Should I report

[+NanCycle]

The other day I was looking at the logs of a trackable that had a lot of "visits' and I noticed that some of the distances between caches that it visited were like 490-510 ft. So I went on the cache pages and clicked "Find all nearby caches" and saw the same distances between caches there. I'm wondering what everyone thinks, Should I report these? Or should I mind my own business? I have already reported an instance of the final of a puzzle being only 160 ft. from a pre-existing cache.

[+GeoBain]

The only advice I am going to give you is that it is probably not wise to request input on this type of question in the forums. There are many who will label you as a cache cop for even asking the question.

 

I suggest you quietly consider the matter and do what your heart leads you to do.

[jholly]

The other day I was looking at the logs of a trackable that had a lot of "visits' and I noticed that some of the distances between caches that it visited were like 490-510 ft. So I went on the cache pages and clicked "Find all nearby caches" and saw the same distances between caches there. I'm wondering what everyone thinks, Should I report these? Or should I mind my own business? I have already reported an instance of the final of a puzzle being only 160 ft. from a pre-existing cache.

Could be the reviewer decided the 528 distance is a guideline and published the cache. Keystone mentioned he does this from time to time. Could be the caches were published and were 528 feet apart but then the CO moved the cache for some reason or the other, and they can move it 528 feet. So it could be within the operational parameters. The puzzle could be the same situation, fine at the start but for some reason one or both were moved. Not sure about the history of the caches or the finals of a puzzle cache, but at one time you did not have to submit the stages of a multi so some caches could be in violation of the proximity rules. I personally have seen caches that on my GPS were only about 500 feet apart. Me? I logged them and moved on and did not worry about it. I have reported obvious guideline violations to reviewers and the most I get is "I'll let the CO know about your concerns." I no longer report violations because nothing happens.

 

P.S. Like your new avatar.

Edited January 18, 2012 by jholly

[+NanCycle]

There are many who will label you as a cache cop for even asking the question.

 

 

That's ok; it would tell me what I want to know. Anyhow--sticks & stones & all that.

[+lamoracke]

in the greater seattle area, I know of 3 sets of caches that are within 100 feet or so of each other. Two of those involve a puzzle with a traditional, the other 2 are both traditionals. When I was new to caching, I remember making a remark on the cache page about it in one of my find logs. I had figured it was the newer cache that infringed on the old one, but it turns out it was the older one that got closer to the new one. I would not worry about it. Sometimes am sure a CO will intentionally fudge a cache a bit and try to slip it in there somehow (either after with a change coords or other methods), but why investigate it unless you are trying yourself to put a cache near there or something.

 

The reviewers will catch 99% of them, sometimes they will just slip through.

Edited January 18, 2012 by lamoracke

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

The other day I was looking at the logs of a trackable that had a lot of "visits' and I noticed that some of the distances between caches that it visited were like 490-510 ft. So I went on the cache pages and clicked "Find all nearby caches" and saw the same distances between caches there. I'm wondering what everyone thinks, Should I report these? Or should I mind my own business? I have already reported an instance of the final of a puzzle being only 160 ft. from a pre-existing cache.

 

Did you find both of the caches that were "too close together"? If not, then how can you be sure that there isn't some barrier preventing seekers of 1 of the caches from accidentally finding the other by mistake. That is one of the reasons for the 1/10 mile separation, that and the inaccuracy of the GPSr at the time the guideline was set. The main purpose of the guideline is to try and prevent people from finding the wrong cache by accident.

 

John

[Mr.Yuck]

The other day I was looking at the logs of a trackable that had a lot of "visits' and I noticed that some of the distances between caches that it visited were like 490-510 ft. So I went on the cache pages and clicked "Find all nearby caches" and saw the same distances between caches there. I'm wondering what everyone thinks, Should I report these? Or should I mind my own business? I have already reported an instance of the final of a puzzle being only 160 ft. from a pre-existing cache.

 

You don't report it. In my opinion, of course. Especially in the cases of "old" caches. I see you're a 2004 joiner, I'm a 2003 joiner. They didn't keep very good records back then (a dirty little secret )

 

The process has been tightened way up over the years, and you're unlikely to see something like that currently. And if you do, as other's have mentioned, there has probably been an exception made (top of cliff, bottom of cliff, etc...)

[+briansnat]

Reviewers are allowed to give some leeway if they feel conditions warrant. So if you see a cache that is like 490-510 feet from another, the reviewer probably let it slide. I'd ignore it.

 

If you see a cache that is under 100 feet from another cache the reviewer may have made a mistake, or he may have published a cache too close to an old multi or puzzle where the coords were not available to him. In those cases your reviewer would probably appreciate a heads up email.

