How do I deal with my reviewer?

[+jaaake]

I'm at the end of my rope with my reviewer.

I wish there was a 400 page list of okay caches and not okay caches.

 

The reviewer discretion makes it a him vs me and I don't like that.

 

I also drove 50 miles to a breakfast event to meet him and he wouldn't give me the time of day.

They basically let me know that I need to find 1000s to be part of their group.

 

He allows people to dig holes and hide caches--

http://coord.info/GC2V409

He allows people to drill and rivet things to public property--

http://coord.info/GCKMAA

He allows people to drill holes in new Power poles--

http://coord.info/GC217PR

He allows people to wrap wire around trees to the point where they grow around the wire..

 

I've met with the Parks and Recreation manager here where I live, promoted Geocaching and received permission to hide them in the parks.

I assumed it was okay to drill a small hole in a tree.

I did it, it was approved. Then yesterday after 12 people had logged it he archived it.

 

Any advice, other than moving to a different state?

-JAAAKE

[+Fiver1]

I suggest that if you and the reviewer can't come to terms, then take it up with Groundspeak.

[+Lieblweb]

You're not going to win that battle. Let it go.....it's not worth fighting.

Why? Because you'll turn this hobby into something it wasn't mean to be.

 

Have you 'politely' asked him WHY he's not publishing your caches?

 

There are always two sides of any story, and we haven't heard his side.

 

You've got 36 hides already - your reviewer can't be that bad!!

[+jaaake]

I don't want it to be a battle.

It's a fun sport I enjoy with my family.

I'm at the point where I'll just archive all my caches and just enjoy the finding side of the game.

 

I've tried to be polite for over a year.

To be honest it just bothers me that it's this way for me and not others.

The other option I'm looking at is starting a new username and not attending any events with that name.

[+Semper Questio]

Well, first, some caches are placed before certain guidelines are put into effect so using a prior placed cache as a reference of what you can do is a bad idea.

 

Second, reviewers seldom know the particulars of how a cache is hidden. They can't know unless the cache description says so, the CO tells them, or other cachers report a problem.

 

Third, there is a guideline that says caches are not to be placed by damaging or defacing natural or man-made objects. If you drilled into a tree to place a new cache and other cachers reported it, that can draw a quick archival.

 

If you have permission to drill, bolt5, or whatever; be sure you tell the reviewer you have permission for the proper authority to do so. But even with permission, the reviewer has the power to not approve the cache since there is a basic guideline violation involved and others may do just what you have done...using your cache to justify what they want to do, assuming it is OK and they may not even think about getting permission.

 

IMO, your best bet is to always be mindful of the guidelines and hide caches accordingly. The less you have to worry about permissions, waivers, and exceptions, the better.

[+Ike 13]

I looked at the caches in the OP I see no way the reviewer would know these issues unless the owner admitted to it in the reviewer notes. This is probably a case where others are skirting the guidelines and hoping the reviewer does not find out. You are trying to be honest. If you find a cache against guidelines, maybe the top 2, then you should post a Needs Archived or contact the reviewer with this information. (This is probably what happened with yours). It's not him vs you the difference is you were caught and reported while the other examples may not have been reported.

[+mpilchfamily]

First of all, even if it was allowed by the property manager drilling a hole in a tree is not good caching.

 

Wildlife is not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching. Geocaches are placed so that plant and animal life are safe from both intentional and unintentional harm. In some regions geocaching activity may need to cease for portions of the year.

 

Secondly just because a existing cache violates one of the guidelines doesn't mean yours can too.

 

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is.

 

I can see why the reviewer isn't budging on your cache, and nor should he/she. But if those other cache bug you then log an NA on them. The reviewer may not have been aware of the issue when the cache was placed.

[+The A-Team]

I looked at the caches in the OP I see no way the reviewer would know these issues unless the owner admitted to it in the reviewer notes.

That was the first thing I did. I brought up each one to see if it actually said anywhere in the description that it was buried/drilled/etc. I couldn't find any mention on any of them, thus there's no way for the reviewer to know unless it's reported to them by someone else.

[+Lieblweb]

I don't want it to be a battle.

It's a fun sport I enjoy with my family.

I'm at the point where I'll just archive all my caches and just enjoy the finding side of the game.

 

I've tried to be polite for over a year.

To be honest it just bothers me that it's this way for me and not others.

The other option I'm looking at is starting a new username and not attending any events with that name.

What initiated all this? Is there a cache you're trying to publish? What's the GC code?

 

And like someone already said.... guidelines have changed over the years. Reviewers DO NOT visit cache sites and don't know the physical placement of the caches. So, its a waste of time to use other cache sites to argue a point.

 

Give us the GC code of the cache your trying to publish......

[+jaaake]

I appreciate your clarification that drilling a hole in a tree is against the rules.

I do not appreciate the 'get caught' comment. I'm not trying to get around the rules.

In my opinion it did no harm to the tree and did not violate the rules.

(As an arborist I trim 100s of trees every year I specifically put the hole where it wouldn't hurt the tree)

 

You say that I shouldn't use other caches to justify mine, and to post NA on them.

