :unsure:

 

Well, gg and I are trying to get a third party item cleaned up and are both waiting to hear back. Please be patient, all both of us can do is wait.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

so what's the holdup? :unsure:

 

Well, gg and I are trying to get a third party item cleaned up and are both waiting to hear back. Please be patient, all both of us can do is wait.

 

:cool: CD

 

hurry up, we're close to 2nd round of 365 days and we want our smiley

 

 

 

j/k nowhere close to such achievement :laughing:

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

so what's the holdup? :unsure:

 

Well, gg and I are trying to get a third party item cleaned up and are both waiting to hear back. Please be patient, all both of us can do is wait.

 

:cool: CD

 

hurry up, we're close to 2nd round of 365 days and we want our smiley

 

 

 

j/k nowhere close to such achievement :laughing:

 

I can only wait so fast.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

I was surfing the forums looking for something and came across this thread, very interesting. You have a challenge cache that has been archived but people want to adopt it and the reviewer will not allow it. I see pages of people wondering why it can't be done. Well it has been done,I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here but just go to GCG2VM or GCB5BF. Also go to the reviewers website wizardofooze.com and read about team KFWB. They are legendary on Vancouver Island. They started doing very complex and interesting caches at the very start of geocaching. Like GG , they got fed up with Groundspeak and earlier this year archived over 300 caches. There was such an outcry that Groundspeak unarchived some of them and let people adopt them. I think it depends on the cache, the cache owner and the reviewer, if they don't get along there could be a problem and than the "RULES" are enforced. I know I am comparing over 300 caches to 1 but they all are unique and mean something different for everybody, just my 2 cents........

Share this post


Link to post

but come on the people that adopted those caches could have placed new ones and they would have continued "to bring enjoyment and discovery of new places to the next generation of new geocachers", no? :unsure:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/removes sarcasm cap

Share this post


Link to post

New Ironman listing made. Waiting for it to be published. All info is IDENTICAL to the original. The only difference will be the GC code. http://coord.info/GC35D21

 

What happened? Still no listing.

 

I could tell you all but I think it would be best if "gg" gets to reply. My version is that I am waiting too.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

Well since it has been 5 days...

 

The reason for the delay is that someone else placed a listing at or near the location in question. By the rules and guidelines we use, that person has up to 30 days to decide if they are still going to use their listing. They replied once to my request for more info to let me know that they were deciding if they were going to use the spot or not. There has been no further communication. The proverbial clock is ticking...

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

now that's an interesting development, one that i didn't think would cause the delay, after all the "history" of the original cache I wouldn't want to hold on to the spot and have a cache of my own published there, unless there's enough room for both :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

I assume someone unknowingly placed a cache. I also assume that due to privacy, only the reviewers know where it is and who placed it.

 

Given my suggestion earlier in the thread, let me be clear that it is not me. :)

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

Last I heard, the original may yet be unarchived, but there's a proximity issue with another cache that's not currently published. AFAIK, once that's resolved, gg's original Ironman cache may be unarchived and continue on.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh look, 28,140 other caches in Ontario to visit in the meantime .... :laughing:

 

Interestingly enough, this number makes it possible to get all of Ontario's caches with less than a week's worth of PQs... :ph34r:

 

(how's that for an off-topic post?)

Share this post


Link to post

Well since it has been 5 days...

 

The reason for the delay is that someone else placed a listing at or near the location in question. By the rules and guidelines we use, that person has up to 30 days to decide if they are still going to use their listing. They replied once to my request for more info to let me know that they were deciding if they were going to use the spot or not. There has been no further communication. The proverbial clock is ticking...

 

:cool: CD

 

The person that is holding the location has replied and indicated that they still plan to use the location for a new cache in the future. As such, the previous cache cannot be resurrected. The immediate area is still reserved.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

"future" meaning within next 2 weeks, correct?

 

now i'm really curious :lol:

Edited by t4e

Share this post


Link to post

wondering what constitutes "first dibs" on pre/un-published caches within the minimum distance zone...

Share this post


Link to post

wondering what constitutes "first dibs" on pre/un-published caches within the minimum distance zone...

 

From my experience, it's kinda backwards. Whoever is ready first to have a cache published has to wait and possibly give up the spot to somebody who isn't ready yet.

