Jump to content

Flaw in the Member's Only cache concept?


Beaster

Recommended Posts

Sorry if this topic has been discussed to death already, but I didn't see it in a search of this forum. Here's my complaint in a nutshell: I spent a fair amount of my available weekend time planning a new cache, placing it, and then logging it. Only after doing all that work do I find that my traditional cache has been rejected because it is supposedly too close to another cache - in this case a "Members Only" virtual cache. However, since I am not a Geocaching.com member (yet!), I had no way of knowing a priori that I was stepping on the toes of another cache.

 

This seems somewhat unfair to me - I just wasted a bunch of time and effort because I haven't yet decided to contribute $$$ to this site. I have no problems with making certain special features available to paying members only, but I also feel that those who choose not to pay shouldn't be penalized in this fashion. (Let's not turn this into a debate over the virtues of membership please.)

 

In any case I've emailed the virtual cache owners to see about joining efforts, and I'm sure we can come to some sort of an agreement. But the problem persists - what's to prevent a non-member from spending a significant amount of time and effort deploying a new cache only to find that a member's only cache is already there?

 

Thanks,

Sean

Link to comment

Anouther problem is, what happens when a non-cacher finds a members only cache by accident, and is unable to log the find without paying? icon_eek.gif

 

I think members only caches should show up under the same search function I recently proposed for archived caches, a 1/2 mile radius search function. You enter the coords, and all caches (archived, members only, whatever) within 1/2 mile radius show up in the results. This would be a special search, and wouldn't be available for pocket queries.

 

This would allow people who find an archived cache, or a member's only cache, or are going to place a cache, etc. to find caches which aren't normally listed, but would prevent most people from finding them in a search by accident.

 

The actual page for the member's only cache could still be hidden, but it ought to show up on the search results in this case.

Link to comment

...don't like the idea of them. I understand the reasoning behind them (encouraging more people to register here) - and I'm a card carrying member of Geocaching.com but I just can't get behind the privatization of this very public and inclusive game (open to anyone with a gps and a sense of adventure) by placing a cache only members can log. I mean - why make it exclusive?

 

Besides, it makes me think of "members only" jackets....and that's just plain funny.

Link to comment

Don't know the particulars of the cache(s) in question, but my opinion is physical caches should be able to take precedence over virtual caches.

 

If I understand correctly the reasoning behind virtual caches, it's because circumstances say that one can't place a physical cache on, or near, the site in question. Therefore, if someone does figure out a way to place a physical cache, then the reason behind the virtual is no longer valid.

 

Not being able to post a physical cache because it is too near a virtual cache is just wrong.

 

Not saying that a virtual should be taken down if a physical comes into the area, only that a virtual should not prevent a physical from being placed.

 

But, that's just me and my own humble opinion. Plus, it addresses nothing of the real issue of not being able to see MOC's if you're not a member. Implementing a feature that allows, or encourages, cache pre-approval, as discussed here would/could be helpful under these circumstances.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:

...don't like the idea of them. I understand the reasoning behind them (encouraging more people to register here) - and I'm a card carrying member of Geocaching.com but I just can't get behind the privatization of this very public and inclusive game (open to anyone with a gps and a sense of adventure) by placing a cache only members can log. I mean - why make it exclusive?


 

I actually had my first members-only-cache show up on my "nearest" list this week. It was a good use also -- to let "members" seek it for a limited amount of time or until it starts turning into McJunk. (It's amazing how fast that can happen).

 

quote:

Besides, it makes me think of "members only" jackets....and that's just plain funny.


 

Been there, done that, destroyed the yearbook. icon_smile.gif

 

...

alex

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Beaster:

I spent a fair amount of my available weekend time planning a new cache, placing it, and then logging it. Only after doing all that work do I find that my traditional cache has been rejected because it is supposedly too close to another cache - in this case a "Members Only" virtual cache. However, since I am not a Geocaching.com member (yet!), I had no way of knowing _a priori _ that I was stepping on the toes of another cache.

 

This seems somewhat unfair to me - I just wasted a bunch of time and effort because I haven't yet decided to contribute $$$ to this site.

