A new hide where I was planning one.

[+farrtom]

I have been working on a multi / puzzle hide at a local historic site owned by the City and just a couple of weeks ago someone hid a new cache where I was planning on starting my cache from. (I was waiting for their new interperative sign to be installed and some construction to be completed before hideing mine). My hide was ment to show off and educate people about the site.

 

I have permission from the city to hide my cache. In fact they are donating some swag for the cache!

 

So back to the main question is it OK to ask this other cacher to remove and disable there cache? They did not ask permission before they hid theirs.

 

I have thought about contacting them and asking them to help with the cache seeings how I don't think there are very many cachers in our area. (I just recently moved here but have been coming to the area for work for the last 10 years)

[+wildchld97]

I have been working on a multi / puzzle hide at a local historic site owned by the City and just a couple of weeks ago someone hid a new cache where I was planning on starting my cache from. (I was waiting for their new interperative sign to be installed and some construction to be completed before hideing mine). My hide was ment to show off and educate people about the site.

 

I have permission from the city to hide my cache. In fact they are donating some swag for the cache!

 

So back to the main question is it OK to ask this other cacher to remove and disable there cache? They did not ask permission before they hid theirs.

 

I have thought about contacting them and asking them to help with the cache seeings how I don't think there are very many cachers in our area. (I just recently moved here but have been coming to the area for work for the last 10 years)

 

There is no harm in asking. Don't expect that they'll comply though.

[+seldon]

When planning a cache for a certain spot, I often will start a cache page without submitting it for publishing, then work on it until it it ready. This gives you some time, while sort of 'reserving' the spot until you are ready to publish. In your case, you can ask the CO of the one just published, but be prepared to chalk it up to "lesson learned".

 

Or, if your first stage is an information only, non-physical stage, perhaps the other stages might still fit?

[hoosier guy]

I'd ask and politely explain the work you have done and premission granted. Hopefully they will be a good sport. If not you could be stuck.

[+farrtom]

When planning a cache for a certain spot, I often will start a cache page without submitting it for publishing, then work on it until it it ready. This gives you some time, while sort of 'reserving' the spot until you are ready to publish. In your case, you can ask the CO of the one just published, but be prepared to chalk it up to "lesson learned".

 

Or, if your first stage is an information only, non-physical stage, perhaps the other stages might still fit?

 

I'll have to read the hide rules, but I thought the all stages of a multi cache had to be .1 miles away from any existing cache.

Yes the plan was to get information from the starting sign that would answere clues to the next stage and so on to the final hide.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'd ask and politely explain the work you have done and premission granted. Hopefully they will be a good sport. If not you could be stuck.

 

I'm not suggesting anything, but perhaps the city employee which granted the OP permission, might ask the other geocacher to remove their cache because it was placed without permission.

[jholly]

I'd ask and politely explain the work you have done and premission granted. Hopefully they will be a good sport. If not you could be stuck.

 

I'm not suggesting anything, but perhaps the city employee which granted the OP permission, might ask the other geocacher to remove their cache because it was placed without permission.

Perhaps, but if there is no policy then it gets iffy. If there is a policy the reviewer should be made aware of the policy.

 

But if the first stage is a question to answer stage using the information on the sign then there is no proximity problems. As for the stages in the multi, there is no proximity rules other than any physical stage must be 0.1 mile from any other physical cache/stage.

[jholly]

When planning a cache for a certain spot, I often will start a cache page without submitting it for publishing, then work on it until it it ready. This gives you some time, while sort of 'reserving' the spot until you are ready to publish. In your case, you can ask the CO of the one just published, but be prepared to chalk it up to "lesson learned".

 

Or, if your first stage is an information only, non-physical stage, perhaps the other stages might still fit?

 

I'll have to read the hide rules, but I thought the all stages of a multi cache had to be .1 miles away from any existing cache.

Yes the plan was to get information from the starting sign that would answere clues to the next stage and so on to the final hide.

