528 feet

[+justintim1999]

I am trying to publish 6 new caches and am having trouble with two of them. All 6 cashes are within a piece of conservation land with a limited trail system. Two of the caches are 516 feet from each other. I have already moved one to get the 516 feet and am unable to move it any further and stay within the conversation property. The other was designed to fit in a specific spot. The reviewer is unwilling to allow the cache due to the 528 foot rule. Am I stuck. Is there any way to get approval for there cashes?

Thanks

[+cerberus1]

Why six? Make it four and you have room.

Doubtful you'll get a reviewer to budge. Thems the rules.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Try not to leave bootprints when you go over your reviewer's head.

 

Things go much better if you keep them on your side.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I see no reason for the reviewer to bend the guidelines. 528 feet it is. So, comply with the guidelies. If that only allows you to hide four caches, grin and bear it, and hide four caches.

[+CanadianRockies]

The reviewer is unwilling to allow the cache due to the 528 foot rule. Am I stuck. Is there any way to get approval for there cashes?

You're almost certainly stuck. Is there a river or other significant barrier between the too-close caches that the reviewer might not be aware of? If so, you could mention that to your reviewer and ask them to reconsider their decision. Sometimes, they might give you a break. Short of something like that, however, most reviewers are very reluctant to deviate from the 528-foot rule.

 

You also can appeal the Volunteer Reviewer's decision, but Groundspeak almost certainly won't reverse it without a very good reason.

[+wimseyguy]

Sounds like a great place for 4-5 caches. The priority shouldn't be to cram as many caches as possible into the property, the point should be to share the best views and trails with other cachers.

[+StarBrand]

The reviewer is unwilling to allow the cache due to the 528 foot rule. Am I stuck. Is there any way to get approval for there cashes?

You're almost certainly stuck. Is there a river or other significant barrier between the too-close caches that the reviewer might not be aware of? If so, you could mention that to your reviewer and ask them to reconsider their decision. Sometimes, they might give you a break. Short of something like that, however, most reviewers are very reluctant to deviate from the 528-foot rule.

 

You also can appeal the Volunteer Reviewer's decision, but Groundspeak almost certainly won't reverse it without a very good reason.

Unless a significant barrier of some kind exists between them (cliff, interstate highway, wide river, etc) - it is highly unlikely. Sorry.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I see that you have not had any hides published before. So... although you are not a beginner, you did run into a beginner's problem.

You have bumped into one of the more sacrosanct guidelines involving cache placement. I fear that you are in need of altering one (or more) of your placements in order to comply.

 

That said, there are exceptions. They are truly quite rare, and vary from reviewer to reviewer. I doubt, from what you posted, that you will be able to obtain an exception.

[+cache_test_dummies]

5 nice caches that fully comply with the guidelines would be nice.

[+Isonzo Karst]

If there are two nice spots that are less than 528 feet apart, combine them into a single multi-cache.

[Keystone]

Since you own both caches, you have complete control over the locations and spacing. You'll find most reviewers will be quite strict in applying the 528 foot test in these circumstances. Think of it as a tradeoff for being able to place unlimited caches 529 feet apart, thanks to the removal of the "power trail" clause in the guidelines.

 

Now, if you were 517 feet from someone else's cache, you'd stand a far better chance with many reviewers for an exception. Some might point to your other nearby caches and draw the line, still saying "no." Personally, I'd have to study the map showing all the caches in the area before deciding.

[+justintim1999]

The two caches in question are separated by a pond. You have to circle around to access one from the other. Do you know what method a reviewer uses to determine distance. From one of the caches the distance to the other was 523 feet. From the other is was 510 (using a garmin oregon 300)

[+justintim1999]

Sounds like a great place for 4-5 caches. The priority shouldn't be to cram as many caches as possible into the property, the point should be to share the best views and trails with other cachers.

 

All of the 6 caches bring you to a unique area within the conservation area. They also utilize the existing trails. This is a new area so the trail system is limited. A lot of wetland area witch limits the possible hide areas.

[+justintim1999]

The reviewer is unwilling to allow the cache due to the 528 foot rule. Am I stuck. Is there any way to get approval for there cashes?