The one's I've done that with were not archived and just upset the owners so now more people don't like me.

 

Is there an unabridged list of approved geocaches?

If not I might start a website to help others having the issues I have.

 

Suggestions?

[Pup Patrol]

What initiated all this? Is there a cache you're trying to publish? What's the GC code?

 

And like someone already said.... guidelines have changed over the years. Reviewers DO NOT visit cache sites and don't know the physical placement of the caches. So, its a waste of time to use other cache sites to argue a point.

 

Give us the GC code of the cache your trying to publish......

 

i would assume the problem arose as outlined in the OP:

 

I've met with the Parks and Recreation manager here where I live, promoted Geocaching and received permission to hide them in the parks.

I assumed it was okay to drill a small hole in a tree.

I did it, it was approved. Then yesterday after 12 people had logged it he archived it.

 

Any advice, other than moving to a different state?

-JAAAKE

[+jaaake]

I don't want it to be a battle.

It's a fun sport I enjoy with my family.

I'm at the point where I'll just archive all my caches and just enjoy the finding side of the game.

 

I've tried to be polite for over a year.

To be honest it just bothers me that it's this way for me and not others.

The other option I'm looking at is starting a new username and not attending any events with that name.

What initiated all this? Is there a cache you're trying to publish? What's the GC code?

 

And like someone already said.... guidelines have changed over the years. Reviewers DO NOT visit cache sites and don't know the physical placement of the caches. So, its a waste of time to use other cache sites to argue a point.

 

Give us the GC code of the cache your trying to publish......

 

I have several that are not published but:

http://coord.info/GC33BJK

is the cache being discussed. I went out this morning and took it out of the hole and now it's hung with a wire.

As an Arborist I hate wire in trees. I've lost a lot of skin from chains snapping from wire/nails/etc..

[+Ike 13]

You don't have to post a NA. An email to the reviewer with the facts (and maybe a picture) is okay. Again I don't think the reviewer is personally against your caches. You've had one placement that was against the guidelines that was reported and archived. (BTW you'll need to email the reviewer to have it unarchived I doubt he's going to see your log). I think you meant no harm so learn from the mistake and move forward.

 

Reviewers do not approve they use the tools provided to ensure caches fit the guidelines. Read the guidelines over and over and over. Also read the knowledgebooks. I'm one of the more educated cachers in my area on guidelines and usually got approval from my reviewer first time through, but I'm always learning.

 

Like I said in my first post the only way a reviewer knows a cache is against guidelines is if the owner says it on the page (which is unlikely) or a finder reports it. So now it is your decision on whether you want the guidelines enforced for everyone or to turn a blind eye. And since you listed GC codes in the OP it's probably to late to not ruffle any feathers because I bet the reviewer will find out about those now

[+mpilchfamily]

Is there an unabridged list of approved geocaches?

If not I might start a website to help others having the issues I have.

 

Suggestions?

Once again this comes down the fact that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. So a prior approved cache doesnt mean a similar cache will be approved.

 

Posting an NA is the only way, sort of emailing the review directly, to bring there attention to a cache. It should be an NRA (Needs Reviewer Attention). Mostly the NA log is for issues that need to be addressed by the review such as a cache violating the guidelines. Just because it violates them doesn't mean the cache should be archived. In many cases the review will disable the cache till the problem is fixed. Given the CO a period of time to remedy the issue before he archives the cache. But most people see that as you trying to get there cache taken down. People will get upset over the most mundane things. It not something to worry about.

[+Semper Questio]

I appreciate your clarification that drilling a hole in a tree is against the rules.

I do not appreciate the 'get caught' comment. I'm not trying to get around the rules.

 

Sorry, but "appreciate it" or not, that's what happened. When you list a cache, you check a box saying you have read, understand, and are complying with the guidelines. Whether you read them or not, I don't know. But you clearly did not comply with them. Ergo, you got caught.

 

In my opinion it did no harm to the tree and did not violate the rules.

(As an arborist I trim 100s of trees every year I specifically put the hole where it wouldn't hurt the tree)

 

Your opinion and your profession don't enter into it here. There is a guideline in place and you did not follow it. The reviewer was just doing what he was supposed to do.

 

You say that I shouldn't use other caches to justify mine, and to post NA on them.

The one's I've done that with were not archived and just upset the owners so now more people don't like me.

 

That's the risk you run every time you post any negative comment, NM or NA log. If being liked is important to you or if you are concerned about repercussions, then instead of using an NA log, send an email to your reviewer. I have had to do this a few times and it works well.

 

Is there an unabridged list of approved geocaches?

If not I might start a website to help others having the issues I have.

 

Suggestions?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "an unabridged list of approved geocaches". Every active cache is approved and most of the archived ones were approved at some point or another. Are you talking about starting another listing service where caches that don't meet GC's guidelines can be listed? There are already a few of those. Feel free to try them out or start another.

 

In the meantime, I suggest you reread the guidelines a few times and, as I suggested earlier, put your personal feelings aside and hide your caches accordingly.

