528 feet

[+ChileHead]

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.

 

My sarcasm didn't come across very well.

[+ChileHead]

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.

 

When did you email contact? Might take a couple days, especially on a weekend. Is she emailing you because you voted down her cache on the dopie site?

[+fizzymagic]

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.

 

I could not disagree more strongly. More caches is not better. Better caches is better.

[+Manville Possum]

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.

 

When did you email contact? Might take a couple days, especially on a weekend. Is she emailing you because you voted down her cache on the dopie site?

I first contacted them on 3/9, and again yesterday. As for the other question, it started here first, but you guessed it. I like the feature of the other site that keeps members from contacting each other, but what can you do when they follow you here and Groundspeak allowes it, or at least they have before in my experience. Maybe it's just me, but I pay my membership fees too and I'm a supporter of this site.

I'm also a understanding parent, and I "locked" my daughter from posting in the forums, so I understand kids, but thought I was dealing with an adult.

[+cache_test_dummies]

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.

 

I could not disagree more strongly. More caches is not better. Better caches is better.

This.

[+cache_test_dummies]

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.

 

When did you email contact? Might take a couple days, especially on a weekend. Is she emailing you because you voted down her cache on the dopie site?

I first contacted them on 3/9, and again yesterday. As for the other question, it started here first, but you guessed it. I like the feature of the other site that keeps members from contacting each other, but what can you do when they follow you here and Groundspeak allowes it, or at least they have before in my experience. Maybe it's just me, but I pay my membership fees too and I'm a supporter of this site.

I'm also a understanding parent, and I "locked" my daughter from posting in the forums, so I understand kids, but thought I was dealing with an adult.

Personally, I think it would be great if this particular line of off-topic bantering could be taken elsewhere.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I also agree with the suggestion to turn the two in-proximity caches into a multi.

[+Manville Possum]

OK, because of the terrain, mine and the other two listings have no proximity issues. And trying to stay on topic, does anyone else have listings closer than 404 feet from another members listing?

I have tryed to understand the OP's reasoning, but I agree with their local reviewer. Hopefully that answers their question.

[alandb]

There is one in my area where a traditional placed in 2012 is only 90 feet from the final of a 2 stage multi placed in 2009. I assume it is just an unintentional oversight by the reviewer, as there are no natural barriers between the 2 caches. The proximity issue has been noted in some user logs, but both caches remain active. It threw me off when I was searching for the multi. I thought I had entered the stage 2 coordinates incorrectly since it was so close to another cache. Other than that I don't think it has caused any problems or complaints.

[+K13]

There is one in my area where a traditional placed in 2012 is only 90 feet from the final of a 2 stage multi placed in 2009. I assume it is just an unintentional oversight by the reviewer, as there are no natural barriers between the 2 caches. The proximity issue has been noted in some user logs, but both caches remain active. It threw me off when I was searching for the multi. I thought I had entered the stage 2 coordinates incorrectly since it was so close to another cache. Other than that I don't think it has caused any problems or complaints.

 

If you are referring to Ding Dong! (a 2 stage multi) (archived 12/8/2012) and Log It! (published 12/8/2012) they would not conflict with each other. The older one was archived when the CO placed the new one.

[+Off Grid]

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.

Personal attack on my grammer all the time gets old and makes me laugh.

[+Off Grid]

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.

 

When did you email contact? Might take a couple days, especially on a weekend. Is she emailing you because you voted down her cache on the dopie site?

I first contacted them on 3/9, and again yesterday. As for the other question, it started here first, but you guessed it. I like the feature of the other site that keeps members from contacting each other, but what can you do when they follow you here and Groundspeak allowes it, or at least they have before in my experience. Maybe it's just me, but I pay my membership fees too and I'm a supporter of this site.

I'm also a understanding parent, and I "locked" my daughter from posting in the forums, so I understand kids, but thought I was dealing with an adult.