You're almost certainly stuck. Is there a river or other significant barrier between the too-close caches that the reviewer might not be aware of? If so, you could mention that to your reviewer and ask them to reconsider their decision. Sometimes, they might give you a break. Short of something like that, however, most reviewers are very reluctant to deviate from the 528-foot rule.

 

You also can appeal the Volunteer Reviewer's decision, but Groundspeak almost certainly won't reverse it without a very good reason.

Unless a significant barrier of some kind exists between them (cliff, interstate highway, wide river, etc) - it is highly unlikely. Sorry.

 

The two caches in question are separated by a pond. You have to circle around to access one from the other. Do you know what method a reviewer uses to determine distance. From one of the caches the distance to the other was 523 feet. From the other is was 510 (using a garmin oregon 300)

[+StarBrand]

The reviewer is unwilling to allow the cache due to the 528 foot rule. Am I stuck. Is there any way to get approval for there cashes?

You're almost certainly stuck. Is there a river or other significant barrier between the too-close caches that the reviewer might not be aware of? If so, you could mention that to your reviewer and ask them to reconsider their decision. Sometimes, they might give you a break. Short of something like that, however, most reviewers are very reluctant to deviate from the 528-foot rule.

 

You also can appeal the Volunteer Reviewer's decision, but Groundspeak almost certainly won't reverse it without a very good reason.

Unless a significant barrier of some kind exists between them (cliff, interstate highway, wide river, etc) - it is highly unlikely. Sorry.

 

The two caches in question are separated by a pond. You have to circle around to access one from the other. Do you know what method a reviewer uses to determine distance. From one of the caches the distance to the other was 523 feet. From the other is was 510 (using a garmin oregon 300)

An online special website for the reviewer (that really isn't much of a secret) but here is a great tool for determining distances between coordinates. http://www.fizzymagic.net/Geocaching/FizzyCalc/index.html

[+justintim1999]

Try not to leave bootprints when you go over your reviewer's head.

 

Things go much better if you keep them on your side.

 

Not my intention. Just wondering if it's possible to convince a reviewer that the caches are unique and worthy of a 15 foot exception.

[+justintim1999]

The reviewer is unwilling to allow the cache due to the 528 foot rule. Am I stuck. Is there any way to get approval for there cashes?

You're almost certainly stuck. Is there a river or other significant barrier between the too-close caches that the reviewer might not be aware of? If so, you could mention that to your reviewer and ask them to reconsider their decision. Sometimes, they might give you a break. Short of something like that, however, most reviewers are very reluctant to deviate from the 528-foot rule.

 

You also can appeal the Volunteer Reviewer's decision, but Groundspeak almost certainly won't reverse it without a very good reason.

Unless a significant barrier of some kind exists between them (cliff, interstate highway, wide river, etc) - it is highly unlikely. Sorry.

 

The two caches in question are separated by a pond. You have to circle around to access one from the other. Do you know what method a reviewer uses to determine distance. From one of the caches the distance to the other was 523 feet. From the other is was 510 (using a garmin oregon 300)

An online special website for the reviewer (that really isn't much of a secret) but here is a great tool for determining distances between coordinates. http://www.fizzymagic.net/Geocaching/FizzyCalc/index.html

 

This will help. I've already moved this cache once so I want to make sure that the next location will meet the requirements. Thanks

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Try not to leave bootprints when you go over your reviewer's head.

 

Things go much better if you keep them on your side.

 

Not my intention. Just wondering if it's possible to convince a reviewer that the caches are unique and worthy of a 15 foot exception.

 

Reviewers don't based their decision for publishing a cache based upon whether or not it is "worthy", nor should they. Suppose it was 520 feet from the nearest cache but the reviewer decided that it wasn't good enough to be granted an exception. Can you imagine the kinds of reactions that reviewers would get if they denied caches based on whatever the subjective idea might be for worthiness?

[+justintim1999]

Why six? Make it four and you have room.

Doubtful you'll get a reviewer to budge. Thems the rules.

 

The whole idea from the beginning was to start a geocaching program to introduce people to geocaching. 4 caches would be nice for a new cacher to find but 6 would be better. Also I wanted to highlight as many different hides and containers as possible to give them a good idea of what they may encounter. 6 seemed like a nice number and the distances are so close it's a shame to have to scrap one.