Then you have no proximity problems. Your first stage is a question to answer stage and proximity rules do not apply to that stage. As for multis, there is no proximity rules internal to the multi, just that each stage has to be 0.1 mile from any other physical cache.

[GOF and Bacall]

Wow! Really? Perhaps you should have communicated with the reviewer before hand, but now it would be rude to expect the other CO to ax their cache in favor of yours.

[+wildchld97]

Wow! Really? Perhaps you should have communicated with the reviewer before hand, but now it would be rude to expect the other CO to ax their cache in favor of yours.

 

Rude? I don't think so. The OP wasn't "expecting" anything. They were just asking for advice. Lighten up.

[+farrtom]

I was just wondering if others had ran into this problem before.

I was unaware you could start a cache page with out submitting it.

Is there a time limit that it can stay unpublished?

Like I said I am waiting for a few items to be finished up before it is ready to be published.

[Clan Riffster]

I was unaware you could start a cache page with out submitting it.

Is there a time limit that it can stay unpublished?

Just be sure you uncheck the box that indicates the cache is in place and ready for publication. If someone submits a shiny new hide that is too close to your unpublished one, your Reviewer will likely contact you, asking what your plans are for that spot. They will also likely give you a reasonable amount of time to get your cache up and running. If you don't reply, or if you take an inordinate amount of time getting your cache ready, they may give the spot to the new hide. As for time limits, I've got one that's been gathering digital dust since 2006. For that one, since it hasn't had any activity on the cache page for half a decade, I would not expect the same degree of consideration.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I'm not suggesting anything, but perhaps the city employee which granted the OP permission, might ask the other geocacher to remove their cache because it was placed without permission.

 

My opinion only...I think it is bad form to involve a land manager/owner to get involved in anything beyond granting permission.

[+wildchld97]

I'm not suggesting anything, but perhaps the city employee which granted the OP permission, might ask the other geocacher to remove their cache because it was placed without permission.

 

My opinion only...I think it is bad form to involve a land manager/owner to get involved in anything beyond granting permission.

 

Um NO. not bad form. The state parks here require a form to be filled out BEFORE placing a cache. IF this person placed a cache somewhere that a form or permission is required..then it's NOT unreasonable for the person who DID ask for permission to involve the land manager.

[jholly]

I was just wondering if others had ran into this problem before.

I was unaware you could start a cache page with out submitting it.

Is there a time limit that it can stay unpublished?

Like I said I am waiting for a few items to be finished up before it is ready to be published.

Yep, you can start it with out submitting. Just make sure the enable cache listing remains unchecked. You might want to put it out in the middle of a lake or over the top of your house because it will show up on the reviewers proximity checks. How long? Don't know, I got a couple about a year old now. Want to make sure I'm at the head of the line.

 

I would work on your cache pages and get the real coordinates in the pages. That helps the reviewer keep your spot open.

[jholly]

I'm not suggesting anything, but perhaps the city employee which granted the OP permission, might ask the other geocacher to remove their cache because it was placed without permission.

 

My opinion only...I think it is bad form to involve a land manager/owner to get involved in anything beyond granting permission.

 

Um NO. not bad form. The state parks here require a form to be filled out BEFORE placing a cache. IF this person placed a cache somewhere that a form or permission is required..then it's NOT unreasonable for the person who DID ask for permission to involve the land manager.

Actually what is better form is if the land manager does require permits then the reviewer should be made aware of the required permit. Then the land manager does not have to deal with it but rather the reviewer will. Much better solution for this case and the future.

[AZcachemeister]

...if the first stage is a question to answer stage using the information on the sign then there is no proximity problems.

 

^This

As long as stage 2 is at least 0.1 miles from the new cache at the starting point, then there is no problem.

 

Your cache does now seem to be a bit redundant, however.

If someone contacted me to say they had been planning a cache for the spot I just put mine, I would probably reply 'Sorry, ya snooze, ya loose'.

[+humboldt flier]

Had a similar situation here on the WET COAST of N.W. Calif. ( yes I said WET )

 

We both wiggled a bit and worked out a compromise.

 

It is, however, in the approach and your political skills.

 

The other cacher confided in me that had I asked for him to remove his cache there would have been no deal.

 

That I inquired about the possibility of him MOVING his cache as smidge was pivotal in his agreeing to the move.

 

FWIW his move was 14 feet which gave us all the room we needed to seal the deal.

 

Good luck, Keep us posted.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I'm not suggesting anything, but perhaps the city employee which granted the OP permission, might ask the other geocacher to remove their cache because it was placed without permission.

 

My opinion only...I think it is bad form to involve a land manager/owner to get involved in anything beyond granting permission.

 

Um NO. not bad form. The state parks here require a form to be filled out BEFORE placing a cache. IF this person placed a cache somewhere that a form or permission is required..then it's NOT unreasonable for the person who DID ask for permission to involve the land manager.

 

We'll agree to disagree.

[+CanadianRockies]

If someone contacted me to say they had been planning a cache for the spot I just put mine, I would probably reply 'Sorry, ya snooze, ya loose'.

If someone convinced me that they needed the spot to complete a nice multi-cache, then I wouldn't have any problem archiving one of my more ordinary caches. I'm all in favor of promoting quality hides.

[knowschad]

I'm not suggesting anything, but perhaps the city employee which granted the OP permission, might ask the other geocacher to remove their cache because it was placed without permission.

 

My opinion only...I think it is bad form to involve a land manager/owner to get involved in anything beyond granting permission.

 

Absolutely! We are dealing with a similar situation in my area that I'm afraid may end up with an area that now allows caches being closed to caching. You don't want to air your dirty laundry in the land manager's office.

[+t4e]

I was just wondering if others had ran into this problem before.

I was unaware you could start a cache page with out submitting it.

Is there a time limit that it can stay unpublished?

Like I said I am waiting for a few items to be finished up before it is ready to be published.

Yep, you can start it with out submitting. Just make sure the enable cache listing remains unchecked. You might want to put it out in the middle of a lake or over the top of your house because it will show up on the reviewers proximity checks. How long? Don't know, I got a couple about a year old now. Want to make sure I'm at the head of the line.

 

I would work on your cache pages and get the real coordinates in the pages. That helps the reviewer keep your spot open.

 

huh?

 

the whole idea is to reserve the spot thus have it show on the reviewer proximity check

[knowschad]

I'm not suggesting anything, but perhaps the city employee which granted the OP permission, might ask the other geocacher to remove their cache because it was placed without permission.

 

My opinion only...I think it is bad form to involve a land manager/owner to get involved in anything beyond granting permission.

 

Um NO. not bad form. The state parks here require a form to be filled out BEFORE placing a cache. IF this person placed a cache somewhere that a form or permission is required..then it's NOT unreasonable for the person who DID ask for permission to involve the land manager.

That is not the same as asking them to get involved in geocaching disputes. We need them to see us as a cohesive whole, even if that is not always the case.

[AZcachemeister]

If someone contacted me to say they had been planning a cache for the spot I just put mine, I would probably reply 'Sorry, ya snooze, ya loose'.

If someone convinced me that they needed the spot to complete a nice multi-cache, then I wouldn't have any problem archiving one of my more ordinary caches. I'm all in favor of promoting quality hides.

 

I could agree if the trad cache was merely a micro/nano on the sign, and the multi ended in a larger container...but that issue wasn't in the discussion. The reason for either cache seems to have been bringing cachers to the informative sign, and each will do that.

 

I like multi's, 'cause you can show cachers a nice place, and then make them go away!

 

Certainly the OP now knows how to 'claim a spot' while they tie up the final details of their project. Too bad they didn't have that information beforehand.

[+jellis]

I'd ask and politely explain the work you have done and premission granted. Hopefully they will be a good sport. If not you could be stuck.

 

I'm not suggesting anything, but perhaps the city employee which granted the OP permission, might ask the other geocacher to remove their cache because it was placed without permission.

I agree with this. It is the City's property and if they were granted permission then the other cacher placed without permission.

But JHolly is right if this is just the first stage and its not a physical stage only questions to answer then you can place the final .1 away from the other cache.

Edited September 29, 2011 by jellis

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm not suggesting anything, but perhaps the city employee which granted the OP permission, might ask the other geocacher to remove their cache because it was placed without permission.

 

My opinion only...I think it is bad form to involve a land manager/owner to get involved in anything beyond granting permission.

 

Absolutely! We are dealing with a similar situation in my area that I'm afraid may end up with an area that now allows caches being closed to caching. You don't want to air your dirty laundry in the land manager's office.

 

When I wrote "I'm not suggesting anything..." I really wasn't suggesting that the OP contact the land manager and tell them about the other cache. I was thinking of a scenario more along the lines of...

 

The OP wants to place a geocache on city property and contacts the appropriate city employee to obtain permission. That person has been living in a bubble for the last ten years and before the OP walked into their office they knew nothing about geocaching so their *isn't* an existing policy to refer to. However, it sounds rather innocuous so they grant permission to the OP. Then the land manager decides to find out a little more about geocaching, goes to the site and a search of the area reveals the geocache that was placed on the property they manage without asking for permission. Perhaps the land manager might be peeved enough to ask the CO of that cache to be removed, simply because they never asked for permission to put it there.

[+mucek4]

I still don't see a problem. If they have a nano on board, you can still start your multi there (on the same board) just without container. Like read when the statue was build and then go n+m+y steps to north.

[+bflentje]

I was just wondering if others had ran into this problem before.

I was unaware you could start a cache page with out submitting it.

Is there a time limit that it can stay unpublished?

Like I said I am waiting for a few items to be finished up before it is ready to be published.

 

I have on many occasions have asked cachers remove (or move) their caches for me. The responses were across the board from being totally flexible to being totally insulted. It's ok to ask. Just be prepared for an answer that you might not expect. The important thing is to be polite. A trait that many people lack.

[AZcachemeister]

Sometimes (and for some things) there just is no polite way to ask:

 

Scene 1, a public park, at a bench.

 

"Excuse me Ma'am, I have been planning to sit at that end of this bench all week. Would you mind moving to the other end? Or perhaps to another bench entirely?"

 

Sure, you can ask, but I would be prepared to 'not be heard'.

[+Manville Possum]

Wow! Really? Perhaps you should have communicated with the reviewer before hand, but now it would be rude to expect the other CO to ax their cache in favor of yours.

I have had a user post NA on one of my listings because they wanted the spot. Then they asked for the spot. What geocachers won't do. Kinda like them birds that kick other birds chicks out of a nest to lay their eggs in.

[+Scubasonic]

So back to the main question is it OK to ask this other cacher to remove and disable there cache? They did not ask permission before they hid theirs.

 

You Snooze, you lose.

[+Scubasonic]

When planning a cache for a certain spot, I often will start a cache page without submitting it for publishing, then work on it until it it ready. This gives you some time, while sort of 'reserving' the spot until you are ready to publish. In your case, you can ask the CO of the one just published, but be prepared to chalk it up to "lesson learned".

 

Or, if your first stage is an information only, non-physical stage, perhaps the other stages might still fit?

 

This does not reserve the spot if you don't check the box for submission then someone else still may beat you to it.

 

SS

[+WarNinjas]

I agree not to get the land owner involved. If they have to worry about it then why would they want to deal with it. Just my opinion. Work it out here. As Far as asking the other cacher to use there spot I would definitely give it a try. 90% of the time if you had a better reason for one there then I did I would let you have it. I have been setting up one for my nephew for a while now and worrie the spot might get taken and he has a good reason for one there. I would hope the other hider would understand and I also would understand if they didn't want to give theirs up. I hid one that another member commented on that they used to have one there and that they wanted the spot. I told them on the cache page and in a email if they really wanted the spot it was not a problem I would archive it. They never replied. Never hurts to ask or if it is a multi you can possibly work around it.

