A bit annoyed

June 7, 2012

Just thought I'd post this to see what people think. I suspect the general response will be suck it up and move on, however...

So 18 months in, we're really enjoying geocaching, and the first cache we placed seems to be a success (GC3A0T3).

Being keen and that, we wanted to place another. The river in Chester seemed a great place to hide a cache. After a bit of difficulty we found a good location (bench overlooking the river, scenic views, rowers going past, very easily accessible) that was just over 0.1 miles from the nearest one (GCP1RW).

But it turns out from the local moderator that there's another cache within 400 feet that hasn't been published yet (GC2HECP).

I'm sure that's a great cache and everything, but couldn't Groundspeak let you know there's an unpublished cache about before you spend time ( a couple of hours actually) averaging co-ordinates and writing mildly interesting descriptions?

For the record my new cache is GC3MZ9E, but I don't think it'll ever be published as any further away are rather grotty locations.

Be interested in any opinions. I appreciate some people don't like small magnetic nano's, but these are most appropriate for a busy city. Our next one will be waterproof box and camouflage bag etc,

Cheers, Riggyman.

6.5k · June 7, 2012

Welcome to geocaching, glad to hear you are having FUN.

No one but the reviewers and lackeys can see the unpublished caches.

It seems that the other one has a lower GC# so it will get dibs on the spot.

You can ask your reviewer how long they will let that other cache remain unpublished and block yours, or you can shift 150' to get clear. That is your choice.

Or if there is some sort of plaque on that bench, you can still highlight it by creating an offset multi and use info from the plaque to redirect seekers to the actual cache. Virtual stages are not covered in the 528' saturation guideline. But I suspect your reviewer already told you all of this.

Editing to add-ya know the gc# of the other blocking cache is quite a bit off from yours. It makes me wonder just how long that one has been out there but not published. I would follow up with the reviewer and work this out with them before getting too involved in a discussion here.

Edited June 7, 2012 by wimseyguy

3.7k · June 7, 2012

I'm sure that's a great cache and everything, but couldn't Groundspeak let you know there's an unpublished cache about before you spend time ( a couple of hours actually) averaging co-ordinates and writing mildly interesting descriptions?

You can already do this - take some initial coords, create a basic page but don't spend time on the details or activate it, then email your local reviewer, give them the GC# and ask whether your proposed coords conflict with any nearby caches. They can check both unpublished caches and finals of puzzles/multis and let you know if you're good to go. Creating this page early also 'holds' the spot for you temporarily (as you found out with the unpublished cache that's barring yours).

7.8k · June 7, 2012

Just thought I'd post this to see what people think. I suspect the general response will be suck it up and move on, however...

Suck it up and move on.

But it turns out from the local moderator that there's another cache within 400 feet that hasn't been published yet (GC2HECP).

I'm sure that's a great cache and everything, but couldn't Groundspeak let you know there's an unpublished cache about before you spend time ( a couple of hours actually) averaging co-ordinates and writing mildly interesting descriptions?

If you wanted to know if your spot was available before putting too much work into it, an email to the reviewer would have worked nicely. I do this every time I'm placing a cache that's beyond just a plain traditional (and even in some of those cases, too). I'm curious, though, how would you propose they "let you know there's an unpublished cache about"? Send out emails to everyone whose home location is nearby saying "Hey everyone! So-and-so is making a new cache at the following coordinates."? Obviously not, but I can't think of another way to do it other than a proximity check within the submission form (which should may be coming in the near distant future), at which point you've likely already put a lot of work into it anyway.

June 7, 2012

How would I know who the local reviewer is, so that I could contact them?

June 7, 2012

Welcome to geocaching, glad to hear you are having FUN.

No one but the reviewers and lackeys can see the unpublished caches.

It seems that the other one has a lower GC# so it will get dibs on the spot.

You can ask your reviewer how long they will let that other cache remain unpublished and block yours, or you can shift 150' to get clear. That is your choice.

Or if there is some sort of plaque on that bench, you can still highlight it by creating an offset multi and use info from the plaque to redirect seekers to the actual cache. Virtual stages are not covered in the 528' saturation guideline. But I suspect your reviewer already told you all of this.