Sean


Have you considered (assuming your cache is a physical and within .1 mi) making a case that you should be allowed to supersede this virtual?

Physical caches are preferred, so why should a virtual be allowed to "block" you?

 

Or maybe you can contact the owner of this other cache and see if they might archive their cache so you can get yours approved. Or maybe the two of you could create some sort of multicache. icon_wink.gif

 

Edit: No more stopping to watch TV or talk on the phone while in the forums! icon_rolleyes.gif

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

 

Have you considered (assuming your cache is a physical and within .1 mi) making a case that you should be allowed to supersede this virtual?

Physical caches are preferred, so why should a virtual be allowed to "block" you?

 

Or maybe you can contact the owner of this other cache and see if they might archive their cache so you can get yours approved. Or maybe the two of you could create some sort of multicache. icon_wink.gif


 

Yes, as I said I've already sent an email to the virtual cache owner and the Geocaching.com reviewer who initially rejected my cache to discuss options.

 

There are really 2 things going on here: 1) the problem with MOC's and 2) the problem with virtual caches superceeding physical caches.

 

I agree with most of the sentiments here that a physical should generally take precedence over a virtual, even if the virtual was placed first. No need to take down the virtual, but also no need to reject the physical. There's room for both.

 

But regardless of whether a MOC is physical or virtual, the problem remains that a non-member has no way of knowing, before doing all the work to submit a new cache, whether a MOC already exists nearby. That is very frustrating.

 

Does anyone have any tips for appealing a decision to reject a cache? Aside from emailing the person who rejected it with a plea, I'm at a loss. Hardly an unbiased opinion, but I really believe the caching community would benefit from the addition of my cache.

 

Thanks,

Sean

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Beaster:

 

But the problem persists - what's to prevent a non-member from spending a significant amount of time and effort deploying a new cache only to find that a member's only cache is already there?


There's a de facto rule that caches shouldn't be less than 1/10th of a mile from each other. You apparently didn't check this. Had you performed a search by entering in the coordinates of your potential cache, you would have seen the MOC cache. While a non-member can't view the actual cache page, it does show up in the search list - along with the distance from the coordinates you entered.

 

All the tools are already in place to allow you to determine if the cache you want to place is too near a MOC cache. Don't blame the system if you don't use them.

 

3608_2800.gif

Link to comment

Supposedly you are able to post a poll explaining what is happening. Post a link to the virtual and then discribe your cache, how it's different from the virtual, etc. Aerial photos with dots pointing to your cache and the virtual might help if applicable. Make sure to explain it succinctly and ask the question directly--should your cache be approved, YES or NO.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

 

There's a de facto rule that caches shouldn't be less than 1/10th of a mile from each other. You apparently didn't check this. Had you performed a search by entering in the coordinates of your potential cache, you would have seen the MOC cache. While a non-member can't view the actual cache page, it _does_ show up in the search list - along with the __distance__ from the coordinates you entered.

 

All the tools are already in place to allow you to determine if the cache you want to place is too near a MOC cache. Don't blame the system if you don't use them.


 

Agreed, all the tools are in place, assuming I already know exactly (to within 1/10th of a mile accuracy) where I want to place my cache before I walk out the door to do so. But how often is this realistically the case? I would argue that quite often cache hiders don't know the exact location of their potential cache to within 1/10th of a mile before they actually do all the work to go out and place it. Maybe on a map one location looks good, but when you get there you decide it really would be better 500' to the north, etc. Without having the exact coordinates of all caches in the area - including MOC's - loaded into your GPS before you leave the house, you're flying blind. As it stands, until you physically walk out the door, go to the cache location, mark the waypoint, return home and plug in the info to the search engine, you don't know what other caches yours may interfere with. But by that time you've already done all the work!

 

If I had I the coordinates of the MOC, I wouldn't have placed my cache where I did. I would have kept walking until I was > 1/10th a mile away and place it there. Instead, now I'm faced with having to return to the site and move my cache - an extra step that, had I been a paying member, I wouldn't have to do.

 

Futhermore, I could go back, move my cache 1000 feet in a random direction, and if I guess wrong, I might still be within 1/10th of a mile from the MOC! Or worse yet, I could return home and find that I'm now within 1/10th of a mile from an entirely different MOC.