[+StarBrand]

Why six? Make it four and you have room.

Doubtful you'll get a reviewer to budge. Thems the rules.

 

The whole idea from the beginning was to start a geocaching program to introduce people to geocaching. 4 caches would be nice for a new cacher to find but 6 would be better. Also I wanted to highlight as many different hides and containers as possible to give them a good idea of what they may encounter. 6 seemed like a nice number and the distances are so close it's a shame to have to scrap one.

You would also want to introduce them to the fact that guidelines must be followed....... just sayin'

[+justintim1999]

Try not to leave bootprints when you go over your reviewer's head.

 

Things go much better if you keep them on your side.

 

Not my intention. Just wondering if it's possible to convince a reviewer that the caches are unique and worthy of a 15 foot exception.

 

Reviewers don't based their decision for publishing a cache based upon whether or not it is "worthy", nor should they. Suppose it was 520 feet from the nearest cache but the reviewer decided that it wasn't good enough to be granted an exception. Can you imagine the kinds of reactions that reviewers would get if they denied caches based on whatever the subjective idea might be for worthiness?

 

I guess you would have to see the area and the caches to understand. Its funny how a cache hide can be 30, 40 or 50 feet off and it's tolerated. We've all found caches with posted coords that were way off. I would bet that some of them would be in violation of the 528 foot rule if the cache owner was required to update the cache with the "correct" coords. Man I'm bitter. Thanks for letting me vent.

[+justintim1999]

Why six? Make it four and you have room.

Doubtful you'll get a reviewer to budge. Thems the rules.

 

The whole idea from the beginning was to start a geocaching program to introduce people to geocaching. 4 caches would be nice for a new cacher to find but 6 would be better. Also I wanted to highlight as many different hides and containers as possible to give them a good idea of what they may encounter. 6 seemed like a nice number and the distances are so close it's a shame to have to scrap one.

You would also want to introduce them to the fact that guidelines must be followed....... just sayin'

 

Thats ture. just hurts to have to abandon nice spots for 10 feet.

[+Great Scott!]

Leave the cache where it is. Change the coords to get your 528 ft. 12 ft is a reasonable error.

[AZcachemeister]

Leave the cache where it is. Change the coords to get your 528 ft. 12 ft is a reasonable error.

 

You can't possibly be serious.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Man I'm bitter. Thanks for letting me vent.

Don't be. We had to make changes on our first multi once I stumbled upon the final of a puzzle we hadn't found. Had to eliminate 2 awesome stages...really awesome. It forced us to rethink a couple of the other stages to bring the overall awesomeness back up. We were bummed at first, but have come to appreciate the proximity rule. Yes, great hides can be blocked now and then, but it's for the betterment of the whole.

[AZcachemeister]

Sounds like a great place for 4-5 caches. The priority shouldn't be to cram as many caches as possible into the property, the point should be to share the best views and trails with other cachers.

 

Best answer overall.

If it is such a nice area, I bet you could find cool places for 20 or more caches.

 

 

You would also want to introduce them to the fact that guidelines must be followed....... just sayin'

 

Another good point.

 

On a final note (assuming you really want to showcase some select locations that are too close together), perhaps you could make one of your caches a multi-stage puzzle with 'virtual' stages.

People get to see cool stuff, they get to learn what a multi-cache is like, and no proximity issues.

[+Great Scott!]

Dead serious.

It's 12 ft! 5-6 paces.

Coordinates for most caches are off way more than that.

Half of the the geocachers that find it will say their GZ was right on.

The other half will say they were 20 feet off.

[AZcachemeister]

Dead serious.

It's 12 ft! 5-6 paces.

Coordinates for most caches are off way more than that.

Half of the the geocachers that find it will say their GZ was right on.

The other half will say they were 20 feet off.

 

Yes, but...

 

Having 'co-ordinates that are 'off' due to GPS variance' and 'deliberately posting 'soft' co-ordinates to get past the proximity guideline' are two different things.

 

I wouldn't recommend such shenanigans...even this close to St. Patrick's Day.

[+wimseyguy]

Why six? Make it four and you have room.

Doubtful you'll get a reviewer to budge. Thems the rules.

