Jump to content

528 feet


Recommended Posts

I am coming around to the notion that mystery hiders uncommonly put in bogus coordinates for the final location. They are relatively free to place the actual cache anywhere since only the finders know where it really is and most don't complain.

 

The problem is that using proximity of know nearby hides becomes totally useless for reducing possible locations when running solutions.

Edited by fbingha
Link to comment

I suppose someone who can't understand the importance of grammar and punctuation in written communication, can't grasp the concept that a cache owner can maintain over 150 caches.

 

Obviously, there is a direct correlation between communication skills and cache maintenance ability. :)

Link to comment

I suppose someone who can't understand the importance of grammar and punctuation in written communication, can't grasp the concept that a cache owner can maintain over 150 caches.

 

Obviously, there is a direct correlation between communication skills and cache maintenance ability. :)

 

If the reason for the bad communication skills is simply, "I don't care", then yes, there could be a direct correlation. How can someone be expected to maintain 150 caches if they are too lazy to hold down the SHIFT key, or type a simple comma or period?

 

No one is expecting perfectly formed sentences or paragraphs, but really, when the thought in your head stops, press the button with the dot on it.

Link to comment

Glad to see this thread's still bumping along and i'm not the only one looking at it pragmatically!

"Can't Say Fairer Than That" (my cache near Magnette Close) will be submitted this weekend. It's about 650 feet from the nearest cache.

I was driving along a lane with a fellow cacher last week, from one cache past the site of a probably gone (multi DNFs) but not archived cache, to another and we both said "Those [including the disappeared one] are ridiculously close! Checked with fizzcalc and there was a good 620' in all directions.

So I'll repeat / clarify my standpoint: yes, respect rules and use them as a starting point - it's pretty rare that a hiding place is the ONLY great spot in the vicinity, so keep looking and resign yourself to not putting a cache in every hidey-hole; but on the odd occasion a bit of sensible flexibility either on the part of the CO (sneakily) or the reviewer, is not going to harm the integrity of geocaching. Badly-maintained caches, on the other hand, will.

[Must check punctuation before hitting "Post". I hope colon and semi-colon usage gets a nod of approval.]

Link to comment

How does this happen? (not photoshopped)

 

6d497d99-ab20-4b04-ac4d-5a1c09eb1749.jpg

 

It looks like someone got away with pushing the limits a bit.

It looks like you're almost in the middle of both caches. What's the distance from each cache? I would guess around 900 feet or so. If the distance was under 250 each way then I would say someone got away with something. You're reading those distances wrong to think those caches are too close to each other. :)

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment

How does this happen? (not photoshopped)

 

6d497d99-ab20-4b04-ac4d-5a1c09eb1749.jpg

 

It looks like someone got away with pushing the limits a bit.

It looks like you're almost in the middle of both caches. What's the distance from each cache? I would guess around 900 feet or so. If the distance was under 250 each way then I would say someone got away with something. You're reading those distances wrong to think those caches are too close to each other. :)

 

No, he is not reading it wrong. This is the distance between the listed coordinates of the top cache and the listed coordinates of the two closest caches to it.

 

There are three possibilities.

1. The reviewer granted one or more exceptions.

2. One or more caches were moved after they were published and their coordinates were updated by the owners, and the reviewer either didn't notice, or didn't care.

3. One or more are unknown caches and are not located at the listed coordinates.

 

528 is a guideline and reviewers can give exceptions. I have been given two such exceptions over the years.

Link to comment

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)

Hmmm....is cache #7 going to be a d5-t5 scuba cache in the pond?!

;)

Link to comment

Here it is again with more details.

 

0144ccb7-81ad-46a1-8885-ef36ee8e0200.jpg

 

There is no river, pond, cliff, etc. between the caches. The last two were fairly recently placed. I'm fairly certain that none of these were moved after publishing. My guess is that the reviewer either didn't catch it or doesn't care that they are slightly under the 528 feet guideline. After all, it is just a "guideline".

Link to comment

Hello medoug,

 

The owner of the other two caches changed the coordinates shortly after publication, in each case to points that are less than 528 feet from the cache you co-own. The other CO then deleted the "update coordinates" logs so that you cannot see them. There was no reviewer error -- just a trick by a CO to get his caches published.

 

What the other CO may not know is that reviewers have ways of finding out about these things, as I have just done. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Hello medoug,

 

The owner of the other two caches changed the coordinates shortly after publication, in each case to points that are less than 528 feet from the cache you co-own. The other CO then deleted the "update coordinates" logs so that you cannot see them. There was no reviewer error -- just a trick by a CO to get his caches published.