 

How much trial and error should non-paying members have to go through? The only way we can avoid this with the tools available to start plugging in coordinates into the search engine, somehow hoping to triangulate the location of the hidden MOC's in the area. Seems like a lot of hoops to jump through if you ask me, all because I haven't yet chosen to pony up the cash to be a member.

 

Just my opinion,

Sean

Link to comment

One thing you might take away from this experience is that not doing any pre-planing is generally a bad thing. I have never placed a cache without scouting out the location (sometimes numerous times) beforehand. But hey, maybe that's just me.

 

Anyway, had you bothered to do this, once you had found out there was a MOC in the neighborhood, you could have determined in which direction to move your cache in about 90 seconds, by simply selectively altering the coordinates. Change the latitude a bit, and see if you're closer or farther. Do the same with the longitude. On second thought, make that about 30 seconds.

 

Does it take a little bit of effort? Yes. Life's like that sometimes.

 

3608_2800.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

There's a de facto rule that caches shouldn't be less than 1/10th of a mile from each other.


 

I gather this is so there is not congestion.

 

Do the admins take into account caches that are posted to other databases? If congestion is the concern for not having caches within .10 miles of each other, then whether or not a newly placed cache is within that distance of a cache logged at Nav.... would need to be considered.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

I don't think that virtuals should be members-only in the first place. What's the point? icon_biggrin.gif


 

I agree, whats up with that??? icon_confused.gif

Bob G.

 

**********************************************************

Where are we going?......And WHY am I in this handbasket???

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

I gather this is so there is not congestion.


 

My guess is that, more directly, the 0.1 mile guideline is there so that if somebody complains "why did my cache get denied, this other guy's got approved in the same park", they have a hard, somewhat consistent number to point to. "Sorry kid, 0.1 mile rule!"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

 

Do the admins take into account caches that are posted to other databases? If congestion is the concern for not having caches within .10 miles of each other, then whether or not a newly placed cache is within that distance of a cache logged at Nav.... would need to be considered.


 

I don't know it for certain, but I very much doubt if they consult Navícache or any other site. As a matter of fact, I only recently found out that I have a cache that's only a few hundred feet from the first stage of a Navícache-only listed cache.

 

The 1/10th-of-a-mile rule is far from perfect, especially in regard to multi-caches. The approvers only have access to the stage one coordinates. The other stages could be pretty much anywhere.

 

3608_2800.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

I don't know it for certain, but I very much doubt if they consult Navícache or any other site. As a matter of fact, I only recently found out that I have a cache that's only a few hundred feet from the first stage of a Navícache-only listed cache.


 

I do not believe they do either, but certainly have no evidence to the contrary. Should they not, then the rule is hollow.

 

The first stage of a multi should be known. Of course, after that, who knows?

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

One thing you might take away from this experience is that not doing any pre-planing is generally a _bad thing_. I have never placed a cache without scouting out the location (sometimes numerous times) beforehand. But hey, maybe that's just me.

 

Anyway, _had_ you bothered to do this, once you had found out there was a MOC in the neighborhood, you could have determined in which direction to move your cache in about 90 seconds, by simply selectively altering the coordinates. Change the latitude a bit, and see if you're closer or farther. Do the same with the longitude. On second thought, make that about 30 seconds.

 

Does it take a little bit of effort? Yes. Life's like that sometimes.

 


 

Thanks Prime. So we've all now admitted there are obstacles placed in front of non-paying members when hiding caches that paying members needn't take into account. How significant these obstacles are can certainly be debated, but they do exist. At the very least they allow members to place caches on the spur of the moment; non-members don't have that luxury. So, where does it stop?

 

Incidentally, I'm not convinced that a spur of the moment cache is such a "bad thing." Here's but one example of a cacher in my area not doing any scouting:

 

Eagle's Nest

 

Of course Gil&Ani are paying members, so they were able to place this cache with confidence that they weren't near any other caches. Despite their lack of scouting, it's a pretty cool cache.