Share this post


Link to post

wondering what constitutes "first dibs" on pre/un-published caches within the minimum distance zone...

 

From my experience, it's kinda backwards. Whoever is ready first to have a cache published has to wait and possibly give up the spot to somebody who isn't ready yet.

 

More appropriately, whoever has created a listing (unpublished) first is asked if they intend to publish the listing or would they be okay giving the area to someone else. I have first hand experience with this and the other person relinquished the area (Thanks Fababoo :) ) .

 

I would think that there is an expectation for the first person to publish within a reasonable amount of time.

 

.

Edited by Tequila

Share this post


Link to post
More appropriately, whoever has created a listing (unpublished) first is asked if they intend to publish the listing or would they be okay giving the area to someone else.

I don't think that's accurate. AFAIK the age of the listing isn't taken into consideration. It's a simple matter of whoever wants to publish first, and they will have to wait for the other party, who don't actually want to publish yet. Which I think is backwards.

Share this post


Link to post
More appropriately, whoever has created a listing (unpublished) first is asked if they intend to publish the listing or would they be okay giving the area to someone else.

I don't think that's accurate. AFAIK the age of the listing isn't taken into consideration. It's a simple matter of whoever wants to publish first, and they will have to wait for the other party, who don't actually want to publish yet. Which I think is backwards.

 

In my case, I submitted a cache for publication. The reviewer responded that another cacher (in this case, Fababoo) already had an unpublished listing within 160 meters of my cache. He was given the opportunity to publish his cache (in a reasonable time frame). He chose to give the space to me.

 

I don't see anything backward or wrong about that process. He had the space first and should be given the opportunity to publish. The same is true in the case. A cache was archived. Another cacher 'reserved' the area by creating a new unpublished listing. He should be given a reasonable amount of time to publish. And it appears he is being given that opportunity.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't see anything backward or wrong about that process. He had the space first and should be given the opportunity to publish.

 

How do you know that he had the space first? Did he have a cache out there first? Did he make the listing first? Did he have the coordinates in that listing first? Did he want to publish it first?

Share this post


Link to post

Well since it has been 5 days...

 

The reason for the delay is that someone else placed a listing at or near the location in question. By the rules and guidelines we use, that person has up to 30 days to decide if they are still going to use their listing. They replied once to my request for more info to let me know that they were deciding if they were going to use the spot or not. There has been no further communication. The proverbial clock is ticking...

 

:cool: CD

 

The person that is holding the location has replied and indicated that they still plan to use the location for a new cache in the future. As such, the previous cache cannot be resurrected. The immediate area is still reserved.

 

:cool: CD

 

I am not sure if the "other" cacher knows I am trying to resurrect the old Ironman so I will officially state it here. I made a duplicate listing but CD suggested unarchival of the original Ironman is an option if I am willing to maintain ownership. Not a problem on my end. However since CD has not communicated to me the other owner or the other type of cache I can't talk it over with the cacher in question. I grant permission to share my contact info with the other person and if they would like to discuss this proximity conflict I am available. I am sure if they knew the history they would be willing to release the area and Ironman can live on.

 

I have too many other pressing matters to spend a lot of time on this. In fact I am in Santa Fe NM right now and can't even check on the location presently. I think the lake should be drained by now so getting to the island through the muck would be daunting.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't see anything backward or wrong about that process. He had the space first and should be given the opportunity to publish.

 

How do you know that he had the space first? Did he have a cache out there first? Did he make the listing first? Did he have the coordinates in that listing first? Did he want to publish it first?

 

LOL

 

He would have created a listing with a set of coordinates that are somewhere within 160 meters of the archived cache. Anything more he might have done with respect to completing the process is irrelevant. Now he has been contacted and asked his intentions. Based on CD's post, he has decided he is going to publish a cache there. End of story. Oh were that last sentence only so.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't see anything backward or wrong about that process. He had the space first and should be given the opportunity to publish.

 

How do you know that he had the space first? Did he have a cache out there first? Did he make the listing first? Did he have the coordinates in that listing first? Did he want to publish it first?