Editing to add-ya know the gc# of the other blocking cache is quite a bit off from yours. It makes me wonder just how long that one has been out there but not published. I would follow up with the reviewer and work this out with them before getting too involved in a discussion here.

Thanks, that's really quite helpful :-)

7.9k · June 7, 2012

How would I know who the local reviewer is, so that I could contact them?

Scroll to the bottom of the logs on any local cache. The local reviewer should be listed as the one who published the cache.

All is not lost!

While the other cache has a lower GC ID than yours, this does not necessarily mean that CO will actually enable their cache and have a successful review.

Since you now want to place a cache in the area, the clock is ticking for the other CO to 'get on with it' and place their cache or relinquish the area to others (YOU).

If their cache gets published, perhaps you will at least have a good chance at the FTF.

June 7, 2012

I very much doubt I'll get a FTF in this shenanigans as I have a chronic inability to get up early of a morning.

I'll contact the local reviewer and see what's what. If the others publish their cache soon, fair enough, I was too slow!

What I would like to understand is that, I thought that if you'd placed a cache, and filled out the forms, the only delay was the local reviewer doing their stuff?

I'm not after an argument, I just would like to understand this delaying business, as I'd prefer not to put the work in to placing a cache, just to find out it is too near an

Invisible one...

Cheers Riggyman

5.2k · June 7, 2012

I will also say from experience that sometimes the reviewer may not even notice that the offending cache is not published yet, and will tell you you're too close to what he thinks is a published cache. Not saying that's what happened here, but it's possible. I'd send your reviewer an email and ask how long that other guy has to get his act together before he forfeits the spot.

7.3k · June 7, 2012

How would I know who the local reviewer is, so that I could contact them?

"Moderators" (who patrol these forums) are not all "reviewers".

Who was it that contacted you, and how, about this other unpublished cache:

But it turns out from the local moderator that there's another cache within 400 feet that hasn't been published yet (GC2HECP).

I would assume that whoever it was that told you that is the reviewer you need to contact.

4.5. Working With the Reviewer: communication:

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=74

B.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Pup Patrol

June 7, 2012

Cheers lil devil! :-)

That's what I'm trying to do - create a cache that is interesting (albeit not original).

The A-Team - your post is not at all helpful. Thanks to everyone else.

Riggyman

7.9k · June 7, 2012

I very much doubt I'll get a FTF in this shenanigans as I have a chronic inability to get up early of a morning.

I'll contact the local reviewer and see what's what. If the others publish their cache soon, fair enough, I was too slow!

What I would like to understand is that, I thought that if you'd placed a cache, and filled out the forms, the only delay was the local reviewer doing their stuff?

I'm not after an argument, I just would like to understand this delaying business, as I'd prefer not to put the work in to placing a cache, just to find out it is too near an

Invisible one...

Cheers Riggyman

Unpublished cache 'interference' happens.

More often its the final to a multi-cache or a mystery cache that 'gets in the way'.

Best of luck regardless!

3.8k · June 7, 2012

What I would like to understand is that, I thought that if you'd placed a cache, and filled out the forms, the only delay was the local reviewer doing their stuff?

Cheers Riggyman

No That's not the only delay. Lets say the reviewer checks every morning at 7:30. He notices XXX cache was posted for review, checks it and tells the owner it is too close to a stage for a multi. Then the owner has to go move the cache, take the new co-ords and report them. then it doesn't get published until the third day. Or say the owner had a broken leg, or went out of town for a funeral. That could prevent him from getting new co-ords. There are lots of delays, That could prevent a cache from being published right away, in fact I took over a month trying to publish one cache, and it never did happen. You just have to be patient, and don't get mad and start trying to cause trouble or you will end up like the last person who had the same problem...Vanish in a puff of pink smoke.

June 7, 2012

Once I've submitted a new cache, the local reviewer obviously reviews the cache and either allows it to published, or suggests revisions are needed.

What I would like to avoid is having placed a cache, averaged the coordinates, written a factual, yet amusing description, finding that there is an unpublished cache 50ft away...

June 7, 2012

What I would like to understand is that, I thought that if you'd placed a cache, and filled out the forms, the only delay was the local reviewer doing their stuff?