 

Regards,

Sean

 

P.S. I remeber reading about the 1/10th of a mile rule a while back, but for the life of me I can't find it posted anywhere in the offical Geocaching guidelines for caches. There's no mention of it here, and this page only mentions the restriction applying to virtual caches. Could someone do me a favor and post a URL for me of the official rule, just so I have the reference? Thanks.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Beaster:

...there are obstacles placed in front of non-paying members when hiding caches that paying members needn't take into account. At the very least they allow members to place caches on the spur of the moment; non-members don't have that luxury.

 

...they were able to place this cache with confidence that they weren't near any other caches. Despite their lack of scouting, it's a pretty cool cache.


Sean, a member going preparing to place a cache has the obstacles as anyone else. If I decided to place a cache, I should check to make sure it's not too close to an existing cache. A non-member should do the same thing. There's no difference.

 

As Prime Suspect pointed out, member caches appear in searches, whether you are a member or not. If you do a search of the area in which you plan to place the cache, you'll see what is there. The only difference is that you aren't able to see the cache page.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

As a matter of fact, I only recently found out that I have a cache that's only a few hundred feet from the first stage of a Navícache-only listed cache.


Since yours was there first, this only proves that Na vi ca ch e doesn't check Geocaching.com. However, I bet you are correct that GC.com doesn't check other sites, either.

 

ntga_button.gifweb-lingbutton.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Jamie Z:

Sean, a member going preparing to place a cache has the obstacles as anyone else. If I decided to place a cache, I should check to make sure it's not too close to an existing cache. A non-member should do the same thing. There's no difference.

 

As Prime Suspect pointed out, member caches appear in searches, whether you are a member or not. If you do a search of the area in which you plan to place the cache, you'll see what is there. The only difference is that you aren't able to see the cache page.

 

Jamie


 

I think that's part of the point. Only paying members can see the cache page of a MOC, so they get the exact coords of the MOC, where a non paying geocacher who wishes to place a cache only knows that there's a MOC SOMEWHERE around the location...

 

Granted, you can figure out the location to a .1 mile radius, but that takes some extra time and effort.

 

I'm lost. I've gone to find myself. If I should happen to get back before I return, please ask me to wait.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Beaster:

 

P.S. I remeber reading about the 1/10th of a mile rule a while back, but for the life of me I can't find it posted anywhere in the offical Geocaching guidelines for caches. There's no mention of it http://www.geocaching.com/articles/making.asp, and http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp only mentions the restriction applying to virtual caches. Could someone do me a favor and post a URL for me of the official rule, just so I have the reference? Thanks.


 

Can anyone help with the above request? Or is this "de facto" rule not published anywhere on this site? If not, shouldn't it be?

 

Thanks,

Sean

Link to comment

I've read all Your comments. Although I am a charter Member I do agree with one or two things that have been saying. One I agree with you that your cache should Not have been Rejected cause it was to close to a Virtual cache.

I also agree with the statement you can check it out first. If you do find a MOC cache that is close to where you want to place a cache, You could always E-Mail the Person who hide the cache and ask him to either check your cords with theirs or they could give you the cords to the MOC and let you check them out.

Link to comment

So I guess what u guys are saying is that all MOCs can be located to w/in 1/10th of a mile? Isn't that a fairly small search area? Sort of sounds like a new twist to Geocaching called "Find The MOCs!" I can see a new section of geocaching like the Benchmark section entitled: "List of MOCs located by non members". Doesn't the ability to do this sort of defeat the purpose of MOCs?

icon_confused.gif

 

Wherever you go, there you are!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Beaster:

Can anyone help with the above request? Or is this "de facto" rule not published anywhere on this site? If not, shouldn't it be?

 

Thanks,

Sean


Its in the forums in numerous places. And there have also been several threads about why it should be written into the guidelines.

quote:
So I guess what u guys are saying is that all MOCs can be located to w/in 1/10th of a mile? Isn't that a fairly small search area? Sort of sounds like a new twist to Geocaching called "Find The MOCs!" I can see a new section of geocaching like the Benchmark section entitled: "List of MOCs located by non members". Doesn't the ability to do this sort of defeat the purpose of MOCs?