 

The whole idea from the beginning was to start a geocaching program to introduce people to geocaching. 4 caches would be nice for a new cacher to find but 6 would be better. Also I wanted to highlight as many different hides and containers as possible to give them a good idea of what they may encounter. 6 seemed like a nice number and the distances are so close it's a shame to have to scrap one.

 

Sorry dude, but you sound just like the little girl in the AT&T ad. Not quite as funny as the 'strap a cheetah to her back" one, but still pretty funny. And in case this question hasn't been answered-the reviewers simply use the measuring algorithms that the website provides. Your cache page should show you the same distance if you click 'show all nearest caches'. It may not as neither one has been published, but I think it still will provide the info.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48-tcRiBNj4

[+Ma & Pa]

Why six? Make it four and you have room.

Doubtful you'll get a reviewer to budge. Thems the rules.

 

The whole idea from the beginning was to start a geocaching program to introduce people to geocaching. 4 caches would be nice for a new cacher to find but 6 would be better. Also I wanted to highlight as many different hides and containers as possible to give them a good idea of what they may encounter. 6 seemed like a nice number and the distances are so close it's a shame to have to scrap one.

 

Sorry dude, but you sound just like the little girl in the AT&T ad. Not quite as funny as the 'strap a cheetah to her back" one, but still pretty funny. And in case this question hasn't been answered-the reviewers simply use the measuring algorithms that the website provides. Your cache page should show you the same distance if you click 'show all nearest caches'. It may not as neither one has been published, but I think it still will provide the info.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48-tcRiBNj4

[+Ma & Pa]

I recall visting a community where a cacher had placed caches at two tourist spots that were too close to each other. He fudged the coords a little on both in order for them to be approved.

 

I know of two caches that are very close and were approved because they were across the river from each other. A bridge was later added and the caches remained.

 

Of course, the reviewer is not aware of either situation.

[+Off Grid]

I am trying to publish 6 new caches and am having trouble with two of them. All 6 cashes are within a piece of conservation land with a limited trail system. Two of the caches are 516 feet from each other. I have already moved one to get the 516 feet and am unable to move it any further and stay within the conversation property. The other was designed to fit in a specific spot. The reviewer is unwilling to allow the cache due to the 528 foot rule. Am I stuck. Is there any way to get approval for there cashes?

Thanks

 

Make a multi cache of one'

[+NeverSummer]

I am trying to publish 6 new caches and am having trouble with two of them. All 6 cashes are within a piece of conservation land with a limited trail system. Two of the caches are 516 feet from each other. I have already moved one to get the 516 feet and am unable to move it any further and stay within the conversation property. The other was designed to fit in a specific spot. The reviewer is unwilling to allow the cache due to the 528 foot rule. Am I stuck. Is there any way to get approval for there cashes?

Thanks

 

Make a multi cache of one'

Only if there is a way to have a non-physical point at the coordinates. Can't be a container, stamped dog tag, or anything else placed at the coordinates and used for finding the next waypoint. Now, if you wanted to use mathematical process or projection of a waypoint at the coordinates, I believe that works.

 

Here's some light reading about saturation, multis and the related waypoint considerations.

[+briansnat]

Dead serious.

It's 12 ft! 5-6 paces.

Coordinates for most caches are off way more than that.

Half of the the geocachers that find it will say their GZ was right on.

The other half will say they were 20 feet off.

 

Yes, but...

 

Having 'co-ordinates that are 'off' due to GPS variance' and 'deliberately posting 'soft' co-ordinates to get past the proximity guideline' are two different things.

 

I wouldn't recommend such shenanigans...even this close to St. Patrick's Day.

 

He could take a bunch of GPS readings and use one that puts it over the .1 mile mark. Completely legit then.

[+Isonzo Karst]

If there are two nice spots that are less than 528 feet apart, combine them into a single multi-cache.

 

Have 5 nice caches: 4 traditional and one multi-cache.

 

Works fine, and introduces your finders to the multi-cache idea, which is kind of fun too. Novices generally don't care in the slightest whether at the end of the day they've got 5 finds or 6.

 

The stages of a multi-cache can be at any distance from each other. The two parts of the cache must be at least 528 feet from any of trads - but from what you've said, this is already the case. IN the field, the only thing you need do is put the coords of the final into the first stage. You don't have to move it, and it can be a trading cache if it is already. Just add stage coords. Bingo, you're golden.