Cheers Riggyman

No That's not the only delay. Lets say the reviewer checks every morning at 7:30. He notices XXX cache was posted for review, checks it and tells the owner it is too close to a stage for a multi. Then the owner has to go move the cache, take the new co-ords and report them. then it doesn't get published until the third day. Or say the owner had a broken leg, or went out of town for a funeral. That could prevent him from getting new co-ords. There are lots of delays, That could prevent a cache from being published right away, in fact I took over a month trying to publish one cache, and it never did happen. You just have to be patient, and don't get mad and start trying to cause trouble or you will end up like the last person who had the same problem...Vanish in a puff of pink smoke.

Okay, cool,

I think I need to talk to the local reviewer, give a little bit of doubt to the other cache placer, and see what works out.

3.8k · June 7, 2012

Delete.

Edited June 7, 2012 by T.D.M.22

June 7, 2012

Off topic - I am so with you on stupid people :-)

June 7, 2012

Here's my experience about having a delay before publishing. I was out hiking and picking up a cache or two. I found a great place to put my Ammo can. Now, they can be heavy so I didn't want to drag it out, get the coords just to find out it's too close to the final of a puzzle, for example.

I took reading of the coords for that spot, finished my hike. Went home, turned in the "paperwork" with a description, etc. For the title, I put "for coords check only, do not publish". Our local publisher/reviewer likes it that way. Then I wait to see if it's approved. If I get the go ahead, then I go back out ASAP with that heavy ammo can. Now I know I can get it published. I go back home, tell the review it's placed and ready.

Now, my delayed cache gets published. So, I avoided the "heavy" work ahead of time. And the spot was reserved for no more than a couple of days. I try to be quick about so I don't anger someone else who wants that same spot. :blink:

3.6k · June 7, 2012

From experience on being on both sides of the fence, if you prepared it and submit it, the reviewer should contact the other party and let them know they may have only 30 days to submit it or archive it. But not sure if all reviewers do that. But letting the reviewer know you want to place it there may get it in motion one way or the other.

7.8k · June 7, 2012

The A-Team - your post is not at all helpful. Thanks to everyone else.

Wow, I didn't think my post was that bad. You did start your post with "I suspect the general response will be suck it up and move on, however...", so I would have thought you'd be more accepting of advice and criticism. You asked how you could know about unpublished caches, and I gave you the answer. Sorry if I didn't tell you what you wanted to hear. Anyway, moving on...

Once I've submitted a new cache, the local reviewer obviously reviews the cache and either allows it to published, or suggests revisions are needed.

What I would like to avoid is having placed a cache, averaged the coordinates, written a factual, yet amusing description, finding that there is an unpublished cache 50ft away...

Actually, there's more to it than that. There are many circumstances when a cacher may not be finished preparing their cache and isn't ready to submit it for review yet. Sometimes it's because they're still working on the description, sometimes they're still waiting for permission, sometimes they're still building/preparing the container. If no one else wants to place a cache within 528 feet of that spot, there's no problem. On the other hand, if someone comes along and wants to hide another cache in that area (like you did in this case), the reviewers will give the benefit of the doubt to the first person. This is within reason, of course. The reviewer won't like it if a cacher is holding up a spot for many months or longer, because this isn't fair to the second cacher (you). They'll give the first person some time to finish up their cache or relinquish the spot, and if they don't do anything within that time (I think it's usually on the order of a week or two), they'll publish the second person's (your) cache instead. Like Lil Devil suggested, sending a message to the reviewer will at the very least remind them that there's a conflict between the two caches, and they may be able to tell you how long the other guy has and what his plans are (ie. he's stated he'll be hiding the container this weekend and submitting it at the same time).

I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I really am a good guy! It sounds kind of bad, but I hope the other guy gives up or just doesn't respond and your cache gets published instead! :lol: You seem to be providing prompt maintenance on your existing hide, so it's good to see caches hidden by responsible owners. Good luck!

11.6k · June 7, 2012

the spot was reserved for no more than a couple of days. I try to be quick about so I don't anger someone else who wants that same spot.

