Reviewer comment requested: purpose-built cache location

[Pajaholic]

In a thread about a container designed to be pushed into the ground,

 

Sorry but there is a huge difference between the cache in question, and a tent stake or a piece of wire with a item attached to it. The 2 are not the same, in any sort of way. So sorry, but pushing that into the ground, would not meet the Guidelines.

 

A tent stake/piece of wire is a couple of mm thick, the cache being discussed is cm's thick. There is a huge difference. The change in wording was to allow the artificial grass type hide, where the piece of wire is pushed into the ground to support the container, which is "above" ground. So pushing a a Bison into the ground, would fail the Guideline.

 

You are of course free to obtain individual clarification in regards to the above off Groundspeak.

Some time ago, I asked about a planned cache. At the time, a reviewer (can't remember who) said the cache was OK even though it might required a JCB to set! I'm on the committee of a group formed for the regeneration of a local park. We're planning to upgrade a path to make it suitable for wheelchair users. Unfortunately, that'll mean the end of a cache (http://coord.info/GC334FF). As part of the planned works, we thought it would be fun to build in a cache 'hidey hole', possibly a lockable container concreted into the works, and giving the owner of the existing cache 'first call'. The cache owner (not me) could then provide a combination lock etc. and place the combination on the cache page. The CO wouldn't have done the digging, but ground would certainly have been broken during the path upgrade.

 

Some of the comments in the referenced thread make me wonder whether the reviewer's prior approval I sought is still valid as I'd hate to get funding and council approval only for the CO to have his replacement cache rejected for 'ground breaking'. Hence my request for reviewer comments.

[+Planet]

The no burying rule is so we don't upset the land manager. If the park is the one building the hidey hole, and you explain that to the reviewer, I don't see why an exception can't be made. I would just make sure to put "Hidden with park approval" on the cache page.

[+Beach_hut]

It might be worth the park setting up a relationship with the GAGB as a landowner, so they can be on the data base for future cachers' reference?

[Pajaholic]

It might be worth the park setting up a relationship with the GAGB as a landowner, so they can be on the data base for future cachers' reference?

My place on the park committee is as GAGB representative so, through me, the GAGB has a say in how the park is run, which helps keep the interests of geocachers in mind.

[+The Blorenges]

I think it would be sensible to contact your local reviewer directly by email and discuss the details with him.

 

MrsB

[Pajaholic]

Ah, but which one!? More than one of the UK reviewers have published in my area and I have no guarantee that a reviewer I email directly will be the reviewer who chooses whether the new cache is OK. For info, Chaistolite, Graculus, and Lindinis have published one or more of my caches. Also, I won't be the cache owner -- I'm just trying to look out for the interests of the CO whose cache will be destroyed by the proposed works. I'd hate to incur the expense of building a custom, permanent hide only to find it couldn't be used because interpretation of the rules had changed.

[+The Blorenges]

Ah, but which one!? More than one of the UK reviewers have published in my area and I have no guarantee that a reviewer I email directly will be the reviewer who chooses whether the new cache is OK. For info, Chaistolite, Graculus, and Lindinis have published one or more of my caches. Also, I won't be the cache owner -- I'm just trying to look out for the interests of the CO whose cache will be destroyed by the proposed works. I'd hate to incur the expense of building a custom, permanent hide only to find it couldn't be used because interpretation of the rules had changed.

 

Currently, Lindinis is the reviewer for the SW England area. Other reviewers may cover the area in times of sickness/holidays, but Lindinis is your man.

 

MrsB

[Pajaholic]

Currently, Lindinis is the reviewer for the SW England area. Other reviewers may cover the area in times of sickness/holidays, but Lindinis is your man.

Thanks, much appreciated.

[+eusty]

Surely the hole will be there, not make by you beforebefore you place the cache...therefore it's an existingexisting hole??

[+Graculus]

Sounds fine as the 'landowner' will give permission. One of my colleagues did suggest you might want to run the coordinates past us first before you start pouring concrete in case of proximity issues . Let me have them sometime and I can check.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website

[Pajaholic]

One of my colleagues did suggest you might want to run the coordinates past us first before you start pouring concrete in case of proximity issues . Let me have them sometime and I can check.

Thanks for the response.

 

We'll do as you suggest. However, the cache will be a replacement for http://coord.info/GC334FF, will be placed as close as possible to those coordinates, and so hopefully won't have proximity issues. For info, I've already written to Lindinis with an outline proposal.

 

Thanks again.

[+Moose Mob]

One would hope that re-engineering a planned landscaping project to allow for the placement of a cache would be a milestone in showing the cooperative efforts between the geocaching community and the those we trust in managing our public lands.