[AZcachemeister]

Reviewers make mistakes, too.

Sometimes they just hit the 'Publish All' button and turn in for the night.

 

If the cache has been there for over a year and nobody but the owner of the senior cache complains about encroachment, the newer cache(s) will be allowed to remain.

[+Bhob]

I believe that there several situations where distances of less than 528 feet are valid

 

as I understand it, the 528 rule has not been around since the beginning

some older geocaches were legitimately placed close together, and got grandfathered in when the 528 rule was implemented

 

I believe that there are also exceptions for geographic barriers

opposite sides of a river

top and bottom of a cliff

opposite sides of a major highway

etc

 

I believe that the main reasons for the 528 rule is to prevent saturation, reduce environmental damage from too much foot traffic, and avoid mistaking one geocache for another

 

so, there are valid exceptions for geocaches to be less than 528 feet apart

and, personally, I don't think that 490 feet is anything to get too concerned about

[+NanCycle]

The 500 ft caches are all along a single road; some of them date back to 2006 although most are 2008-2010 and some are 2011--fill-ins to create a power trail. I'll consider this "reviewer leeway" and mind my own business.

 

The puzzle final is new and the pre-existing cache is only from 2010 (neither was ever moved from its original location); I considered this "reviewer error" and have already reported it and the reviewer is dealing with it.

 

Thanks to everyone for your input.

[+Ambrosia]

The other day I was looking at the logs of a trackable that had a lot of "visits' and I noticed that some of the distances between caches that it visited were like 490-510 ft. So I went on the cache pages and clicked "Find all nearby caches" and saw the same distances between caches there. I'm wondering what everyone thinks, Should I report these? Or should I mind my own business? I have already reported an instance of the final of a puzzle being only 160 ft. from a pre-existing cache.

Could be the reviewer decided the 528 distance is a guideline and published the cache. Keystone mentioned he does this from time to time. Could be the caches were published and were 528 feet apart but then the CO moved the cache for some reason or the other, and they can move it 528 feet. So it could be within the operational parameters. The puzzle could be the same situation, fine at the start but for some reason one or both were moved. Not sure about the history of the caches or the finals of a puzzle cache, but at one time you did not have to submit the stages of a multi so some caches could be in violation of the proximity rules. I personally have seen caches that on my GPS were only about 500 feet apart. Me? I logged them and moved on and did not worry about it. I have reported obvious guideline violations to reviewers and the most I get is "I'll let the CO know about your concerns." I no longer report violations because nothing happens.

 

P.S. Like your new avatar.

Aw! Sometimes things happen, it just depends on the situation. Don't give up, if it's an important issue.

[+hukilaulau]

The other day I was looking at the logs of a trackable that had a lot of "visits' and I noticed that some of the distances between caches that it visited were like 490-510 ft.

Should I report these?

 

let me answer your question with a question... WHY would you "report these"?

Were they dangerous? Would it be too traumatic if someone found one while looking for the other? Is your sense of propriety so disturbed that you can't sleep at night?

 

Seriously, I'd like to know what you were thinking as you contemplated reporting them.

[+Ambrosia]

Sometimes they just hit the 'Publish All' button and turn in for the night.

I certainly hope not.

[+GeoBain]

The other day I was looking at the logs of a trackable that had a lot of "visits' and I noticed that some of the distances between caches that it visited were like 490-510 ft.

Should I report these?

 

let me answer your question with a question... WHY would you "report these"?

Were they dangerous? Would it be too traumatic if someone found one while looking for the other? Is your sense of propriety so disturbed that you can't sleep at night?

 

Seriously, I'd like to know what you were thinking as you contemplated reporting them.

 

Go easy. She explained her concerns already. 2 post above yours.

[4wheelin_fool]

I am aware of the final of a nightcache within 50 feet of a traditional, both hidden fairly recently and neither causing problems. I personally wouldn't report any, unless there was an issue with them causing confusion with each other.

 

 

However, if they are unmaintained and abandoned nanos, then perhaps the proximity issue should be mentioned to a reviewer.

Edited January 19, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+BlueDeuce]

The other day I was looking at the logs of a trackable that had a lot of "visits' and I noticed that some of the distances between caches that it visited were like 490-510 ft.

Should I report these?

 

let me answer your question with a question... WHY would you "report these"?

Were they dangerous? Would it be too traumatic if someone found one while looking for the other? Is your sense of propriety so disturbed that you can't sleep at night?

 

Seriously, I'd like to know what you were thinking as you contemplated reporting them.

 

Two reasons, 1. The rules should apply the same to everyone. 2. If you think the rules should apply the same to everyone there are always exceptions, mistakes, misunderstandings and misinformation.