Somewhat on topic: Are my never-activated caches taking up "space"? Should I delete them? It's not my intention to obstruct a cache, nor to even delay one. I picked some cool spots, and have been too lazy to do anything about them (or noticed some serious issue there that changed the cache plan). Should I be doing something to ensure my non-active caches aren't blocking people from placing caches? Make a special "Don't Let This Block A New Cache" name, something like CissyPSP does?

3.1k · June 7, 2012

Should I be doing something to ensure my non-active caches aren't blocking people from placing caches? Make a special "Don't Let This Block A New Cache" name, something like CissyPSP does?

I've got one "unpublished" cache. Its coordinates match the coordinates of one of my active caches. That way, it doesn't block anybody.

7.8k · June 7, 2012

the spot was reserved for no more than a couple of days. I try to be quick about so I don't anger someone else who wants that same spot.

Somewhat on topic: Are my never-activated caches taking up "space"? Should I delete them? It's not my intention to obstruct a cache, nor to even delay one. I picked some cool spots, and have been too lazy to do anything about them (or noticed some serious issue there that changed the cache plan). Should I be doing something to ensure my non-active caches aren't blocking people from placing caches? Make a special "Don't Let This Block A New Cache" name, something like CissyPSP does?

If you haven't heard from any reviewers, you aren't blocking anyone. If they've been sitting idle for a long time, though, I've read recently in the forums that reviewers have been known to just go ahead and archive your idle cache without any contact with you if it's blocking another cache. If you really don't want to block those spots, you could change the coordinates to point to a spot out in the middle of the ocean. If you want to keep them at their coordinates, you should at least add a reviewer note stating what your intentions are. If a reviewer comes looking at your cache because someone else has submitted another one nearby, they'll at least be able to see that you do have plans for the spot. Try not to take up the spot for too long, though. After all, we need caches hidden so we can go out and find them!

3.7k · June 7, 2012

I haven't read the whole thread-sorry so I don't know if this has been mentioned....usually the reviewer will give the other person about 30 days or so, so you do have the option of waiting them out. Something may go wrong, you can always hope.

1.3k · June 7, 2012

the spot was reserved for no more than a couple of days. I try to be quick about so I don't anger someone else who wants that same spot.

Somewhat on topic: Are my never-activated caches taking up "space"? Should I delete them? It's not my intention to obstruct a cache, nor to even delay one. I picked some cool spots, and have been too lazy to do anything about them (or noticed some serious issue there that changed the cache plan). Should I be doing something to ensure my non-active caches aren't blocking people from placing caches? Make a special "Don't Let This Block A New Cache" name, something like CissyPSP does?

If someone tries to place a cache where your unpublished cache is blocking, you'll hear from the reviewer. If you haven't heard anything, I guess noone else has discovered those spots yet . If something has changed and you aren't ever going to place a cache there, I'd archive that listing.

June 7, 2012

Riggyman,

Some reviewers want you to e-mail them your proposed coords and they'll respond letting you know if the spot is available or not.

Other reviewers want you to actually fill out the cache page (even though the cache is not yet in place, etc.) and either (1) put something in the title and the reviewer note box saying you're just checking the coords, then enable the listing, or (2) don't enable the listing but do complete the form and then send your reviewer an e-mail with a link.

You won't know which method your reviewer prefers until you try one or the other.

I believe you used to be able to make up a cache page like this (without enabling it) and then let it sit - months could go by and it was no big deal. If someone else decided to place a cache within range of yours, you'd get an e-mail telling you to either hurry up and place the cache within X days or you'd lose the spot. Lately I've read that this no longer flies (that you've got a few weeks, not months, to place the cache). So, whoever has the conflicting cache is working under a deadline now (maybe they got an e-mail telling them to hurry up, or maybe their cache was submitted only days before yours, in which case it's premature for such an e-mail, but either way, they can't hold this spot for more than a few weeks without good reason and good communication with the reviewer).

If I were you I'd wait and see what happens.

11.6k · June 7, 2012

If someone tries to place a cache where your unpublished cache is blocking, you'll hear from the reviewer. If you haven't heard anything, I guess noone else has discovered those spots yet . If something has changed and you aren't ever going to place a cache there, I'd archive that listing.