-WarNinjas

[+The_Incredibles_]

Like others have said, if your 1st stage has no physical container, then there's no conflict as long as none of your physical stages are within 528 feet of their cache.

 

If there's a conflict, I would first try to modify yours to make it work. If there's absolutely no way, then I would suggest checking out a possible location for them to move their cache to. Then you have something concrete to suggest to them, rather than saying 'please remove your cache'.

[Keystone]

When planning a cache for a certain spot, I often will start a cache page without submitting it for publishing, then work on it until it it ready. This gives you some time, while sort of 'reserving' the spot until you are ready to publish. In your case, you can ask the CO of the one just published, but be prepared to chalk it up to "lesson learned".

 

Or, if your first stage is an information only, non-physical stage, perhaps the other stages might still fit?

 

This does not reserve the spot if you don't check the box for submission then someone else still may beat you to it.

 

SS

To avoid confusion among readers, I'm posting to note that Seldon is correct about the procedure for "reserving a spot" for a reasonable amount of time, using a disabled cache page. Despite not being enabled for review, that page's coordinates (including additional waypoint coordinates labelled "Final" or "Stage of a Multicache") will show up in a proximity search performed by a volunteer cache reviewer.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

To avoid confusion among readers, I'm posting to note that Seldon is correct about the procedure for "reserving a spot" for a reasonable amount of time, using a disabled cache page. Despite not being enabled for review, that page's coordinates (including additional waypoint coordinates labelled "Final" or "Stage of a Multicache") will show up in a proximity search performed by a volunteer cache reviewer.

 

I have had several caches "in the works" and my local reviewer has contacted me, asking if the cache was almost ready. Usually these were just place holders, and I gladly "gave up the spot" for another cacher to hide theirs.

[+farrtom]

Had another cache location "ruined" because of the proximity rule. I wanted to hide one today (Chinese New Year) at a local chines historic site and wanted to make sure I had all the proper permissions and facts correct.

 

This time I tried the place holder by starting the cache page early on but about a week later a cache turned up within 400 feet. My local reviewer did not contact me. Maybe I did the "place holder" wrong.

 

I wouldn't care so much about some of these caches because my area defiantly needs more, but what I don't like is trying to put some thought and effort in to a cache and then having a micro come in and mess up my plans.

[+Totem Clan]

Nevermind.....

 

Old thread.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Totem Clan

[+Ambrosia]

Had another cache location "ruined" because of the proximity rule. I wanted to hide one today (Chinese New Year) at a local chines historic site and wanted to make sure I had all the proper permissions and facts correct.

 

This time I tried the place holder by starting the cache page early on but about a week later a cache turned up within 400 feet. My local reviewer did not contact me. Maybe I did the "place holder" wrong.

 

I wouldn't care so much about some of these caches because my area defiantly needs more, but what I don't like is trying to put some thought and effort in to a cache and then having a micro come in and mess up my plans.

I do not know the specific circumstances of your case, but sometimes things can just get overlooked. Using a disabled cache page can work great *most* of the time, but sometimes things slip through. This also happened to me last year. I was a bit frustrated, but I understood that things happen. I should have finished the cache sooner, anyway, I'd been waiting around a while. The page probably looked really old to the reviewer.

[+briansnat]

Had another cache location "ruined" because of the proximity rule. I wanted to hide one today (Chinese New Year) at a local chines historic site and wanted to make sure I had all the proper permissions and facts correct.

 

This time I tried the place holder by starting the cache page early on but about a week later a cache turned up within 400 feet. My local reviewer did not contact me. Maybe I did the "place holder" wrong.