 

On the computer, on the cache page, change the type to Multi-cache, add the coords of the other cache that's less then 528 as an additional waypoint FINAL. Archive the original listing for that cache that's now the final of the multi. You're good.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Isonzo Karst

[+Murazor]

If there are two nice spots that are less than 528 feet apart, combine them into a single multi-cache.

Have 5 nice caches: 4 traditional and one multi-cache.

 

Yup! This is probably "the bestest" solution.

[4wheelin_fool]

Dead serious.

It's 12 ft! 5-6 paces.

Coordinates for most caches are off way more than that.

Half of the the geocachers that find it will say their GZ was right on.

The other half will say they were 20 feet off.

 

Yes, but...

 

Having 'co-ordinates that are 'off' due to GPS variance' and 'deliberately posting 'soft' co-ordinates to get past the proximity guideline' are two different things.

 

I wouldn't recommend such shenanigans...even this close to St. Patrick's Day.

 

If they are easy caches with the hint being a spoiler, I'd say it was fine. As long as its only 12' off and not more. Some GPS units may put the coords 12' away anyhow. Closer to twenty feet would be too much however, and if they are intended to be difficult, then no, as there would be too much damage by searchers.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Try not to leave bootprints when you go over your reviewer's head.

 

Things go much better if you keep them on your side.

 

Not my intention. Just wondering if it's possible to convince a reviewer that the caches are unique and worthy of a 15 foot exception.

 

Reviewers don't based their decision for publishing a cache based upon whether or not it is "worthy", nor should they. Suppose it was 520 feet from the nearest cache but the reviewer decided that it wasn't good enough to be granted an exception. Can you imagine the kinds of reactions that reviewers would get if they denied caches based on whatever the subjective idea might be for worthiness?

 

I guess you would have to see the area and the caches to understand.

 

Oh, I understand. I commend you for trying to create a group of caches that take people to really nice locations rather than shoving a bunch of film containers under lamp posts in a parking lot, however, the point still stands. Reviewers don't consider the quality of the hide or location when deciding whether or not a cache should be published. We, nor to the reviewers, want to be put in a position of making the subjective decision for whether or not a type of hide or location is "good enough". That would just be prone to disputes between those that want to submit a cache and the reviewers, then Groundspeak would have to be put into a position of arbitrating the dispute. In order to have any sort of consistency reviewers should just look at the information in the cache listing, and then make an objective determination regarding whether or not it adheres to the guidelines.

 

 

Its funny how a cache hide can be 30, 40 or 50 feet off and it's tolerated. We've all found caches with posted coords that were way off. I would bet that some of them would be in violation of the 528 foot rule if the cache owner was required to update the cache with the "correct" coords. Man I'm bitter. Thanks for letting me vent.

 

It's entirely understandable that you might be bitter about this but there are a couple of important points here. First, there is the "no precedent" guideline. The fact that you can find caches which are up to 50 feet off from the posted coordinates is irrelevant. The guideline states that"

 

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache.

 

The most likely outcome of identifying a cache which appears to violate the guideline is that the cache you've identified is likely going to get archived but it's not going to be a justification for having your cache published. There can be many reasons why you might find a cache that is 50' off. When a reviewed get a new listing for review, they don't go out and confirm what the location is like, how it's hidden or whether or not the coordinates are accurate. All they can do is trust that when someone has submitted a cache listing, and has checked the box which indicates that they have read and understand the guidelines, that the submitter did, in fact, read and understand that guidelines. That includes a confirmation that the submitter has made the best attempt they could to obtain accurate coordinates. BTW, I *have* seen a cache archived when subsequent finders determined that the coordinates were not accurate and the CO did not update the coordinates properly

[+ChileHead]

As I think it's already been pointed out, if you own both caches that are close together you are very unlikely to get much of an exception granted. You have the power to move one, the other, or both a small amount in order to make the caches conform to the proximity guideline. You can't move each of them away from one another a small amount in order to satisfy the distance? (and not create another problem of course)

[+JKMonkey]

i can understand being a foot or two off without the reviewer minding much, but twelve is a bit much and might get your cache denied, why not make it a four part cache instead of six? This way you'll have the room and be ensured to get it posted.