It just never occurred to me til just now, that my non-active caches may create huge problems (therefore, others are likely in my boat). I don't even want my ACTIVE caches to prevent a really cool cache from being placed.

Maybe I'll fix a couple of the non-actives like CanadianRockies does (coords at an active cache), and place the actual coords elsewhere on the page if needed. One that I've wanted to activate is actually very evil, but I've sorta mellowed in my old age.

Edited June 7, 2012 by kunarion

June 7, 2012

We had picked a spot for a cache in our local regional park and submitted a cache page with a "cache not in place, please check coordinates" note to the reviewer. We were turned down because someone else was putting together a multicache. Our reviewer wasn't able to tell us how far in any direction we would have needed to move our cache because she didn't want to give away the multi. So we waited four or five days and when the listing was finally published he had changed it from a multi to four new caches. Once we looked at the park map we decided there were plenty of caches there already and moved our custom built cabin cache to a completely different area.

So glad we did a coordinate check first because it was quite the kit to haul up the mountain!

1.1k · June 7, 2012

now I always do a cordinate check !

BEFORE I spend/waste a sec on the cache or its page..

tried a few times to actually place a new cache out there, and had to move it several times

due to multies and puzzles in the same area..

many times the cool and special about a cache is its exactly position

if I can not get the right spot, I dont want to make that cache at all,

so I just find another better spot another day..

just too bad the system can not say YES or NO about a position..

but I heard the reason is simply people will use a such feature to sneak out secret final positions :-(

7.3k · June 7, 2012

Somewhat on topic: Are my never-activated caches taking up "space"? Should I delete them? It's not my intention to obstruct a cache, nor to even delay one. I picked some cool spots, and have been too lazy to do anything about them

Add a reviewer note, "not to block any cache ready for publication" - or archive them, or edit the coords to the mid-Atlantic (or Pacific ;-) your choice).

The cache title, "Don't Let This Block A New Cache" would be good too, but I'd still add the reviewer note.

This allows the reviewer to just publish the cache yours is blocking.

Otherwise, the "other guy" who is anxiously waiting to see their new cache go live: wheee, it's PUBLISHED! has to be told, "sorry, I need to check with the owner of an older cache on their plans for this location". Then you have to be contacted, plus given a week to a month to respond.

More work for the reviewer, and a frustrating wait for the guy who thought his cache was good...

June 7, 2012

Hunt down the other cache and throw it away say it was muggled it will archived and allow you to place your cache.........I'm only joking do not do this.

June 7, 2012

Okay, seems to me that I could have tried to contact the local reviewer (if I could find out who they were) to see whether the co-ordinates were near any other (unpublished) caches. However, I just followed the Groundspeak guidelines, having the cache in place before submitting the forms etc.

Does the guidance need re-writing?

PS The A-Team - okay I'll let you off :-)

June 7, 2012

Okay, seems to me that I could have tried to contact the local reviewer (if I could find out who they were) to see whether the co-ordinates were near any other (unpublished) caches. However, I just followed the Groundspeak guidelines, having the cache in place before submitting the forms etc.

Does the guidance need re-writing?

PS The A-Team - okay I'll let you off :-)

Most of their guidelines are vague and could use better wording, I don't think it will happen though

June 7, 2012

Okay, seems to me that I could have tried to contact the local reviewer (if I could find out who they were) to see whether the co-ordinates were near any other (unpublished) caches. However, I just followed the Groundspeak guidelines, having the cache in place before submitting the forms etc.

Does the guidance need re-writing?

PS The A-Team - okay I'll let you off :-)

The reviewer should be the one who notified you that the cache couldn't be published. As others stated earlier in the thread, you can also look at the logs of any nearby cache and see who posted the published note, the first entry in the log.

11.6k · June 7, 2012

Okay, seems to me that I could have tried to contact the local reviewer (if I could find out who they were) to see whether the co-ordinates were near any other (unpublished) caches.

There's a park manager who I've gotten permission from. He maintains his own cache map for the park properties, and has been able to advise me.

I'll find all the caches I know of, in a crowded area, and take some readings. Then I've sometimes asked a prolofic cacher if a certain spot is OK. Once, she said, "Sounds fun, and on a completely unrelated topic, be sure to find "Pete's Mystery Cache" first.