 

What the other CO may not know is that reviewers have ways of finding out about these things, as I have just done. :ph34r:

 

Yes, but you still managed to overlook another one 463 feet away from a different cache of his. :P

Link to comment

How does this happen? (not photoshopped)

 

6d497d99-ab20-4b04-ac4d-5a1c09eb1749.jpg

 

It looks like someone got away with pushing the limits a bit.

It looks like you're almost in the middle of both caches. What's the distance from each cache? I would guess around 900 feet or so. If the distance was under 250 each way then I would say someone got away with something. You're reading those distances wrong to think those caches are too close to each other. :)

 

658' if you take NW and NE literally as 90º apart and we're looking at a right-angled triangle with the distance between the caches being the hypotenuse.

Link to comment

How does this happen? (not photoshopped)

 

6d497d99-ab20-4b04-ac4d-5a1c09eb1749.jpg

 

It looks like someone got away with pushing the limits a bit.

It looks like you're almost in the middle of both caches. What's the distance from each cache? I would guess around 900 feet or so. If the distance was under 250 each way then I would say someone got away with something. You're reading those distances wrong to think those caches are too close to each other. :)

 

658' if you take NW and NE literally as 90º apart and we're looking at a right-angled triangle with the distance between the caches being the hypotenuse.

 

It does suggest that the cache which is "here" is too close to two other caches though, but if "here" is the start of a multi,puzzle, or virtual that's not an issue. If it's a trad there could be justification for being so close to the other two (e.g. being the other side of a 300 foot wide river), or it could just be a mistake - they do happen!

Link to comment

How does this happen? (not photoshopped)

 

6d497d99-ab20-4b04-ac4d-5a1c09eb1749.jpg

 

It looks like someone got away with pushing the limits a bit.

It looks like you're almost in the middle of both caches. What's the distance from each cache? I would guess around 900 feet or so. If the distance was under 250 each way then I would say someone got away with something. You're reading those distances wrong to think those caches are too close to each other. :)

 

658' if you take NW and NE literally as 90º apart and we're looking at a right-angled triangle with the distance between the caches being the hypotenuse.

 

It does suggest that the cache which is "here" is too close to two other caches though, but if "here" is the start of a multi,puzzle, or virtual that's not an issue. If it's a trad there could be justification for being so close to the other two (e.g. being the other side of a 300 foot wide river), or it could just be a mistake - they do happen!

 

Did you totally miss the explanation by Keystone as to what actually happened in this instance?

Link to comment

Hello medoug,

 

The owner of the other two caches changed the coordinates shortly after publication, in each case to points that are less than 528 feet from the cache you co-own. The other CO then deleted the "update coordinates" logs so that you cannot see them. There was no reviewer error -- just a trick by a CO to get his caches published.

 

What the other CO may not know is that reviewers have ways of finding out about these things, as I have just done. :ph34r:

 

I love it when nefarious activity is outed in the forums and dealt with. I suspect that that guys relationship with the reviewer has taken a turn for the worst.

 

I saw one recently in the red rock canyon area that required a email stating what was written on the wall by the cache. It was published after the ALR rule but I am betting the language wasn't there when it was published.

Link to comment

How does this happen? (not photoshopped)

 

6d497d99-ab20-4b04-ac4d-5a1c09eb1749.jpg

 

It looks like someone got away with pushing the limits a bit.

It looks like you're almost in the middle of both caches. What's the distance from each cache? I would guess around 900 feet or so. If the distance was under 250 each way then I would say someone got away with something. You're reading those distances wrong to think those caches are too close to each other. :)

 

658' if you take NW and NE literally as 90º apart and we're looking at a right-angled triangle with the distance between the caches being the hypotenuse.

 

It does suggest that the cache which is "here" is too close to two other caches though, but if "here" is the start of a multi,puzzle, or virtual that's not an issue. If it's a trad there could be justification for being so close to the other two (e.g. being the other side of a 300 foot wide river), or it could just be a mistake - they do happen!

 

Did you totally miss the explanation by Keystone as to what actually happened in this instance?

 

No, just offering some other possibilities to explain how such a situation could occur.

Link to comment

A question for clarification to the reviewers on here. If 2 caches were on opposites sides of a pond, not unlike the situation described by the OP, the distance between them on Google Maps being less than 528 feet as the crow flies but the path around the pond from one cache to the other is actually more than 528 feet, would you consider a waive on the 528 guideline?

Link to comment

A question for clarification to the reviewers on here. If 2 caches were on opposites sides of a pond, not unlike the situation described by the OP, the distance between them on Google Maps being less than 528 feet as the crow flies but the path around the pond from one cache to the other is actually more than 528 feet, would you consider a waive on the 528 guideline?