[+dprovan]

Make a multi cache of one'

Only if there is a way to have a non-physical point at the coordinates.

They could make a multi out of the two of them that are too close, with a pointer hidden at the first pointing to GZ for the second.

[+Off Grid]

I am trying to publish 6 new caches and am having trouble with two of them. All 6 cashes are within a piece of conservation land with a limited trail system. Two of the caches are 516 feet from each other. I have already moved one to get the 516 feet and am unable to move it any further and stay within the conversation property. The other was designed to fit in a specific spot. The reviewer is unwilling to allow the cache due to the 528 foot rule. Am I stuck. Is there any way to get approval for there cashes?

Thanks

 

Make a multi cache of one'

Only if there is a way to have a non-physical point at the coordinates. Can't be a container, stamped dog tag, or anything else placed at the coordinates and used for finding the next waypoint. Now, if you wanted to use mathematical process or projection of a waypoint at the coordinates, I believe that works.

 

Here's some light reading about saturation, multis and the related waypoint considerations.

uh just a multi a normal multi and I've seen a lot of multi you grab one tube go to another tube so,e times even a tupperware container than you go to the last stage

[+T.D.M.22]

Ummmmm....WHAT?? parler anglais s'il vous plaît. I actually didn't understand what you said OffGrid.

[+ChileHead]

Ummmmm....WHAT?? parler anglais s'il vous plaît. I actually didn't understand what you said OffGrid.

 

You must be new here.

[+T.D.M.22]

Ummmmm....WHAT?? parler anglais s'il vous plaît. I actually didn't understand what you said OffGrid.

 

You must be new here.

 

No, I'm not. Off Grid, while relatively new here herself, is notorious for having no grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure. Most of the time I can understand her, this time all I can do is guess.

Edited March 16, 2013 by T.D.M.22

[+NeverSummer]

I am trying to publish 6 new caches and am having trouble with two of them. All 6 cashes are within a piece of conservation land with a limited trail system. Two of the caches are 516 feet from each other. I have already moved one to get the 516 feet and am unable to move it any further and stay within the conversation property. The other was designed to fit in a specific spot. The reviewer is unwilling to allow the cache due to the 528 foot rule. Am I stuck. Is there any way to get approval for there cashes?

Thanks

 

Make a multi cache of one'

Only if there is a way to have a non-physical point at the coordinates. Can't be a container, stamped dog tag, or anything else placed at the coordinates and used for finding the next waypoint. Now, if you wanted to use mathematical process or projection of a waypoint at the coordinates, I believe that works.

 

Here's some light reading about saturation, multis and the related waypoint considerations.

uh just a multi a normal multi and I've seen a lot of multi you grab one tube go to another tube so,e times even a tupperware container than you go to the last stage

Your last comment makes it clear that you don't have a good grasp of the saturation guidelines. I beg you to read them over, and I hope you'll understand the issues related to this situation.

[+Manville Possum]

I have a listing and there are two others in the area. One is 404 feet away, and the other is 413 feet away. Mine is on top of a cliff at the top of the gorge, and if you follow the trail and road it's over a mile to my listing from the one 404 feet away in the bottom of the gorge.

I explained this in my reviewers note. I agree it's best go along with your local reviewer.

[+Manville Possum]

Ummmmm....WHAT?? parler anglais s'il vous plaît. I actually didn't understand what you said OffGrid.

 

You must be new here.

 

No, I'm not. Off Grid, while relatively new here herself, is notorious for having no grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure. Most of the time I can understand her, this time all I can do is guess.

 

Her? Off Grid is the same user sending me hate mail. I saw on the users profile that they were a father and daughter team. That explaines alot, but not why contact@geocaching.com

ignores me.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+T.D.M.22]

Off Grid appears to be a team-(Father/Daughter?) according to a link that is/was on the profile. Most often it appears to be the female half that posts. If you look you may be able to see the differences in the ways that each half of the team posts. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong Off Grid.

[+T.D.M.22]

 

Her? Off Grid is the same user sending me hate mail. I saw on the users profile that they were a father and daughter team. That explaines alot, but not why contact@geocaching.com

ignores me.

 

You're not the only one. Though I'm not sure the content of any of them...