 

I wouldn't care so much about some of these caches because my area defiantly needs more, but what I don't like is trying to put some thought and effort in to a cache and then having a micro come in and mess up my plans.

 

Contact the reviewer who published the other cache. He may have just missed yours. It is also possible that the other cache was also submitted as a place holder before yours. In that case it would get preference.

[+baloo&bd]

Had another cache location "ruined" because of the proximity rule. I wanted to hide one today (Chinese New Year) at a local chines historic site and wanted to make sure I had all the proper permissions and facts correct.

 

This time I tried the place holder by starting the cache page early on but about a week later a cache turned up within 400 feet. My local reviewer did not contact me. Maybe I did the "place holder" wrong.

 

I wouldn't care so much about some of these caches because my area defiantly needs more, but what I don't like is trying to put some thought and effort in to a cache and then having a micro come in and mess up my plans.

 

I don't think the "placeholder" thing works the way people think.

 

I have always sent the coords to the local reviewer with my intentions, set up the page without submitting while I worked on it and then sent the GC number from that page to the reviewer also so they knew what was going on.

 

Unless you click it is ready for review/publish, I don't think it pops up in the reviewers queue.

[+briansnat]

Had another cache location "ruined" because of the proximity rule. I wanted to hide one today (Chinese New Year) at a local chines historic site and wanted to make sure I had all the proper permissions and facts correct.

 

This time I tried the place holder by starting the cache page early on but about a week later a cache turned up within 400 feet. My local reviewer did not contact me. Maybe I did the "place holder" wrong.

 

I wouldn't care so much about some of these caches because my area defiantly needs more, but what I don't like is trying to put some thought and effort in to a cache and then having a micro come in and mess up my plans.

 

I don't think the "placeholder" thing works the way people think.

 

I have always sent the coords to the local reviewer with my intentions, set up the page without submitting while I worked on it and then sent the GC number from that page to the reviewer also so they knew what was going on.

 

Unless you click it is ready for review/publish, I don't think it pops up in the reviewers queue.

 

it will not show up in the reviewers queue, but it will show up when he does a proximity search if a new cache is submitted nearby.

[Mr.Yuck]

Had another cache location "ruined" because of the proximity rule. I wanted to hide one today (Chinese New Year) at a local chines historic site and wanted to make sure I had all the proper permissions and facts correct.

 

This time I tried the place holder by starting the cache page early on but about a week later a cache turned up within 400 feet. My local reviewer did not contact me. Maybe I did the "place holder" wrong.

 

I wouldn't care so much about some of these caches because my area defiantly needs more, but what I don't like is trying to put some thought and effort in to a cache and then having a micro come in and mess up my plans.

 

Sorry to hear about your misfortune. What happened the first time? You own no multi's. Was that never published? I was quite certain people were correct in telling you you could use the sign as a "virtual" leg of a multi.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+lamoracke]

might be moot given some of the details in the later posts, but unless you asked the other CO, how do you know they did not ask for permission? When dealing with larger entities, its possible two different cachers could ask two different city employees for permission and those 2 employees did not confer with each other.

 

I mean, its a good chance they did not ask, but you do not know for sure.

[+farrtom]

Had another cache location "ruined" because of the proximity rule. I wanted to hide one today (Chinese New Year) at a local chines historic site and wanted to make sure I had all the proper permissions and facts correct.

 

This time I tried the place holder by starting the cache page early on but about a week later a cache turned up within 400 feet. My local reviewer did not contact me. Maybe I did the "place holder" wrong.

 

I wouldn't care so much about some of these caches because my area defiantly needs more, but what I don't like is trying to put some thought and effort in to a cache and then having a micro come in and mess up my plans.

 

Sorry to hear about your misfortune. What happened the first time? You own no multi's. Was that never published? I was quite certain people were correct in telling you you could use the sign as a "virtual" leg of a multi.

 

Actually this is another cache. The first one that started this thread should still work with the first leg being a "virtual". I am waiting for the city to put up the sign, and they are waiting till the snow melts.