 

As for archiving your other caches as you mentioned in another post, this approach has NEVER made sense to me. Who are you punishing by doing that? Groundspeak? Hardly. You are only painting yourself as someone who takes their ball and goes home when things don't go your way and you are depriving other cachers of being able to find your caches which, as far as I know, may be very fine hides. So what's the point?

 

OK. Time to step away from the keyboard and get some Tylenol and a beverage. So...

 

[/soapbox]

[+jaaake]

I want to follow the rules.

I try not to take anything personally.

I don't want to be, "that guy" who tattles on bad caches.

I have read the rules several times.

Please show me where drilling a hole into a dead tree branch violates the rules?

Your definition of the rule is your interpretation.

If I understood it differently maybe it should be rewritten?

 

I have no intention of starting a site to post illegal caches.

I was saying I would be interested in starting a site to help people know what's okay and what's not.

Like examples of good caches and examples of bad caches.

 

Enjoy your beverage.

[+Markwell]

Please show me where drilling a hole into a dead tree branch violates the rules?

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=304#damage

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=304#wildlife

[+OReviewer]

Please show me where drilling a hole into a dead tree branch violates the rules?

I am not your reviewer but if I were dealing with your cache, I would give you these sections:

 

Truncated Guidelines

1.4 Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property.

 

The above links to the expanded explanation.

Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

I bolded the part that I believe you are looking for.

[+Semper Questio]

 

{snip}

 

Please show me where drilling a hole into a dead tree branch violates the rules?

Your definition of the rule is your interpretation.

If I understood it differently maybe it should be rewritten?

 

I have no intention of starting a site to post illegal caches.

I was saying I would be interested in starting a site to help people know what's okay and what's not.

Like examples of good caches and examples of bad caches.

 

 

The beverage was pretty good! Thanks! And thanks for not taking this personally. My comments are certainly not meant that way.

 

Your reviewer already pointed out the guideline on the archival log. The referenced paragraph says...

 

"Geocache placements do not deface or destroy public or private property. Geocaches are placed so that the surrounding environment is safe from both intentional or unintentional harm. Keep both natural and human-made objects safe. No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find."

 

What part of that is ambiguous or open to personal interpretation in this case? I can see where a bit of an argument can be made either for or against defacement in the case of, say, an LPC where's the lamp post gets scratched from repeated raising of the skirt, but not in this case. You admittedly drilled a hole in a tree to hide a cache. That seems to be a pretty clear case to me and apparently it was to other cachers and, more importantly, to the reviewer as well.

 

As for the other item, I just didn't understand what you were saying. I don't know that anything other than the guidelines are necessary. They are intentionally vague to give the reviewers some leeway in their work. They are even interpreted and amended in different places. For instance, I understand that the Brits, via their organization, GAGB, have many additional listing restrictions in addition to the basic guidelines. Trying to have 1 site that clarified all the possible variations on the guidelines would be a daunting, if not downright impossible, task.

[+Touchstone]

How is drilling a hole in any object that doesn't belong to you, not defacement?

 

I think the Guidelines are pretty clear on the subject.

[+jaaake]

No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

I bolded the part that I believe you are looking for.

 

Thank you.

With your use of this there are 100+ caches in Nebraska that should be removed.

In my opinion people who alter logs, pine cones and such should be allowed.

But it is clearly not by your definition of altered objects or property.

[+jaaake]

How is drilling a hole in any object that doesn't belong to you, not defacement?

 

I think the Guidelines are pretty clear on the subject.

 

I have permission from the Director of Parks and Rec here in York, NE.

Would you like me to fax you the letter from her?

[+Lil Devil]

With your use of this there are 100+ caches in Nebraska that should be removed.

That's probably very true. But without complaints, or personal visits, the reviewers don't know about them. So they remain. For now.

 

Your first post in this thread will probably lead to those 3 being archived. If they were in my territory, they would already be history.

[+Semper Questio]

No object or property may be altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

I bolded the part that I believe you are looking for.

 

Thank you.

With your use of this there are 100+ caches in Nebraska that should be removed.

In my opinion people who alter logs, pine cones and such should be allowed.

But it is clearly not by your definition of altered objects or property.

 

Now, THAT is where the interpretation comes in! My friends and I have had this discussion MANY times. If I have a stick in my yard and alter it for a cache is that OK? If it is, then it is OK, but altering a stick I find elsewhere is not? What if I ask and someone gives me the stick?

 

And on and on the discussion goes.

 

And I agree. If the letter of the rule is followed, a very large number of caches would have to be archived. Magnets and adhesives mar painted surfaces, the aforementioned LPC scratches, wire and zip ties could damage trees. The list is endless.

[+jaaake]

All this aside.

Thank you!

I'm close-minded most of the time, and just having people help me 'get it' is great.

I moved the cache about 6 inches and added a clip to it so it's hanging from a branch.

Now hmmm how many people do I need to apologize to..?

[+Moose Mob]

Seem this has been resolved.

Closing thread to prevent 'piling on' (OP may contact me if he feels it should stay open)