 

Things are confusing enough without being told that asking a question means you're a busy-body. We tend to place caches based on what we find so why shouldn't we wonder about the ones that don't seem to meet guidelines.

 

It's always best to go straight to the reviewer for clarification.

Edited January 19, 2012 by BlueDeuce

[+Isonzo Karst]

Cache owners can move caches up to one tenth mile. So two caches, originally published at 700 feet apart can end up less then 528 feet apart. They could even end up on the same coords.

The only time I'd worry about it would be if one cache might well be found while searching for another.

 

A new traditional cache, small, hint "palm". It was less then 30 feet from an old multicache stage, hint "palm"! I found the new trad, I'd already found the old multi. I emailed the owner of the new cache. He disabled it, he shifted another 30 feet, and put it in an oak. Title included Oak...they were still only 60 feet apart, but no real problem.

 

Had there been no response, I'd have emailed the reviewer.

 

The second time I ended up going to the reviewer, no response from owner of the new trad. Those 2 caches were on the same tree.

 

Old multis, no coord info available.

[Mr.Yuck]

I am aware of the final of a nightcache within 50 feet of a traditional, both hidden fairly recently and neither causing problems. I personally wouldn't report any, unless there was an issue with them causing confusion with each other.

 

 

However, if they are unmaintained and abandoned nanos, then perhaps the proximity issue should be mentioned to a reviewer.

 

It took until post 16, but this above is the correct answer.

[TheCacheSeeker]

You don't have to report it. It will probably be grandfathered anyway.

[+Moose Mob]

<snip>

Sometimes they just hit the 'Publish All' button and turn in for the night.

<snip>

No, that never happens

[knowschad]

 

as I understand it, the 528 rule has not been around since the beginning

some older geocaches were legitimately placed close together, and got grandfathered in when the 528 rule was implemented

 

I believe that there are also exceptions for geographic barriers

opposite sides of a river

top and bottom of a cliff

opposite sides of a major highway

etc

 

That often repeated claim is apparently so rare as to almost be a myth, based on what I've seen from years of forum posts.

[knowschad]

<snip>

Sometimes they just hit the 'Publish All' button and turn in for the night go caching.

<snip>

 

[+NanCycle]

The other day I was looking at the logs of a trackable that had a lot of "visits' and I noticed that some of the distances between caches that it visited were like 490-510 ft.

Should I report these?

 

let me answer your question with a question... WHY would you "report these"?

Were they dangerous? Would it be too traumatic if someone found one while looking for the other? Is your sense of propriety so disturbed that you can't sleep at night?

 

Seriously, I'd like to know what you were thinking as you contemplated reporting them.

 

Go easy. She explained her concerns already. 2 post above yours.

 

No problem. Somewhere in the forums (of course I can't find it now) I read something to the effect that we should help keep the guidelines met, something sort of like what BlueDeuce said in #17.

So I just wanted to get opinions, and I got them--thanks. Issue settled and done.

[+ras_oscar]

For me, issues like this revolve around purpose. The purpose of the 528 foot rule is to limit cache saturatuion and logging confusion. Consider: there is no distance guideline. Cacher A pops a cache into a tree stump. Cacher B pokes a cache into a chain link fence cap 15 feet away. Some finders log a find on B but sign the log on A, and vice versa. COs go out check their logs and start deleting "bogus " logs. confusion ensues.

 

Question: regardless of the distance apart, is it likely that one cache will be found but be mistaken for the other? if not, I'd let it slide. 528 feet is pretty far apart, even for the most rudimentary GPS. I usually stop searching if I get more than 50' from the GPS GZ point.

[+bflentje]

There are many who will label you as a cache cop for even asking the question.

 

 

That's ok; it would tell me what I want to know. Anyhow--sticks & stones & all that.

 

If it were me I'd mind my own business.. unless it was something obnoxiously wrong with the cache.

[+niraD]

I once sent email to a volunteer reviewer when I noticed a new cache that was close to the final of an older puzzle cache. In that case, the volunteer reviewer let both caches remain in place. It had been an innocent mistake: the new CO didn't know the puzzle final was there, and neither did the volunteer reviewer since the coordinates hadn't been entered into the system. They weren't causing problems for each other, since they were still a couple hundred feet apart. The puzzle CO did add the final coordinates to the system shortly after that though.

 

In general, I think volunteer reviewers will evaluate each situation on its own merits. There's a difference between two caches migrating towards each other as the owners innocently perform maintenance, and cache owners subverting the guidelines by listing initial coordinates 530' from another cache and then immediately editing the coordinates to a location much closer to the other cache.

 

If you think there might be something to be concerned about, then go ahead and contact the volunteer reviewers. But keep in mind that they might decide that there is nothing to be concerned about, and do nothing.