Yes, thats why the idea that "MOCs are safe (hidden from random visitors)" is BS. If a cache is going to be found by someone who stumbles across it, it will still happen to a MOC. And if some is intentally plundering certain caches, they still will because they still know about* where it is.

 

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

Beaster neglected to mention that his cache has a latitude of 38 51.079 and the other has a latitude of 38 51.080. Both caches have longitude that are exactly the same down to the last digit. That puts the two only 5 or 6 feet apart by my guestimation. That was pointed out in two seperate e-mails.

 

It was suggested that the virtual probably should not have been approved if the location can really support a microcache but it would not be appropriate to arbitrarily archive it now. It was further suggested that Beaster contact the "owner" of the other cache and try to work something out. If it were my virtual I'd archive it in exchange for the opportunity to get a first find on the micro there. icon_wink.gif

 

It really serves no purpose to have a virtual and a physical cache on essentially the same spot, which is why it wasn't posted.

 

erik - geocaching.com admin.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Crusso:

So I guess what u guys are saying is that all MOCs can be located to w/in 1/10th of a mile? Isn't that a fairly small search area? Sort of sounds like a new twist to Geocaching called "Find The MOCs!" I can see a new section of geocaching like the Benchmark section entitled: "List of MOCs located by non members". Doesn't the ability to do this sort of defeat the purpose of MOCs?


 

Yes, it was pointed out just a week or two after MOCs were introduced that it's possible to deduce their approxomate location. Of course, narrowing it down to a 1/10 of a mile still leaves over 200,000 sq feet to be searched. And, of course, after doing all that work, you can't get the credit for the find, since you can't log it on the cache page.

 

3608_2800.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:

Beaster neglected to mention that his cache has a latitude of 38 51.079 and the other has a latitude of 38 51.080. Both caches have longitude that are exactly the same down to the last digit. That puts the two only 5 or 6 feet apart by my guestimation. That was pointed out in two seperate e-mails.

 

It was suggested that the virtual probably should not have been approved if the location can really support a microcache but it would not be appropriate to arbitrarily archive it now. It was further suggested that Beaster contact the "owner" of the other cache and try to work something out. If it were my virtual I'd archive it in exchange for the opportunity to get a first find on the micro there. icon_wink.gif

 

It really serves no purpose to have a virtual and a physical cache on essentially the same spot, which is why it wasn't posted.

 

erik - geocaching.com admin.


 

Yes, this is all true, though you make it sound like I was intentionally obscuring the facts. I did not receive the 2nd email which contained the actual coordinates of the MOC until Monday night at 10:00 p.m., meaning I didn't read it until Tuesday, well after this thread had been established. Your first email only said: "If your coords and those of the others geocacher are spot-on the two caches are only a few feet apart." I wrote back for clarification on the "if," which came in the 2nd email.

 

Regardless, this thread is not about whether my cache should or shouldn't have been rejected (at least, that wasn't my intent). From my very first post I made it clear that I had already emailed the MOC owners and would attempt to work with them to come to a resolution on the particulars of my cache. I used my experience only as an example of what I thought may be a flaw in the MOC system. My intent for this thread was to debate this issue, not to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of my particular cache. I even put a question mark in my subject line. Never once did I directly solict opinions on whether my cache should be accepted. In fact I specifically asked what is the proper protocol to follow in order to appeal the decision and was told to post a poll in a separate thread.

 

For the record I emailed the MOC owners about the issue before I even started this thread. I have not received any response from them thusfar. I was and am still confident that I we can work something out. Should that not be possible, only then will I decide whether or not to post a thread to "appeal" the descision to archive my cache, as suggested by Sissy-in-CR. Rest assured that at that time I will fully disclose all relevant aspects of the issue, including the coordinates of both caches.

Link to comment

Your situation will rarely happen, and when it does, sorry!! Yes, members have advantages. Is that a crime??

Besides, whether your cache was 1 foot away, or 500 feet is not really that important. I dont really think caches should be even .1 miles apart. I for one think more distance between them is needed.

If you do a search on the general area, and find a cahe already there, whether it be members only or open to all, you should look for a different location a respectable distance away. Personally I would try not to place a cache within about a half mile of an existing one.

 

ingeo-button1.gif

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...