 

LOL

 

He would have created a listing with a set of coordinates that are somewhere within 160 meters of the archived cache. Anything more he might have done with respect to completing the process is irrelevant. Now he has been contacted and asked his intentions. Based on CD's post, he has decided he is going to publish a cache there. End of story. Oh were that last sentence only so.

 

I was asking about your example. You said Fababoo had the spot first so you think it was ok that he was given a chance to publish a cache there first. I'm asking how you (or anyone, for that matter) know that he had the spot first.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't see anything backward or wrong about that process. He had the space first and should be given the opportunity to publish.

 

How do you know that he had the space first? Did he have a cache out there first? Did he make the listing first? Did he have the coordinates in that listing first? Did he want to publish it first?

 

LOL

 

He would have created a listing with a set of coordinates that are somewhere within 160 meters of the archived cache. Anything more he might have done with respect to completing the process is irrelevant. Now he has been contacted and asked his intentions. Based on CD's post, he has decided he is going to publish a cache there. End of story. Oh were that last sentence only so.

 

I was asking about your example. You said Fababoo had the spot first so you think it was ok that he was given a chance to publish a cache there first. I'm asking how you (or anyone, for that matter) know that he had the spot first.

 

I ABSOLUTELY think it is ok for him to be given a chance to publish. Some people put a lot of time and effort into creating a cache listing (at least back in the day, they did) and it is not unreasonable to take a few days or weeks to bring everything together.

 

I KNOW he had the spot first because a Reviewer told me so. And that is good enough for me.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
I KNOW he had the spot first because a Reviewer told me so. And that is good enough for me.

 

Oh ok then. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post

wondering what constitutes "first dibs" on pre/un-published caches within the minimum distance zone...

 

My understanding is that the age of the GC code has a lot to do with who gets an area first (or "holds" an area in this case). In other words, someone with unpublished GC code "GC2ABCD" would generally have first crack on a spot before someone else with unpublished GC code GC3ABCD.

 

While I'm not certain of it, should the VR be advised by the CO of the unpublished cache that they do intend to use the area, there isn't any firm timeframe on exactly how long they get to "hold" the spot before it must be used, and thus could, in effect, hold it for as long as they wished.

Share this post


Link to post
My understanding is that the age of the GC code has a lot to do with who gets an area first (or "holds" an area in this case). In other words, someone with unpublished GC code "GC2ABCD" would generally have first crack on a spot before someone else with unpublished GC code GC3ABCD.

 

I didn't think the GC code was relevant, but I'd be happy to be corrected. Even if that's how it works, that would then make it possible to create a lot of cache listings now and use them only years later, in order to be given precedence over any other conflicting cache there might be. And yeah, I think we all know a few cachers who have a lot of quite old inactive listings sitting in their accounts... :)

Share this post


Link to post

To be transparent with the process, here is the timeline of the events as they happened.

 

GC280PA was archived by the cache owner on 08/23/2011

There were no other unpublished caches in the area at that time

 

Someone created GC33??? on 09/06/2011

This effectively reserved the spot as a "work in progress"

 

GC35D21 was created by the same cache owner as GC280PA as a replacement on 10/05/2011

They were told that someone else had already started working on a cache here, and I would contact them to see if they would release the spot. I also told them that I would rather unarchive GC280PA instead of publishing the new listing, but that could only happen if the cache owner of GC33??? was willing to release the spot.

 

The cache owner of GC33??? has exercised their right to hold the claim of the spot. They can do so indefinitely as long as they respond to any requests made by any reviewer within a timely fashion. Typically that means within one month, give or take. So it is a month to respond, not to use the place they have reserved. If they don't reply, I archive it.

 

In the past I may have told people who they should speak with, but I no longer do that. However one exception is that we will still direct one cache owner to another when they are BOTH submitting caches with a future publish date for the same event. As an example, "Hey Dr. House, you should talk to Northern Penguin about GC47ABT for BFL 11 because you are both placing containers in the same 50m area."

Share this post


Link to post

i sure hope the current owner of GC33??? is aware of the whole story :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

i sure hope the current owner of GC33??? is aware of the whole story :anibad:

 

I'm sure they are. B)

 

hmmm i guess there is a chance we might see some new socks around :tongue:

 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×
×
  • Create New...