Didn't think temporary caches were allowed...

[+Delta68]

I didn't think temporary caches were allowed!

http://coord.info/GC3BGD6

 

Will the CO get 'black listed'?

 

I doubt it

 

Mark

[patdhill]

I didn't think temporary caches were allowed!

http://coord.info/GC3BGD6

 

Will the CO get 'black listed'?

 

I doubt it

 

Mark

You'd like to think the CO would at least get a stern email from the reviewers and they may be a bit more circumspect when he lists a new cache. If he'd said it was temporary in the cache description I doubt it would have been published.

[+geohatter]

You are right, temporary caches are not allowed.

 

I have contacted to CO to make them aware of the guideline that this cache violates and that had I known their plan for it I would not have published it.

 

Paul

Geohatter

Volunteer UK Reviewer & Forum Mod - geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php

[+Malpas Wanderer]

Perhaps it is a case for total retraction and dismissal of all logs.

[+Shiggaddi]

Perhaps it is a case for total retraction and dismissal of all logs.

 

Whilst I agree, the CO has definitely gone against the guidelines, it would be unfair for the cachers who have logged their find in good faith to be punished. It is not unusual for new caches to be published in time for an event to attract lots of people attending the event to also look for the new cache.

 

If I was just a few caches off a milestone and a decision was taken to retract a cache about a week afterwards whilst in the meantime I finally celebrated that milestone, I would be pretty annoyed if my milestone wasn't the view from the top of the mountain that took an hour to climb, but instead the micro in the hedge on the way home.

[Izzy and the Lizard King]

But it seems that the finders were pre-warned of its publication,, making it look like it was set up purely to provide them with FTFs (there were 26 joint FTFs - some didn't even leave the curry house but had the cache brought to them )

[+The Frosties!]

can't the listing type be changed to event (with the corresponding date), then it's all good?

[+lodgebarn]

But it seems that the finders were pre-warned of its publication,, making it look like it was set up purely to provide them with FTFs (there were 26 joint FTFs - some didn't even leave the curry house but had the cache brought to them )

Not real FTFs though in the same way as a mob going out in the middle of an event for timed new cache publications. If the loggers wish to treat them as FTFs though that is their call but they have little merit in my view.

[+Y6GST]

But it seems that the finders were pre-warned of its publication,, making it look like it was set up purely to provide them with FTFs (there were 26 joint FTFs - some didn't even leave the curry house but had the cache brought to them )

 

Kind of devalues those who keep stats on months of consecutive FTF's, I wonder who was FTBHTC (First to be handed the cache)?

 

A bit of fun, but clearly against the rules, I guess this is a downside of having caches published at a particular time...

[+Bear and Ragged]

But it seems that the finders were pre-warned of its publication,

Knowing a cache will (may!) be published while you're at an event is one thing.

Did they know it would only be available for 48 hours is another question...