 

They used to, until everyone abused it. I don't think they do anymore.

Link to comment

Here it is again with more details.

 

0144ccb7-81ad-46a1-8885-ef36ee8e0200.jpg

 

There is no river, pond, cliff, etc. between the caches. The last two were fairly recently placed. I'm fairly certain that none of these were moved after publishing. My guess is that the reviewer either didn't catch it or doesn't care that they are slightly under the 528 feet guideline. After all, it is just a "guideline".

 

Hello medoug,

 

The owner of the other two caches changed the coordinates shortly after publication, in each case to points that are less than 528 feet from the cache you co-own. The other CO then deleted the "update coordinates" logs so that you cannot see them. There was no reviewer error -- just a trick by a CO to get his caches published.

 

What the other CO may not know is that reviewers have ways of finding out about these things, as I have just done. :ph34r:

 

Gee, I wasn't trying to get anyone in trouble. (That's why I hid some of the identifying information in my posted image.) I was just trying to show an example of where the 528 foot rule had not been enforced. I hope this doesn't result in issues with the new caches placed. I have no problem with their proximity to the earlier cache listed.

Link to comment

We understand you didn't intend to do that but remember the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

What you did was shine a light on a cacher who intentionally broke the rules. From the evidence so far it is clear that he placed his caches with bogus coordinates knowing the actual location violated guidelines and then moved them after publication. His nefarious actions caused the situation that you pointed out. You did nothing wrong.

 

This isn't the first time someone has been outed for that when someone has pointed to a cache in the forums that seems to be outside the guidelines.

 

There was one in the TB forum recently where this guy in Norway (I think) started a topic pointing to his TB where if you went to his profile and did some math you were allowed to discover it. This is way outside guidelines and resulted in a lackey advising him to delete all bogus logs and change the wording. Kind of funny actually.

Link to comment

We understand you didn't intend to do that but remember the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

What you did was shine a light on a cacher who intentionally broke the rules. From the evidence so far it is clear that he placed his caches with bogus coordinates knowing the actual location violated guidelines and then moved them after publication. His nefarious actions caused the situation that you pointed out. You did nothing wrong.

 

This isn't the first time someone has been outed for that when someone has pointed to a cache in the forums that seems to be outside the guidelines.

 

There was one in the TB forum recently where this guy in Norway (I think) started a topic pointing to his TB where if you went to his profile and did some math you were allowed to discover it. This is way outside guidelines and resulted in a lackey advising him to delete all bogus logs and change the wording. Kind of funny actually.

 

How do you know that this cacher did any of this? Do you know him, his reputation? Do you know anything besides what Keystone wrote in his post? He could have simply made a mistake. He could have taken his original coordinates with a smartphone that he didn't know how to use very well. He could have adjusted his coordinates later using Google maps, (I know, not a good idea, but it happens). He could have absolutely no idea that when he changed his coordinates that he was encroaching onto another nearby cache. Not everything has to be a nefariousness scheme. I've seen people change their coordinates and then delete the log because they were embarrassed that they screwed up in the first place. And I've seen people correct their coordinates based on finders logs and suddenly their cache is too close to another.

Link to comment

We understand you didn't intend to do that but remember the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

What you did was shine a light on a cacher who intentionally broke the rules. From the evidence so far it is clear that he placed his caches with bogus coordinates knowing the actual location violated guidelines and then moved them after publication. His nefarious actions caused the situation that you pointed out. You did nothing wrong.

 

This isn't the first time someone has been outed for that when someone has pointed to a cache in the forums that seems to be outside the guidelines.

 

There was one in the TB forum recently where this guy in Norway (I think) started a topic pointing to his TB where if you went to his profile and did some math you were allowed to discover it. This is way outside guidelines and resulted in a lackey advising him to delete all bogus logs and change the wording. Kind of funny actually.

 

How do you know that this cacher did any of this? Do you know him, his reputation? Do you know anything besides what Keystone wrote in his post? He could have simply made a mistake. He could have taken his original coordinates with a smartphone that he didn't know how to use very well. He could have adjusted his coordinates later using Google maps, (I know, not a good idea, but it happens). He could have absolutely no idea that when he changed his coordinates that he was encroaching onto another nearby cache. Not everything has to be a nefariousness scheme. I've seen people change their coordinates and then delete the log because they were embarrassed that they screwed up in the first place. And I've seen people correct their coordinates based on finders logs and suddenly their cache is too close to another.