Edited June 7, 2012 by kunarion

5.2k · June 7, 2012

Does the guidance need re-writing?

It's already in the guidelines - see the bottom section "What can you do about those caches which you can't "see" online?"

That's intentionally hidden from the other article on proximity because the reviewers don't want people doing that doe every single cache they hide. That would double the workload for the same number of caches. Rather, use that option sparingly only when really needed, such as when building a camo'd container specific to a spot.

June 7, 2012

I want to make sure I understand when an unpublished cache can block another.

If a cache has been placed, written up and submitted for review (published or not), I would expect it would block other placements until it is archived.

BUT - if a cache has been written up and never submitted for review, will the coords used in this cache block anything? Theoretically, the reviewer is not aware of its existence yet (though I'm sure he would have access to the cache page).

I have a couple caches in the works of write up, but have not selected a location. I had to put in fake coords to be able to start developing the page. I hope they are not blocking anything. If so, I will change my coords to something that I have already published.

Another example of reasons publications are delayed is in preparation for an event. In this area, we have a monthly event. Often a few caches are placed and held for publication on the day of the event. Sometimes this may be a couple weeks.

5.7k · June 7, 2012

So I have to ask, since several of y'all apparently have these unpublished caches just hanging around. What do you use them for?

I'll occasionally use one of my archived caches for personal TB storage (in the days before collections) or for decrypting ROT 13 that's not in a decryptable hint, so I know it's good to have test bed caches around. Just trying to ficure out why you'd bother having an unpublished cache if you have archived ones you can use.

7.8k · June 7, 2012

I want to make sure I understand when an unpublished cache can block another.

If a cache has been placed, written up and submitted for review (published or not), I would expect it would block other placements until it is archived.

BUT - if a cache has been written up and never submitted for review, will the coords used in this cache block anything? Theoretically, the reviewer is not aware of its existence yet (though I'm sure he would have access to the cache page).

Yes, it can block that area. When a reviewer does a proximity search, it will show all caches, published, unpublished, and ones not even submitted for review. As was mentioned above, though, unless you actually hear from a reviewer, the cache isn't actively blocking someone else's placement.

Another example of reasons publications are delayed is in preparation for an event. In this area, we have a monthly event. Often a few caches are placed and held for publication on the day of the event. Sometimes this may be a couple weeks.

By "held for publication", do you mean the caches are submitted for review and the reviewers holds off on publishing them until the event, or they aren't even submitted for review? The former is generally how it's done. The cache is submitted for review ahead of time with a reviewer note asking that it not be published until a certain date. The reviewers will do their best to honour this request, provided it's submitted early enough (often a week or more ahead of time). Assuming the reviewer approves of them, these are valid caches that just haven't been published yet, so they really aren't blocking a spot.

7.8k · June 7, 2012

So I have to ask, since several of y'all apparently have these unpublished caches just hanging around. What do you use them for?

I'll occasionally use one of my archived caches for personal TB storage (in the days before collections) or for decrypting ROT 13 that's not in a decryptable hint, so I know it's good to have test bed caches around. Just trying to ficure out why you'd bother having an unpublished cache if you have archived ones you can use.

I currently have one unpublished cache. The only reason is because I was contemplating placing a cache in a spot, but I've since decided not to go ahead for various reasons. A few weeks ago I had 3 unpublished caches, but I've since re-used 2 of them for new placements. The next time I place a cache, I'll be using my remaining unpublished cache.

For TB storage, I just use the collection feature. ROT13, I use online decoding sites. I have yet to archive any of my caches, so none of those. I've heard some use them for hosting images, but I just upload my images to the requisite cache, or I have a web server I can use if need be.

Edit to add: And BTW, the coordinates for my unpublished cache point to a spot out in the Pacific Ocean.

Edited June 7, 2012 by The A-Team

5.7k · June 7, 2012

Yeah, I use one of my archived caches from time to time for image hosting, if I'm at work. I have my own web domain, so image hosting is not an issue, but the net nanny blocks me from accessing my file manager at work.

7.3k · June 8, 2012

Just trying to ficure out why you'd bother having an unpublished cache if you have archived ones you can use.