 

On a side note the CO of the first cache that started this topic did offer to remove his cache, but I am sure we can make them both work.

[AZcachemeister]

When planning a cache for a certain spot, I often will start a cache page without submitting it for publishing, then work on it until it it ready. This gives you some time, while sort of 'reserving' the spot until you are ready to publish. In your case, you can ask the CO of the one just published, but be prepared to chalk it up to "lesson learned".

 

Or, if your first stage is an information only, non-physical stage, perhaps the other stages might still fit?

 

This does not reserve the spot if you don't check the box for submission then someone else still may beat you to it.

 

SS

To avoid confusion among readers, I'm posting to note that Seldon is correct about the procedure for "reserving a spot" for a reasonable amount of time, using a disabled cache page. Despite not being enabled for review, that page's coordinates (including additional waypoint coordinates labelled "Final" or "Stage of a Multicache") will show up in a proximity search performed by a volunteer cache reviewer.

 

I thought so, thanks for confirming that.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I wouldn't care so much about some of these caches because my area defiantly needs more, but what I don't like is trying to put some thought and effort in to a cache and then having a micro come in and mess up my plans.

 

Ah. Micros are completely worthless? Bad attitude. First come, first served.

 

I will admit to having planned a cache on an abandoned towpath of the canal. But I couldn't talk my caching partner into it. It is not a pretty area, what with the homeless camp nearby. But it was historically interesting, and numerically interesting as well. "Had a mule, and her name was Sal. Fifty miles on (whatever) canal." While we were contemplating the merits of this cache, someone hid a micro at the supermarket, 480 feet away. Missed my chance. Oh, well. First come, first served. If the other CO archives the cache, we will reconsider. But, in the meantime, we lost the opportunity. Oh, well. Ya snooze, ya lose.

[+Walts Hunting]

When planning a cache for a certain spot, I often will start a cache page without submitting it for publishing, then work on it until it it ready. This gives you some time, while sort of 'reserving' the spot until you are ready to publish. In your case, you can ask the CO of the one just published, but be prepared to chalk it up to "lesson learned".

 

Or, if your first stage is an information only, non-physical stage, perhaps the other stages might still fit?

 

The .1 rule only applies to a physical container. If you are getting info from a sign mark it as a "Place to get information" or something like that I forget the actual wording that is on the form and it doesn't count.

[+Mushroom finder]

I had the same thing happen to me this summer. I spent almost a month working on a D-5 mystery cache that ends at an extremely well hidden historic site. I created my cache page about a week into it and edited it as I went along. I made multiple trips to the final location to work out waypoints and measurements, and even crafted a special container themed specifically to the area and the mystery. On my final trip to the area before enabling it, I noticed evidence that someone had been there since my last visit just a day before, but didn't think too much of it since it is a public area.

 

When I submitted it for review I was shocked when the reviewer told me it could not be published because there was already another cache just 250' away! I was devastated, all that work and time for nothing. My mystery and my container could only work at that particular location, so I wasn't gonna give up easy. The closest traditional cache was over a half mile away and I knew that none of the multi and mystery caches within a reasonable distance were related to the area at all. Of course the reviewer couldn't tell me anything about it, so I set about ruling out all of the multi and mysteries within 10 miles one by one. I finally concluded that this had to be a brand new unpublished cache so I set out to brute force it.

 

I went back to the area and found it within 5 minutes. Sure enough, a brand new ammo can with a blank log book at the base of a tree that I had peed on the previous week. Of course there was no GC code, cache name or owner info so I couldn't contact to owner to work out a compromise. I did contact the reviewer because I didn't understand how an unpublished cache that was not there when I started mine could block me. As it turned out, it was submitted and approved a day before I submitted mine and publication was being delayed for an upcoming event in the area. However, the reviewer had neglected to perform the proximity check on the other one so he couldn't see that I was working on mine in the same spot. Since my listing had been created first, he ruled in my favor and published my listing.