 

Of course that is possible, but unlikely. Both caches had the coords changed right after publication and before the FTF, one 123 feet and one 61 feet

Link to comment

I had that problem a CO placed thier cache smack dab in the mniddle of a small park, there was NO room for any more, could of been had they chosen a corner. I also have problems all the time, with those doggone stages, mystery caches, you do not know where they are, unless you solved it yourself, it can be frustrating, you can politley ask the reviewer, should I move north, south, east or west about how many feet, they will give you a clue. I do think they should reduce the span really to 350 feet.

Link to comment

We understand you didn't intend to do that but remember the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

What you did was shine a light on a cacher who intentionally broke the rules. From the evidence so far it is clear that he placed his caches with bogus coordinates knowing the actual location violated guidelines and then moved them after publication. His nefarious actions caused the situation that you pointed out. You did nothing wrong.

 

This isn't the first time someone has been outed for that when someone has pointed to a cache in the forums that seems to be outside the guidelines.

 

There was one in the TB forum recently where this guy in Norway (I think) started a topic pointing to his TB where if you went to his profile and did some math you were allowed to discover it. This is way outside guidelines and resulted in a lackey advising him to delete all bogus logs and change the wording. Kind of funny actually.

 

How do you know that this cacher did any of this? Do you know him, his reputation? Do you know anything besides what Keystone wrote in his post? He could have simply made a mistake. He could have taken his original coordinates with a smartphone that he didn't know how to use very well. He could have adjusted his coordinates later using Google maps, (I know, not a good idea, but it happens). He could have absolutely no idea that when he changed his coordinates that he was encroaching onto another nearby cache. Not everything has to be a nefariousness scheme. I've seen people change their coordinates and then delete the log because they were embarrassed that they screwed up in the first place. And I've seen people correct their coordinates based on finders logs and suddenly their cache is too close to another.

 

Of course that is possible, but unlikely. Both caches had the coords changed right after publication and before the FTF, one 123 feet and one 61 feet

 

Okay. I just don't like to see people jump to conclusions and assume that everyone is trying to game the system, Most cachers don't sit and discuss the guidelines for years on end, and it's simply natural that one of them might make a mistake every so often.

 

It seems that in this specific case, some of you may have a little bit of inside knowledge that this guy intentionally played with his coordinates in order to get his caches published. Not good.

Link to comment

Just found two caches near me, 403.877118 ft [does fizzycalc really need that many decimal places?] apart.

 

River Thames in between the two, so sensible discretion has been used. One was put out in Jul '07 the other May '12. Does stick out like a sore thumb on the map though (I was researching for a legit place to put my 5th cache...)

Link to comment

We understand you didn't intend to do that but remember the Law of Unintended Consequences.

 

What you did was shine a light on a cacher who intentionally broke the rules. From the evidence so far it is clear that he placed his caches with bogus coordinates knowing the actual location violated guidelines and then moved them after publication. His nefarious actions caused the situation that you pointed out. You did nothing wrong.

 

This isn't the first time someone has been outed for that when someone has pointed to a cache in the forums that seems to be outside the guidelines.

 

There was one in the TB forum recently where this guy in Norway (I think) started a topic pointing to his TB where if you went to his profile and did some math you were allowed to discover it. This is way outside guidelines and resulted in a lackey advising him to delete all bogus logs and change the wording. Kind of funny actually.

 

How do you know that this cacher did any of this? Do you know him, his reputation? Do you know anything besides what Keystone wrote in his post? He could have simply made a mistake. He could have taken his original coordinates with a smartphone that he didn't know how to use very well. He could have adjusted his coordinates later using Google maps, (I know, not a good idea, but it happens). He could have absolutely no idea that when he changed his coordinates that he was encroaching onto another nearby cache. Not everything has to be a nefariousness scheme. I've seen people change their coordinates and then delete the log because they were embarrassed that they screwed up in the first place. And I've seen people correct their coordinates based on finders logs and suddenly their cache is too close to another.

 

Of course that is possible, but unlikely. Both caches had the coords changed right after publication and before the FTF, one 123 feet and one 61 feet

 

Okay. I just don't like to see people jump to conclusions and assume that everyone is trying to game the system, Most cachers don't sit and discuss the guidelines for years on end, and it's simply natural that one of them might make a mistake every so often.

 

It seems that in this specific case, some of you may have a little bit of inside knowledge that this guy intentionally played with his coordinates in order to get his caches published. Not good.

 

No, you are correct. It may have very well been an accident, but since the new coords were adjusted before anyone found it, and not in response to a log, the likelyhood of it being accidental is small.

 

There was one near me recently that was changed after publication. The reviewer archived it immediately, with a note that it was done to avoid proximity issues. The problem with that? There wasn't any other cache nearby, and it ended up being unarchived an hour later. :unsure:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
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...