I'm a prolific hider. I'll go for a hike or paddle, and come home with coords for a cache.

I tend to write it up immediately. This allows me to take a look at the Geocaching.com map, see how fits with what's there already, insures that I won't lose the darn coords, and reminds me that I was thinkin' on getting it out there. I usually add a "not to block any cache that ready for publication" reviewer note.

I have a couple of cache pages that have been written up for years - one paddle cache that's been the victim of drought. A tough paddle under good circumstances, and darn near impossible under drought conditions. This spring I found an overland route, and was all ready to place and publish, when the land manager plowed the first 3 miles of the walk-in route. Tilled it up like lettuce bed. (right now there's been enough rain to make the walk in killer, but not enough to really float a boat)

I can wait.....

2.8k · June 8, 2012

I want to make sure I understand when an unpublished cache can block another.

If a cache has been placed, written up and submitted for review (published or not), I would expect it would block other placements until it is archived.

BUT - if a cache has been written up and never submitted for review, will the coords used in this cache block anything? Theoretically, the reviewer is not aware of its existence yet (though I'm sure he would have access to the cache page).

I have a couple caches in the works of write up, but have not selected a location. I had to put in fake coords to be able to start developing the page. I hope they are not blocking anything. If so, I will change my coords to something that I have already published.

Another example of reasons publications are delayed is in preparation for an event. In this area, we have a monthly event. Often a few caches are placed and held for publication on the day of the event. Sometimes this may be a couple weeks.

I am always working on new cache ideas, so I have several listings generated, but they are not submitted for review (checkbox not checked). They all have bogus coorinates, but are usually withing "spitting distance" of where they will be hidden. Our local review has contacted me on several occasions, asking about these cahces, and if I will be publishing soon, as a new submittal was made that conflicts with my drafts.

In these cases, I tell him to ignore my drafts and free up the space, allowing the publication of the other cache.

June 11, 2012

I have changed the coords for my unpublished/unreviewed caches to the coords of an existing one of my own caches. Thanks for the clarification.

For caches hidden for events, YES we do get them reviewed when they are ready. We include a note asking to have the cache validated but not published - stating the reason. Our reviewer will then evaluate, and approve or deny, but not publish. He will then disable the listing and tell us to enable when ready for publication. Usually he will be quick to publish those caches when enabled.

3.4k · June 11, 2012

Thanks to the viewpoints included in this thread, I have added a reviewer note to one of my unpublished (and as yet unhidden) caches explaining that the State Park where I want to place it currently has a moratorium on new cache placements and is not even going to address the issue of permission until fall--after the busy summer season.

9.2k · June 11, 2012

So I have to ask, since several of y'all apparently have these unpublished caches just hanging around. What do you use them for?

Testing HTML, Seeing how the pages work, before I actually set a cache and write the page.

And.

I have some 'old' GC numbers, that go to the front of the review queue when/if they are submitted! :laughing:

5.2k · June 12, 2012

I have some 'old' GC numbers, that go to the front of the review queue when/if they are submitted!

It's usually quite obvious when I see this in the queue. I tend to review all the others first and save the "old" GC Codes for last :laughing: :anibad:

2.2k · June 12, 2012

So I have to ask, since several of y'all apparently have these unpublished caches just hanging around. What do you use them for?

I have two unpublished GC codes kicking around right now.

For one, I had been browsing the map and saw a place I thought might be interesting. I created the listing so I could have the GC code to place on the container and in the log, etc. then went out to the scout the area. I didn't find anything interesting to warrant a cache in that area so I just held onto the GC code for future use. I figure one day it will be fun to get a new cache published with a "retro" GC code if nothing else.

The other got created when the new Beta cache submission form went live and I wanted to see the differences firsthand.

June 12, 2012

Is there any way to view my unpublished caches other than with the link on the e-mail. Yeah, I deleted the e-mail I received. Newbie mistake.

3.7k · June 13, 2012

Is there any way to view my unpublished caches other than with the link on the e-mail. Yeah, I deleted the e-mail I received. Newbie mistake.

They're listed at the top of your private Profile page: "Your Unpublished Disabled Caches"

A bit annoyed

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment