Jump to content

Placing a new cache near to existing cache


dog-almighty

Recommended Posts

I'd like to place a cache on the opposite bank of a river to an existing cache. As the crow flies, they would be approx 30m apart, but the only way to cross the river is via a bridge a few hundered meters away, meaning that the two caches would be quater of a mile apart, in access terms.

Would this be allowed, or should I give up on that spot? (which incidentally is ideal and I may never find the equivalent, sniff!)

Thanks

Link to comment

Please could you give me a hint on how to find my local reviewer? (my website navigating abilities appear to have been washed away in the heavy rain)

 

Some of your recent finds, except for the one in California, were published by either

 

Royal Oak

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=e2a7a387-6a45-4510-9ea4-bfe6935494ed

 

or

 

Deceangi

http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=15312606-3dac-4704-a85c-7460b9ba4d15

 

 

B.

Link to comment

California? I wish! I must have logged the wrong cache there, thanks for pointing that out :-/ And thank you everyone for your help, I'll get onto it tomorrow.... and start planning a back up hiding place

 

I've just been on a brilliant afternoon's caching, and it's really spurred me on to hide some quirky ones, which I'm hoping this one will be

 

Thanks muchly :)

Link to comment

I could have sworn there used to be an exception to the rule where if the two caches were separated by a natural barrier such as a river, where you couldn't pass except by boat etc, then it was OK. But I can't find that anywhere now, I presume guidelines have changed?

 

I thought that was the exception too. Maybe the reviewers have disgression because I have a few caches in this situation.

 

PAul

Link to comment

I could have sworn there used to be an exception to the rule where if the two caches were separated by a natural barrier such as a river, where you couldn't pass except by boat etc, then it was OK. But I can't find that anywhere now, I presume guidelines have changed?

 

I thought that was the exception too. Maybe the reviewers have disgression because I have a few caches in this situation.

 

PAul

The Saturation Guideline stands, regardless of such a barrier. Reviewers may use their discretion in such instances.

That's why he was directed to the reviewer. We cannot say yea or nay -- a reviewer can and (s)he possesses the magic button with which to do that.

Link to comment

I could have sworn there used to be an exception to the rule where if the two caches were separated by a natural barrier such as a river, where you couldn't pass except by boat etc, then it was OK. But I can't find that anywhere now, I presume guidelines have changed?

 

I thought that was the exception too. Maybe the reviewers have disgression because I have a few caches in this situation.

 

PAul

The Saturation Guideline stands, regardless of such a barrier. Reviewers may use their discretion in such instances.

That's why he was directed to the reviewer. We cannot say yea or nay -- a reviewer can and (s)he possesses the magic button with which to do that.

DUH

 

I am so embarrassed mixing up discretion and digression

 

Anyhow here is my story.

 

Long long ago I placed a cache overlooking a river at a spot where there was once a railroad bridge. Much later I placed one across the river at a spot that was about 130 meters away. I explained that it would take over an hour to get from one cache to the other and it was approved.

 

Because of muggles I had to archive the first one but later replaced it with a well hidden micro that was also too close but it also got approved. Then the one across the river had to be archived after being attacked by an animal. I replaced it with a micro that was only 110 meters from the one across the river. A different reviewer looked at this one and refused it. I wrote an explanation and luckily it was approved, but this time by the reviewer who had approved the other ones.

 

1b2b6c33-0032-46a7-b836-f7fe396baf2c.jpg

Link to comment

I could have sworn there used to be an exception to the rule where if the two caches were separated by a natural barrier such as a river, where you couldn't pass except by boat etc, then it was OK. But I can't find that anywhere now, I presume guidelines have changed?

The so-called "natural barrier" exception was never a formal part of the listing guidelines concerning cache saturation. Some reviewers, myself included, sometimes relied on the "natural barrier" concept in an effort to provide flexibility in the application of the cache saturation guideline.

 

I no longer consider "natural barriers" -- only distance as the crow flies. I started doing this around the same time that the right to limit "power trails" was removed from the reviewers' toolbox. I now have a much simpler job that involves looking whether the cache is at least 528 feet from its neighbors and then saying "yes" or "no."

Link to comment

I no longer consider "natural barriers" -- only distance as the crow flies. I started doing this around the same time that the right to limit "power trails" was removed from the reviewers' toolbox. I now have a much simpler job that involves looking whether the cache is at least 528 feet from its neighbors and then saying "yes" or "no."

Just to clarify; are you inferring there that you regret that you're now doing a much simpler but less good job, or is it that the replacement of a guideline by a rule has made your work more efficient and so this is a good policy?

 

If it's a rule then there has to be a really good logical and practical reason behind its introduction, and this should always be explained fully so that everyone buys into the principle. At the moment it doesn't look very sensible; there may be cases where the natural barrier isn't enough of a separation but clearly there are easily-identified exceptions.

Link to comment

I could have sworn there used to be an exception to the rule where if the two caches were separated by a natural barrier such as a river, where you couldn't pass except by boat etc, then it was OK. But I can't find that anywhere now, I presume guidelines have changed?

The so-called "natural barrier" exception was never a formal part of the listing guidelines concerning cache saturation. Some reviewers, myself included, sometimes relied on the "natural barrier" concept in an effort to provide flexibility in the application of the cache saturation guideline.

 

I no longer consider "natural barriers" -- only distance as the crow flies. I started doing this around the same time that the right to limit "power trails" was removed from the reviewers' toolbox. I now have a much simpler job that involves looking whether the cache is at least 528 feet from its neighbors and then saying "yes" or "no."

 

Ridiculous

:mad:

Link to comment

My understanding was always that the purpose of the saturation rule was to avoid the situation where someone hunting cache A found cache B and thought it was A. If you've got two caches within 30 feet of each other because they are the base of adjacent trees it's a potential problem although if one is a film pot and the other is an ammo can there's less scope for confusion.

 

If they are 30 feet apart on opposite sides of a river there's still scope for confusion because sometimes looking at a map (especially a poor quality map) it's not always clear which side of the river you're supposed to be searching. If caches are 300 feet apart on opposite sides of a large river I'd expect any map worthy of the name to show them on the correct sides and so, even though rowing or swimming from one to another is possible, it's not something that could cause any confusion between two caches.

 

Of course the trouble with giving reviewers much discretion is that people complain when they use it, and the trouble with not giving reviewers some discretion is that it's always easy to come up with a scenario where a universal rule is stupid.

Link to comment

In answer to your Q's - this particular spot is the only 'ideal' spot I can think of because my planned cache will take some time (up to an hour possibly) to get into, so cachers will need a bit of shelter from the inclement British weather whilst they're solving it. The terrain will also make access pretty tricky making it an all-round high cache, finally, the cache could do to be away from the direct effects of the elements as it's not 100% waterproof (without storing inside another box, which would be fine I suppose). The river flows under a motorway bridge and the huge retaining boulders on the river banks provide some great hiding spots.

 

I wouldn't be so cheeky as to ask the other CO to archive their cache! He's a big player in this area and has hidden nearly 400 caches for the rest of us to enjoy; this particular one is part of a series and is very popular because it's an easy find at the side of a easy access PF.

 

I haven't had chance to speak to the Reviewer yet, I'll know more then, but I can't imagine anyone would be daft enough to get the 2 caches muddled up, or try to cross the raging river, or climb across the under side scaffold of the M'way bridge (although we tried that many times as kids!)

 

Some interesting stuff about saturation on this thread incidentally. As a newbie to laying caches, I've got to say that in a saturated county, it's hard not to tread on peoples' toes. I've got a couple of dozen planned out and I'm wondering how many will be rejected, especially when there may be multi-caches knocking around that I haven't found yet.

Link to comment
I wouldn't be so cheeky as to ask the other CO to archive their cache!

So that's The Magna Defender, then.

 

Don't ask him to archive his cache. Instead, just mail him, pointing him to this thread, and asking his advice on how you can best implement your idea. He might be willing to close down one of his caches to make room for yours, or perhaps can use his experience of the local area to suggest another suitable spot.

 

The answer is but a quick PM away.

Link to comment

Oh no, I feel awful. I really didn't want you to do that. And now I feel the pressure to come up with something uber impressive :unsure: Gulp. Especially after your tetro series!

 

Thanks v much. I feel really naff about this, I assume you were tipped off about this thread. I only wanted to know what happened re the river being in between!

Link to comment

You don't need to feel bad I doubt it would get published unless I archived mine which in all honesty wasnt the best anyway. If you need to know where any multis or puzzles are just drop me an email.

 

You've still not been back to the final of the tetro series ;)

 

Really don't feel bad. I'm really looking forward to some new caches of any quality in our area. I've done everything locally now so some close ones are welcome :)

Link to comment

You're a top man, thanks. And thanks for the offer of multis etc. Even though I'm a dog walker and cover half the flippin' county on foot, it's not always practical to be caching at the same time :rolleyes:

 

Having said that, I'm back in the tetro region tomorrow so providing I remember my wellies and the dogs I'm walking don't take a shine to the sheep, I'll try to get the Finale ticked off. I'll have to wing it a bit though, it's not easy reading UV pen co-ords without a UV torch lol

Link to comment

That worked out well and I didn't even tip off The Magna Defender to this thread B)

 

Dog-almighty, you might want to reserve the spot now it's "open". Set up a basic cache listing page with the right coordinates, but leave it unpublished until everything's perfect with the physical hide.

Link to comment

I've found this an interesting read. I'm not sure if the guidelines have changed, but on PAST experience can add the following :

 

In terms of reviewers, ROYAL OAK normally covers, NW England. However, other UK reviewers will cover from him when on holiday etc. Its even been known for foreign reviewers to get involved (eg for one day only on 1st April 2012)

 

If you have an issue in a cache submission like this, include full details in the reviewers note for the cache. That way, whichever reviewer looks to publish it, they will see this information.

 

Assuming the guideline is still in place, its not just rivers that provide 'barriers' involving lengthy detours. Motorways can do the same, canyons, and I've even know a 12-15ft high wall around a graveyard act as a barrier between one inside, and one at an adjacent supermarket!

 

Having said that, I PERSONALLY think there needs to be a good reason for placing a cache like this (can it not be placed 150m await left or right?). If its over exploited with lots of new caches requiring extra checks by reviewers for these situations, then the guidelines may get revised!

Link to comment

I had this situation last year - my chosen spot was a unique sign placed in the car park of a bowling and tennis club. I couldn't place my cache anywhere else for obvious reasons.

 

To the right of the picture is another cache - about 300ft away - but the only way to get to it is by walking out of the car park, along the main road, across a bridge and down a footpath.

 

When I submitted my cache I sent the reviewer a map of the area, marked with my cache, the other cache and both the direct "as the crow flies" route between caches and the actual route someone would have to walk.

I also gave a rough estimate of how far the walk would be and labelled the river and bridge.

 

The reviewer was more than happy to publish it and has now racked up a fair few finds.

 

So yes, you can do it in certain circumstances but be prepared to give supporting evidence if required!

Edited by TheGoodNorth
Link to comment

I had this situation last year - my chosen spot was a unique sign placed in the car park of a bowling and tennis club. I couldn't place my cache anywhere else for obvious reasons.

 

 

Use the numbers on the sign and make it a Multi-cache.

You could then place a larger container, and make the find 'more fun...' than just a micro/nano cache.

 

I'm perfectly happy with the cache I placed in that particular location to be honest.

I like having a mix of cache & dash type caches to difficult puzzle caches, with tough terrain. It's good to mix things up!

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...