Need help getting cache approved

[+Magnum-DI]

Hello Caching community,

 

CACHE: GC351X5 - Muggle Deluge

 

I have a cache I have been working on for over a month, I built it out of the body of a sprinker head and ripped the guts out and siliconed the openings as to make a water tight container, generaly holds the same ammount as a 35mm film canister.

 

The issue is of course I did not want to dig into the ground and that is against the regs, so what I did was make a silp tube that holds the canister, this is surrounds by rocks in a rock bed planeter, the head of the "sprinkler container" is above all the rocks and is so easy to pull out a child could do it.

 

My original idea was to stick the tube in the ground and then have the sprinkler rest in this...This would of provided more stablity but is against the regs and I corrected it.

 

I have also approached the night manager outside of the business I placed this in front of as I did not want to be arrested for suspicious activity. He told me he had never heard of this game but thought it seemed pretty cool and did not care but wanted my number incase he needed it removed.

 

So my listing was revoked, and the reviewer is throwing reg after reg at me as if I have not read the rules. I am really trying to play by the rules here and have adjusted the tube to be supported by rocks and not buried. But now the reviewer is not responding to my emails and this sits in limbo.

 

Very frustrated.

 

I am willing to take pictures of the location to show it is not out of regs.

 

I really feel I am getting the run around cause I only have 74 finds, I would really not like to think that tho.

 

Magnum-Di

[+CanadianRockies]

Start by reading the guidelines. If you believe your cache meets the guidelines and the reviewer declines to publish it, then you can appeal that decision (see guidelines).

[+Manville Possum]

Hello Caching community,

 

CACHE: GC351X5 - Muggle Deluge

 

I have a cache I have been working on for over a month, I built it out of the body of a sprinker head and ripped the guts out and siliconed the openings as to make a water tight container, generaly holds the same ammount as a 35mm film canister.

 

The issue is of course I did not want to dig into the ground and that is against the regs, so what I did was make a silp tube that holds the canister, this is surrounds by rocks in a rock bed planeter, the head of the "sprinkler container" is above all the rocks and is so easy to pull out a child could do it.

 

My original idea was to stick the tube in the ground and then have the sprinkler rest in this...This would of provided more stablity but is against the regs and I corrected it.

 

I have also approached the night manager outside of the business I placed this in front of as I did not want to be arrested for suspicious activity. He told me he had never heard of this game but thought it seemed pretty cool and did not care but wanted my number incase he needed it removed.

 

So my listing was revoked, and the reviewer is throwing reg after reg at me as if I have not read the rules. I am really trying to play by the rules here and have adjusted the tube to be supported by rocks and not buried. But now the reviewer is not responding to my emails and this sits in limbo.

 

Very frustrated.

 

I am willing to take pictures of the location to show it is not out of regs.

 

I really feel I am getting the run around cause I only have 74 finds, I would really not like to think that tho.

 

Magnum-Di

Why is your local reviewer declining to publish your listing? Have you tryed workin with the reviewer? I'm sue it has nothing to do with your amount of finds. I have a fake sprinkler head geocache container that I bought on Ebay. I know that these cache types exist, normally in mulch in a flower bed or something similar.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Magnum-DI]

Hello Caching community,

 

CACHE: GC351X5 - Muggle Deluge

 

I have a cache I have been working on for over a month, I built it out of the body of a sprinker head and ripped the guts out and siliconed the openings as to make a water tight container, generaly holds the same ammount as a 35mm film canister.

 

The issue is of course I did not want to dig into the ground and that is against the regs, so what I did was make a silp tube that holds the canister, this is surrounds by rocks in a rock bed planeter, the head of the "sprinkler container" is above all the rocks and is so easy to pull out a child could do it.

 

My original idea was to stick the tube in the ground and then have the sprinkler rest in this...This would of provided more stablity but is against the regs and I corrected it.

 

I have also approached the night manager outside of the business I placed this in front of as I did not want to be arrested for suspicious activity. He told me he had never heard of this game but thought it seemed pretty cool and did not care but wanted my number incase he needed it removed.

 

So my listing was revoked, and the reviewer is throwing reg after reg at me as if I have not read the rules. I am really trying to play by the rules here and have adjusted the tube to be supported by rocks and not buried. But now the reviewer is not responding to my emails and this sits in limbo.

 

Very frustrated.

 

I am willing to take pictures of the location to show it is not out of regs.

 

I really feel I am getting the run around cause I only have 74 finds, I would really not like to think that tho.

 

Magnum-Di

Why is your reviewer declining to publish your listing? Have you tryed workin with the reviewer?

 

I have tried working with him, instead he keeps asking me more reg type questions. I understand the due dilligence and respect it...However I am not trying to pull a fast one on anyone.

[+Magnum-DI]

Ya I have seen them on ebay as well, and figured I just build it myself...I to know they exist and thought this was a no brainer.

 

I just submitted an appeal...Hopefully it gets approved...I think this cache would be very fun.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

It would be helpful for discussion to see the regs in question and how they were applied to your cache.

[+Touchstone]

Just curious, but what kind of time frame did you allow for your Local Reviewer to respond? You do realize that many of the Reviewers hold day jobs and are unable to respond during regular business hours?

 

A pity you jumped on the appeals wagon so quickly.

[+Magnum-DI]

Just curious, but what kind of time frame did you allow for your Local Reviewer to respond? You do realize that many of the Reviewers hold day jobs and are unable to respond during regular business hours?

 

A pity you jumped on the appeals wagon so quickly.

 

Blah Blah Blah, noob with low post count, talk to him like he has no idea..I've dealt with this alot in other forums in the past so go ahead and dish it out.

 

1. I have had 3 emails back and forth with the reviewer.

2. The regs in question are about Burial of a cache, and of permission from property management.

3. The reviewer responded to the posting of the cache with in a couple hours.

 

I did not come here to be flamed by forum trolls, I just wanted some direction, of which the best direction was in the first poster...file an appeal.

[+Max and 99]

Let us know how this works out. Considering you are not burying the cache AND you got permission to hide it there, I suspect everything will work out great. Keep us posted.

[+Touchstone]

It certainly sounds as though you've been around the block a few times. Best of luck with the appeals.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just curious, but what kind of time frame did you allow for your Local Reviewer to respond? You do realize that many of the Reviewers hold day jobs and are unable to respond during regular business hours?

 

A pity you jumped on the appeals wagon so quickly.

 

Blah Blah Blah, noob with low post count, talk to him like he has no idea..I've dealt with this alot in other forums in the past so go ahead and dish it out.

 

1. I have had 3 emails back and forth with the reviewer.

2. The regs in question are about Burial of a cache, and of permission from property management.

3. The reviewer responded to the posting of the cache with in a couple hours.

 

I did not come here to be flamed by forum trolls, I just wanted some direction, of which the best direction was in the first poster...file an appeal.

 

Presumably, the reviewer, in their response, told you specifically why it could not be published. Not that anyone here (except another reviewer) could help you get it published, but without knowing the specific reason why it's being denied we can't even make a suggestion other than tell you to make sure that it complies with *all* of the guidelines.

[+Keelmann And Cici]

I doubt the reviewer is throwing up objections for some nefarious reason, and as stated, we can't really evaluate why unless you share the specifics. I'm a new cacher with four hides, I've never run into a condescending attitude from reviewers or here on the forum. Judging from your reply, your issue may stem more from attitude than low cache count.

[jholly]

I doubt the reviewer is throwing up objections for some nefarious reason, and as stated, we can't really evaluate why unless you share the specifics. I'm a new cacher with four hides, I've never run into a condescending attitude from reviewers or here on the forum. Judging from your reply, your issue may stem more from attitude than low cache count.

I disagree with the attitude bit, reviewers get extra pay for dealing with difficult people. No, like just about every case brought before the forum courts or the courts of last appeals, depending on how you want to look at it, there are a salient point or two not being mentioned by the OP. I really don't think the reviewers in Northern CA blow too many calls. If I were a betting man, and I am not, I would bet that appeals upholds the reviewer, not because they are bound to support the reviewers, but because they have the full story and will side with the reviewer as a good call. But we will see.

[+GeoBain]

Just curious, but what kind of time frame did you allow for your Local Reviewer to respond? You do realize that many of the Reviewers hold day jobs and are unable to respond during regular business hours?

 

A pity you jumped on the appeals wagon so quickly.

 

Blah Blah Blah, noob with low post count, talk to him like he has no idea..I've dealt with this alot in other forums in the past so go ahead and dish it out.

 

1. I have had 3 emails back and forth with the reviewer.

2. The regs in question are about Burial of a cache, and of permission from property management.

3. The reviewer responded to the posting of the cache with in a couple hours.

 

I did not come here to be flamed by forum trolls, I just wanted some direction, of which the best direction was in the first poster...file an appeal.

 

Blah Blah Blah, good luck with your oh so unique hide.

[+fizzymagic]

I've had some recent interactions with my local reviewer when I was placing a challenge cache under another user name, so they didn't know it was me.

 

The reviewer asked me for a lot of supporting data, and because his emails were very short and to the point, my initial reaction was that they were rude. But when I stepped back and looked at the situation objectively, I could see I was wrong. The reviewer didn't know who I was, and the kind of cache I was placing (a challenge cache) needs to be reviewed carefully.

 

So I chose to be as accommodating as I could, got the information that the reviewer requested, responded politely, and didn't panic. Sure enough, after a couple of iterations, the cache was published. When I went to publish another cache of the same type under the same name, I knew what information the reviewer was going to need and put it in reviewer notes before I enabled my submission. That one got published right away.

 

You are attempting to publish a cache that has a couple of potential problems: it might have been placed improperly (with digging) and it is on private property, which requires permission. If I were in your shoes, I would bend over backward to show the reviewer that I am responsible and have dealt with all the potential placement problems. I would send the URL of a photograph that clearly shows that the container is not buried. I would give the phone number of the store and the name of the person who approved the placement, so that the person could be called to verify the permission.

 

Do that, and you will find that next time you place a cache the reviewer is more likely to take your word on things.

 

Send it to appeal, as you have, and your chances of getting it approved drop significantly, as well as your reputation with the reviewer. Because although reviewers try very hard not to let this kind of thing get to them, they are humans too!

 

My advice: withdraw the appeal and give it another week working with the reviewer.

[AZcachemeister]

From your OP, it appears you addressed the points objected to by the reviewer even before submitting your cache, so there must be more to it than you have revealed here.

 

We all know reviewers prefer to publish caches, so if they say there is an issue...there is one.

[+SmallsKC]

How long has it been sitting in "limbo"? Just because he responded right away when you submitted it the first time certainly doesn't mean he will respond that quickly to all your emails. If you have only been waiting 24 hours for a response then you are not giving them time to respond. Maybe he just hasn't gotten to it yet. I doubt he is doing this purposely just to frustrate you. Try giving him the benefit of the doubt and having some respect for his time. If you have been waiting for weeks then that is another story. Seems like we are missing a part of this story or you have just jumped the gun.

[+SmallsKC]

 

I really feel I am getting the run around cause I only have 74 finds, I would really not like to think that tho.

 

Magnum-Di

 

I find it interesting that you would even say that since you have one hide already that you got published after only having 47 hides. Seems like the reviewer didn't have a problem then so why would your find number matter now? I don't see the correlation here. Is this the same reviewer?

[+Manville Possum]

Just curious, but what kind of time frame did you allow for your Local Reviewer to respond? You do realize that many of the Reviewers hold day jobs and are unable to respond during regular business hours?

 

A pity you jumped on the appeals wagon so quickly.

 

Blah Blah Blah, noob with low post count, talk to him like he has no idea..I've dealt with this alot in other forums in the past so go ahead and dish it out.

 

1. I have had 3 emails back and forth with the reviewer.

2. The regs in question are about Burial of a cache, and of permission from property management.

3. The reviewer responded to the posting of the cache with in a couple hours.

 

I did not come here to be flamed by forum trolls, I just wanted some direction, of which the best direction was in the first poster...file an appeal.

I'm not here for flaming you or being disrespectful to the reviewer or appeals, but really. Who do you think they will support? You or your reviewer? I think I would just use a different cache container like a fake rock or something depending on the location. You may find a better place for your sprinkler hide.

[knowschad]

Just curious, but what kind of time frame did you allow for your Local Reviewer to respond? You do realize that many of the Reviewers hold day jobs and are unable to respond during regular business hours?

 

A pity you jumped on the appeals wagon so quickly.

 

Blah Blah Blah, noob with low post count, talk to him like he has no idea..I've dealt with this alot in other forums in the past so go ahead and dish it out.

 

<SNIP>

 

I did not come here to be flamed by forum trolls, I just wanted some direction, of which the best direction was in the first poster...file an appeal.

 

We don't come here to get flamed by you, either. A response like that to a reasonable post making reasonable suggestions does nothing to make people want to help you. That wasn't a flame, but your response to it sure was.

[+tozainamboku]

Taking a somewhat contrarian view, I think the OP probably volunteered more information than he had to in a reviewer note or even on the cache page. Once the reviewer knows this ia a fake sprinkler head, it's going to raise all sorts of red flags. In addition to the burying issue, the reviewer is aware of other problems with fake sprinkler heads. Sometimes cache seekers knowing that the cache might be hidden in a sprinkler head have been known to take apart real sprinklers. For this reason alone, permission is seen as very important for this type of hide. Because the reviewer knows what type of hide this is, they feel compelled to check out some guidelines issues beyond what they might normally check. If they had no idea that of the type of hide they might just go ahead and approve the cache (if it appears to be on private property, they might even be satisfied with your discussing the cache with the night manager). But you've told them this is a type of hide that sometimes causes additional problems. They are asking for additional information because they want to be sure that this hide won't cause those problems.

[knowschad]

Taking a somewhat contrarian view, I think the OP probably volunteered more information than he had to in a reviewer note or even on the cache page. Once the reviewer knows this ia a fake sprinkler head, it's going to raise all sorts of red flags. In addition to the burying issue, the reviewer is aware of other problems with fake sprinkler heads. Sometimes cache seekers knowing that the cache might be hidden in a sprinkler head have been known to take apart real sprinklers. For this reason alone, permission is seen as very important for this type of hide. Because the reviewer knows what type of hide this is, they feel compelled to check out some guidelines issues beyond what they might normally check. If they had no idea that of the type of hide they might just go ahead and approve the cache (if it appears to be on private property, they might even be satisfied with your discussing the cache with the night manager). But you've told them this is a type of hide that sometimes causes additional problems. They are asking for additional information because they want to be sure that this hide won't cause those problems.

 

I suspect that you have just hit the nail squarely on the head. Well put, Toz.

[Keystone]

From your OP, it appears you addressed the points objected to by the reviewer even before submitting your cache, so there must be more to it than you have revealed here.

 

We all know reviewers prefer to publish caches, so if they say there is an issue...there is one.

Bingo.

 

Having read this thread, and having looked at the history for this cache listing, all I can say is "wow." Just "wow."

 

We can wait for Appeals to finish the review. I predict that publication will take longer than if the owner had kept up the dialogue with the reviewer, but it's always the owner's right to appeal at any time.

 

The reviewer is now constrained to wait for the appeals ticket to be cleared, and he explained this in his last correspondence to the OP.

[knowschad]

I have also approached the night manager outside of the business I placed this in front of as I did not want to be arrested for suspicious activity. He told me he had never heard of this game but thought it seemed pretty cool and did not care but wanted my number incase he needed it removed.

 

So my listing was revoked, and the reviewer is throwing reg after reg at me as if I have not read the rules. <snip>

 

I must say that I noticed a disconnect the size of the Grand Canyon between these two paragraphs.

[+Gan Dalf]

I'd just like to thank Magnum-DI for a very entertatining thread. I've enjoyed reading it and knew it was going to be good after I read the first three words of post #8. Thanks you!

Edited September 30, 2011 by FobesMan

[+WarNinjas]

I would try everything to work it out with the reviewer before setting it into appeals! That is if you are planning on playing this game for the long run. I have to run all my hide Ideas threw them. I want them on my side not against me. For me it is more of a yes sir/no sir. If one sprinkler head is going to be a problem I would just give up on the idea rather then to make the one publishing my ideas have an eye on me for future hides. I don't think your find count has anything to do with it at all. I published some before that count and had some denied. I know it is not personal they are just trying to do there job. Some came back with reasons they couldn't be published that I could have talked them out of but decided it would not be worth it. Others I just explained why there reason was not right and it was published right away. They can only go off the information they see. I would never want to be in there shoes.

I planned out 6 hides over a period of time and hid them all in one day. All came back denied. At first I was kind of upset but then looked at it from there view. Told them the reasoning for them and got the ones that were OK published. I see they had reasons for them all and are actually really helpful and are only here to help us. When I seen all denied I thought it might be personal but it was not the case.

I know it might be to late but I would go back and try and work it out with the reviewer. They should have a reason. Fix that and all should be golden.

-WarNinjas

[+Magnum-DI]

First let me apologize to anyone here I might have offended with my quick temperament. I really felt like I was getting now where with a reviewer that was only copy/pasting excerpts from the guidelines into an email to me. A general rule of thumb with the internet is "noobs" get a hard time. This is usually laid down by people that have nothing better to do all day than troll forums and increase posts counts like it's a badge of honor.

 

Second, I would like to post a picture of the cache location to show that it is not buried in the dirt and is actually supported in a gravel bed by rocks on each side with the cache very easly obtainable with out the use of tools or any disturbance to the ground, not my original optimal idea, as it is a bit loose for my liking....

I know in the picture it looks silly like why would you have a sprinler in a gravel bed...what you dont see is in the parking lot is several areas muc like the and they all have trees in the middle of them and the sprinklers water those.

 

I give no hint about a sprinkler in my posting and I was really hoping that the tree would throw the cacher off a bit. However the GPS coord lands you right on top of the sprinkler. I don't think any one is going to go looking directly for a sprinkler unless they got tipped off, but how well they are placed the GPS should put them on the only one that would make sense.

 

Thank you,

 

[+The_Incredibles_]

I"m not a fan of sprinkler caches, personally. I feel they encourage cachers to take apart (and possibly damage) real sprinkler heads.

[+Magnum-DI]

Well, there is nothing in the rules that says not to, so until then I think practicing of good judgement in the placement of the fake sprinkler head should be used.

 

I did think of this when approaching this cache idea, and wanted to not put any clue in my listing about a sprinkler, and I also wanted the GZ location to be far enough away from any other sprinkler that you would know you are quite a bit off on your GPSr.

[Keystone]

First let me apologize to anyone here I might have offended with my quick temperament. I really felt like I was getting now where with a reviewer that was only copy/pasting excerpts from the guidelines into an email to me. A general rule of thumb with the internet is "noobs" get a hard time. This is usually laid down by people that have nothing better to do all day than troll forums and increase posts counts like it's a badge of honor.

You really ought to have stopped that paragraph after the first sentence, so that your apology extended to your reviewer. You are being quite unfair and inaccurate in your characterization of the reviewer's work on your listing. Your final sentence is a forum guideline violation.

 

In fact, your reviewer went easy on you. He didn't even address your mentioning business names on the cache listing, which is a separate guidelines issue.

 

If you want your thread to continue, you need to dial down the attitude. Thank you.

[+Touchstone]

...a reviewer that was only copy/pasting excerpts from the guidelines into an email to me.

 

Just an observation, and not intended as a "troll", but it seems as though the Reviewing Community makes extensive use of "form letters" in their responses to potential Guideline issues. I believe this is intended to make the Reviewing process faster (i.e. get more Listing Published in a short as time as possible), as well as for consistency.

 

Good luck with the Listing.

[knowschad]

Well, there is nothing in the rules that says not to, so until then I think practicing of good judgement in the placement of the fake sprinkler head should be used.

 

I did think of this when approaching this cache idea, and wanted to not put any clue in my listing about a sprinkler, and I also wanted the GZ location to be far enough away from any other sprinkler that you would know you are quite a bit off on your GPSr.

 

I will agree that it does seem that you excesized good judgment by placing it in the loose rocks rather than into the soil. However, sprinkler head caches really are very old-hat and are not liked by many cachers (and I don't mean just those here on the forum). In fact, there is a recent thread here titled something like "Hiding styles that quickly get boring" and sprinkler head hides are well-discussed in that thread. You are free, of course, to dismiss that advice, but after all the trouble you seem to be going through for this one, you may want to listen to it.

 

 

By the way, you won't find noobs with attitides treated any worse than old-timers with attitudes around here. Attitudes get the same reaction either way.

[+mullyman]

After seeing your "blach, blah, blah" reply to a seemingly innocent post I can't help but feel that your "temperament" that you apologized for probably got pointed towards your reviewer in some way and that reviewer probably decided to run by the letter of the law as far as your cache is concerned.

 

One thing you need to consider, these reviewers are far and few between....from what I gather, and with 1.6 million caches worldwide, you're probably not the only person on that reviewers plate at the moment.

MULLY

[+NYPaddleCacher]

...a reviewer that was only copy/pasting excerpts from the guidelines into an email to me.

 

Just an observation, and not intended as a "troll", but it seems as though the Reviewing Community makes extensive use of "form letters" in their responses to potential Guideline issues. I believe this is intended to make the Reviewing process faster (i.e. get more Listing Published in a short as time as possible), as well as for consistency.

 

This is a practice that has come up before and I don't necessarily agree with it. While the use of form letters can improved efficiency and consistency, I can't help but wonder if newbie geocachers might see reviewers as more human and someone that they could work with if form letters were not used as much.

[BoredRoom]

I would send the URL of a photograph that clearly shows that the container

 

My friend did that, and was very disappointed when the reviewer alleged that they viewed it but actually didn't.

 

I think the word for this is disingenuous?

 

In fact, they supplied so much supporting info it had to be split across two reviewer's notes -- not one link was clicked.

 

How do they know that? The info was hosted on their own web server where they were reviewing the log files.

[+Touchstone]

Since some Reviewers value their privacy, and that is a relatively well known technique to phish for IP adresses, that doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

I know of at least one Reviewer that was "outed" with that technique.

[+briansnat]

...a reviewer that was only copy/pasting excerpts from the guidelines into an email to me.

 

Just an observation, and not intended as a "troll", but it seems as though the Reviewing Community makes extensive use of "form letters" in their responses to potential Guideline issues. I believe this is intended to make the Reviewing process faster (i.e. get more Listing Published in a short as time as possible), as well as for consistency.

 

This is a practice that has come up before and I don't necessarily agree with it. While the use of form letters can improved efficiency and consistency, I can't help but wonder if newbie geocachers might see reviewers as more human and someone that they could work with if form letters were not used as much.

 

That is simply not realistic. In one evening of reviewing a reviewer may have to write 50 or more responses to the cache owners. Having to type personalized letters for every one can double the length of time it takes to get through the queue.

 

Now if more COs actually read the guidelines it would significantly reduce the need for the reviewers to write letters and could allow for more personalized contacts, but until that happens, the canned letters are essential to the process. Usually only the first letter is canned and subsequent ones are much more personalized.

[+Frank Broughton]

. This is usually laid down by people that have nothing better to do all day than troll forums and increase posts counts like it's a badge of honor.

 

Blah blah blah - some of us could care less about the number of our posts (hey I am close to one million btw- I use several other accounts here: Knowschad, DFX, Keystone - yep they are all me).

 

Now, as for nothing better to do - I have tons of things to do. My todo list is huge, but I happen to enjoy the interactions here with my fellow geocaching loons! ENJOY - get that, so it is NOT a waste of time for me! I think the same goes for many here, others who are called a troll, as some do to me. Some love cutting up and having a good laugh. I get that every time I read here.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Frank Broughton

[+Magnum-DI]

Ok I do agree with most of your flames on me, but also what I agree with and is the source of my frustration is the BOT like experience I received while emailing the Reviewer about my cache. That while trying to have a discourse with the reviewer about why, I am again met with copy/paste from a guideline. I think if a little more interaction was given about why, and how to fix this was given, the frustration would have subsided.

 

The goal of this thread was how I could get my cache approved because I seemed to be dealing with Robo-Cop that only blankly copy / pastes geocache scripture, without any constructive criticism. This leave me with 1. Attempt to interpret the Guidelines on my own, or 2. Use the forum for community input.

Nothing negative about the reviewer personally, I am sure he probably has a real life and a real job, and I do think that it may be unrealistic to give a personalized message with you are inundated with a mound of caches to review, however if you are emailed about why was a cache listing disabled the I feel that you are mandated to deliver a quality response, much akin to customer service.

 

I also am going to take the advice of the forum members and remove any mention of a business name. They were not needed any way.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Magnum-DI

[+Frank Broughton]

Tip - do not describe your cache type next time, it does not have to be mentioned to get passed.

[+Magnum-DI]

I am quickly learning to not volunteer information.

 

Tip - do not describe your cache type next time, it does not have to be mentioned to get passed.

[+wimseyguy]

Oh, it's too late for that. At this point you are probably on the list.

Edited September 30, 2011 by wimseyguy

[+thebruce0]

some of us couldn't care less about the number of our posts

fixed that fer ye :troll smiley:

 

Tip - do not describe your cache type next time' date=' it does not have to be mentioned to get passed.[/quote']

And that's a whole other issue I dislike.

Basically, be dishonest - don't tell reviewers information about your cache that break guidelines won't get it published. That can easily be the source of much reviewer (and player) frustration post-publishing.

 

Ultimately, if it breaks a guideline, don't submit the cache for publishing.

If you don't know if it breaks a guideline or if it simply raises concern with the reviewer, the reviewer will/should either attempt to work with you to modify it so that it won't, or else provide you an opportunity to explain and support the hide so it can be published.

 

Oh' date=' it's too late for that. At this point you are probably on the list.[/quote']

Oh man... "the list"... you don't want to be on "the list"... that's what gets you "letter of the law" treatment.

Edited September 30, 2011 by thebruce0

[+JL_HSTRE]

I am quickly learning to not volunteer information.

 

Tip - do not describe your cache type next time, it does not have to be mentioned to get passed.

 

If full disclosure of the cache to the Reviewer would cause it not to be published, should you really be placing it in the first place?

[+Semper Questio]

After seeing your picture and reading your description, I think I have an idea where you are having trouble. You say the cache is not "buried". OK. Fair enough. But you had to do some digging to put the PVC pipe in the landscaping. That is a no-no in 2 ways.

 

1. No digging is allowed to hide or find a cache. You see, it's not really the "burying" that is the main issue, it's the "digging".

 

2. No modification of the environment is allowed. No, tape, glue, screws, nails, digging, etc.

 

Both of these are in the guidelines. See paragraphs 3 and 4 HERE

[+Magnum-DI]

I have already repaired that...if you see my discussion with the reviewer I removed the pipe from the ground and it is now supported by gravel on all sides for the snuggest fit I could manage with out being buried.

 

Honestly tho I would say 1/3 of all caches I come across are out of regs...I quite often see glueded on or bolted on metal plates for magnets, cache lids glued or screwed to bottoms of tables, etc etc. I am not saying that all these wrong should make it ok, but lets be honest here, I am trying to play by the rules and have takin all constructive critisim and made the appropriate edits to the cache and listing.

 

I thought the picture would of cleared that up when you can clearly see the cache is resting in a gravel bed and is supported by gravel on the sides. I would hardly call moving a few gravel rocks that are so indigenous to the natural parking lot habitat destructive.

 

So whats the definiton of bury here, Using loose gravel rocks to wedge a container, or actualy removing dirt, breaking ground. Also the total concept of bury is just that to bury... Here is the dictionary.com definition...

 

bur·y

   [ber-ee] Show IPA verb, bur·ied, bur·y·ing, noun, plural bur·ies.

verb

 

to put in the ground and cover with earth: The pirates buried the chest on the island.

 

2.

to put (a corpse) in the ground or a vault, or into the sea, often with ceremony: They buried the sailor with full military honors.

 

3.

to plunge in deeply; cause to sink in: to bury an arrow in a target.

 

4.

to cover in order to conceal from sight: She buried the card in the deck.

 

So it seems that the true definition of bury is to cover completly, so I think what Groundspeak was really meaning was not to dig a hole then corver it with dirt and place and X on the ground like a dang Pirate's booty....

 

 

After seeing your picture and reading your description, I think I have an idea where you are having trouble. You say the cache is not "buried". OK. Fair enough. But you had to do some digging to put the PVC pipe in the landscaping. That is a no-no in 2 ways.

 

1. No digging is allowed to hide or find a cache. You see, it's not really the "burying" that is the main issue, it's the "digging".

 

2. No modification of the environment is allowed. No, tape, glue, screws, nails, digging, etc.

 

Both of these are in the guidelines. See paragraphs 3 and 4 HERE

[+Frank Broughton]

some of us couldn't care less about the number of our posts

fixed that fer ye :troll smiley:

 

I left that for you.... haha!

 

I am quickly learning to not volunteer information.

 

Tip - do not describe your cache type next time' date=' it does not have to be mentioned to get passed.[/quote']

 

If full disclosure of the cache to the Reviewer would cause it not to be published, should you really be placing it in the first place?

Agree, I did not say to do that if the cache is not legal, but if you KNOW it is legal then/than (which one Bruce) why bother with a description of the container?

[jholly]

 

Honestly tho I would say 1/3 of all caches I come across are out of regs...I quite often see glueded on or bolted on metal plates for magnets, cache lids glued or screwed to bottoms of tables, etc etc. I am not saying that all these wrong should make it ok, but lets be honest here, I am trying to play by the rules and have takin all constructive critisim and made the appropriate edits to the cache and listing.

 

Your experience of caching in the SF bay area is certainly different than mine. I saw very few that were questionable. Probably less than the number of fingers on your hand.

[+niraD]

So whats the definiton of bury here, Using loose gravel rocks to wedge a container, or actualy removing dirt, breaking ground. Also the total concept of bury is just that to bury... Here is the dictionary.com definition...

As previously mentioned, the "never buried" guideline is really a "no digging" guideline. Here's how burying/digging are defined in the guideline itself: "a shovel, trowel or other pointy object is used to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache".

 

Throwing handfuls of loose bark, leaves, dirt, gravel, etc. on top of the container doesn't violate the guideline, any more than stacking a few sticks or stones on top of the container does. Covering the container completely with loose bark, leaves, dirt, gravel, etc. doesn't violate the guideline either. Digging or breaking ground violates the guideline.

 

Land managers don't want people digging up their parks, open spaces, etc. This guideline addresses that concern.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

some of us couldn't care less about the number of our posts

fixed that fer ye :troll smiley:

 

I left that for you.... haha!

 

I am quickly learning to not volunteer information.

 

Tip - do not describe your cache type next time' date=' it does not have to be mentioned to get passed.[/quote']

 

If full disclosure of the cache to the Reviewer would cause it not to be published, should you really be placing it in the first place?

Agree, I did not say to do that if the cache is not legal, but if you KNOW it is legal then/than (which one Bruce) why bother with a description of the container?

 

Because even if it *is* legal, in the context of the guidelines, if it skirts the guidelines, especially a guideline that seems to be pushed as often as the "no buried caches", having the cache published might still cause issues. The no buried caches guideline doesn't exist to prevent geocacher from using a shovel or other pointy object. It doesn't exist, for the purpose of debating the definition of buried. It exists to avoid the perception by land managers that geocaching is about buried treasure.

 

If a cache is published, because the CO omitted information about the hide that *might* cause issues with it being published, several things might happen.

 

Someone else may come along and find it, and think moving a bunch of rocks or moving some dirt around to sort of cover the cache is okay and won't mention it when they hide a cache. Maybe the next person will see a small depression, that, it were a little deeper, it could hold a cache. Or someone might come along and "hide it better".

 

Perhaps in this case, someoone will see a cache made from a sprinkler head and place one that is not so obviously out of place. Let's face it, there are a lot of geo copycats out there and when someone copies a hide this might, technically, be legal they might modify it enough to go over the line.

 

Once a cache is published it's up to the community to let the reviewer know if there may, in fact, be a guideline violation. Due to the cache cop stigma that doesn't always happens so there becomes a possibility that a land manager will discover a cache *they* believe to be buried, and adopt a geocaching policy based on what they see (not what the guidelines actually say).

 

This particular cache is called Muggle heaven or something along those lines. It's in a parking lot where a lot of people won't know that the sprinkler head is a cache and what do suppose will happen when they see what appears to be someone digging up a sprinkler head.