[FEATURE] QtA WPs should be at least 0.10 miles/161m apart from physical elements of different geocaches

[+DanPan]

Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and/or a question to answer waypoints are exempt from the minimum 161m separation rule.

 

Today there is no minimum required distance between physical and non-physical elements.

 

With the current "Cache Listing Requirements and Guidelines" it is acceptable (but NOT DONE) to create a "Question to Answer" WP and ask the question: "What is the name of the multi or mystery cache you can find here?" or "What is the color of the cachebox you can find here?"

Edited December 21, 2011 by DanPan

[Moun10Bike]

What problem or missing functionality are you trying to correct with this suggestion? There is currently no proximity restriction between any non-physical stage of one cache and physical stage of another and I don't see from your post any reasoning as to why that needs to change.

[+DanPan]

What problem or missing functionality are you trying to correct with this suggestion? There is currently no proximity restriction between any non-physical stage of one cache and physical stage of another and I don't see from your post any reasoning as to why that needs to change.

Protect FINAL locations and/or SoaM WPs from "malicious" QtA WPs (cfr. my 2 QtA examples)

Edited December 21, 2011 by DanPan

[Keystone]

I would think that such an issue, if ever presented, would be caught during the review process or dealt with by the reviewer post-publication in response to a complaint from the "spoiled" cache's owner. That's why listings aren't reviewed by a computer program, but rather by humans. (Of couse, many reviewers are dogs, but they'd probably spot this, too.)

[Moun10Bike]

Keystone mirrors my thoughts exactly. A reviewer would almost always catch this during the review process. I'm still curious as to what situation has led to this suggestion, though. Can you point to one, or are you thinking of hypotheticals?

[+Team WilP]

On the main waypoint from a high rated muli (8km) where you have to answer 6 questions, an other CO placed a Traditional (micro).

At a scienic viewpoint on poles there is one pole with a plaquette with a name on it, this is one of the questions You have to answer. In the nearestby pole another CO placed after 4 1/2 years that the Multi-cache exist a traditonal.

Of course at the moment it is between the rules but it shows not many respect for the other CO to do so.

At the other hand, me and a lot of other cachers find that, it should be not possible to do so.

The CO that placed the micro found so far 28 traditionals and 2 Earhcaches perhaps he did not know of the excistents of that multi. But the reviewer should see this for the 0.10 miles/ 161 m rule.

[+BruceS]

On the main waypoint from a high rated muli (8km) where you have to answer 6 questions, an other CO placed a Traditional (micro).

At a scienic viewpoint on poles there is one pole with a plaquette with a name on it, this is one of the questions You have to answer. In the nearestby pole another CO placed after 4 1/2 years that the Multi-cache exist a traditonal.

Of course at the moment it is between the rules but it shows not many respect for the other CO to do so.

At the other hand, me and a lot of other cachers find that, it should be not possible to do so.

The CO that placed the micro found so far 28 traditionals and 2 Earhcaches perhaps he did not know of the excistents of that multi. But the reviewer should see this for the 0.10 miles/ 161 m rule.

 

It sounds like you are describing the opposite of what the OP is describing. You describing putting a physical cache near a non-physical portion of a multicache and the OP is describing putting a non-physical portion of a multi-cache near a cache or a physical part of a multi. They may appear the same but the timing sequence is different.

[+DanPan]

Keystone mirrors my thoughts exactly. A reviewer would almost always catch this during the review process. I'm still curious as to what situation has led to this suggestion, though. Can you point to one, or are you thinking of hypotheticals?

In most cases QtA WPs are not checked during the reviewing process. (sorry dogs, frogs, sprouts, ...)

 

I'm not thinking hypothetical.

 

Some real cases:

 

. I know several earthcaches nearby FINAL locations. So these EC could be considered as "spoiling" and should be removed?

 

. a QtA WP of one of my multi-caches is on top of a FINAL location of a mystery cache

FYI: i didn't know when i created my multi; i do not spoil in the WP description; the CO of the mystery cache is now aware of this situation and accepted it.

(i will send you the info by e-mail; otherwise i'm spoiling... )

[Keystone]

In most cases QtA WPs are not checked during the reviewing process.

That's because they don't "count" - it doesn't mean that the reviewer cannot find out about them, though it does take some extra work. It is hard to explain this because you cannot see the way in which reviewers work with the data. I would need some sort of clue from the cache description to motivate me to dig deeper.

 

I know several earthcaches nearby FINAL locations. So these EC could be considered as "spoiling" and should be removed?

Earthcaches are reviewed by a different team of reviewers under different standards. Earthcaches and geocaches can be at the same places. In any event your feature request isn't about earthcaches. My own best multicache was spoiled by a waymark that gives away the location of a critical intermediate waypoint, but I got over it. Waymarks aren't geocaches either.

a QtA WP of one of my multi-caches is on top of a FINAL location of a mystery cache

FYI: i didn't know when i created my multi; i do not spoil in the WP description; the CO of the mystery cache is now aware of this situation and accepted it.

That sounds like an innocent mistake, and possibly one that doesn't matter unless the mystery cache is hidden in plain sight. If there was a real problem then reasonable cache owners can work it out between themselves.

 

I am not seeing this problem as a reviewer in two of the ten most cache-dense states for many years. In contrast, if Question to Answer waypoints were made subject to the Cache Saturation test, there would be widespread confusion between "old" cache designs and "new" cache designs, and high frustration over the restriction of caching real estate in a 528 foot radius when there is no hidden container in that circle.

[+Team WilP]

............... It sounds like you are describing the opposite of what the OP is describing. You describing putting a physical cache near a non-physical portion of a multicache and the OP is describing putting a non-physical portion of a multi-cache near a cache or a physical part of a multi. They may appear the same but the timing sequence is different.

 

I understand, but my case was the trigger for this discussion in the Dutch cachecommunity, therefore I placed my post.

My opionion, one way or the other, both cases are not desirable.

You understand that I talk about my own cache. GC1288J Therefore I am possibly not for 100% objective but a little bit frustrated about it.

But after I passed that feeling I still find it desirable.

[+NanCycle]

I don't thnk there should be any change to the existing guidelines regarding QtA WPs. In a few rare specific cases it may be necessary to ask someone not to use the WP as a spoiler for another cache, but in general I don't see a problem.

 

btw, what is "SoaM" -- I figured out all the acronyms except that.

[Moun10Bike]

SoaM = Stage of a Multi

 

Like Keystone, I am not seeing this as a widespread problem, and any implementation of a proximity restriction for non-physical stages at this point will just create more confusion and problems than it will solve.

[+Delta68]

On a related note, I've also seen physical stages of a Multi listed as QtA stages in order to avoid proximity problems with existing caches

 

Treating QtA stages the same as physical stages would be the only way to prevent such abuse for certain

 

 

Mark

[+Avernar]

On a related note, I've also seen physical stages of a Multi listed as QtA stages in order to avoid proximity problems with existing caches

 

Treating QtA stages the same as physical stages would be the only way to prevent such abuse for certain

For certain? What would stop the CO from not entering the stage at all then?

 

Automatic restrictions are not the answer. If you see a proximity issue or any other shenanigans by the CO just email the reviewer.

[+Lil Devil]

Automatic restrictions are not the answer. If you see a proximity issue or any other shenanigans by the CO just email the reviewer.

Exactly. Some people are going to cheat the system. If you close one loophole, they'll just find another loophole. If you see someone cheating the system, report it. Community policing is the best way to stop it.