I pay fees to and support the site and you think its a `dopie site` yet you use it and why would I be locked out exactly Edited March 18, 2013 by Off Grid

[+Oxford Stone]

Apologies for posting same thing on 2 threads but - would "accidentally" posting inaccurate co-ords @529 feet, so 12 feet off, the sort of thing which cachers are quite used to suffering anyway, be a terribly naughty thing to do in the circs?

[+MartyBartfast]

So I've seen caches which:

 

• were published with inaccurate co-ords and left that way.
  
• Published with inaccurate co-ords, but which were subsequently 'corrected' to the right co-ords.
  
• Published with inaccurate co-ords but the cache description explicitly states where the cache is and standing at the published co-ords you can clearly see the hiding place.
  

 

All the above were done to get around being too close to an existing cache. I wouldn't advocate either of the above, but it happens; however I'm pretty sure that if someone does either of these and the reviewer gets to hear of it the cache will be archived PDQ.

[+Oxford Stone]

The creation of a fun multi has to be the answer, doesn't it.

 

I think I posted in a "found by accident" thread that a couple of months ago I found a brand-new cache, abut a week after it had been put in place, while unsuccessfully looking for the end to a nerarby multi. Got home and my "FTF" was not, as not published yet, was at review stage... and got refused as too close to the end of the multi. CO has since re-positioned... and guess what's happened to the multi... archived as cache gone missing and CO emigrated (I think). Doh! No-one's fault, an inevitable consequence I suppose.

[alandb]

There is one in my area where a traditional placed in 2012 is only 90 feet from the final of a 2 stage multi placed in 2009. I assume it is just an unintentional oversight by the reviewer, as there are no natural barriers between the 2 caches. The proximity issue has been noted in some user logs, but both caches remain active. It threw me off when I was searching for the multi. I thought I had entered the stage 2 coordinates incorrectly since it was so close to another cache. Other than that I don't think it has caused any problems or complaints.

 

If you are referring to Ding Dong! (a 2 stage multi) (archived 12/8/2012) and Log It! (published 12/8/2012) they would not conflict with each other. The older one was archived when the CO placed the new one.

Nope, not that one. That was an archive/new placement by the same CO. Edited March 18, 2013 by alandb

[+Manville Possum]

There is one in my area where a traditional placed in 2012 is only 90 feet from the final of a 2 stage multi placed in 2009. I assume it is just an unintentional oversight by the reviewer, as there are no natural barriers between the 2 caches. The proximity issue has been noted in some user logs, but both caches remain active. It threw me off when I was searching for the multi. I thought I had entered the stage 2 coordinates incorrectly since it was so close to another cache. Other than that I don't think it has caused any problems or complaints.

Wow, that is close. I agree that it was just oversight by the reviewer, and as long as no one complains both listings will remain, or at least should.

[+NeverSummer]

Apologies for posting same thing on 2 threads but - would "accidentally" posting inaccurate co-ords @529 feet, so 12 feet off, the sort of thing which cachers are quite used to suffering anyway, be a terribly naughty thing to do in the circs?

By placing a geocache on Geocaching.com, you are essentially asked to get the best coordinates possible for your caches. "Soft" coordinates are not good coordinates.

 

Now, could you fudge it? Sure. But deliberately posting bad coords is asking for trouble.

[+Oxford Stone]

I can see I'm quite heavily outvoted on this one by the "528 is sacrosanct" brigade. While I understand and respect the reasons behind 528, I think some people forget that this is a game that's existed for a decade or so, not a professional sport. I used to go Dartmoor letterboxing where no such restriction existed - and this in a National Park - and an area dense with caches was something to enjoy not tut at. I have much more of an issue with poorly maintained caches than ones whose co-ords are out (but see my thread on gently suggesting correct ones) or too close to another.

Back to the fact that there are 5 million of us and we all perceive geocaching in different ways. Apologies to those who seem to think I'm some sort of low-life for suggesting flexible pragmatism on "528".

[+dprovan]

Back to the fact that there are 5 million of us and we all perceive geocaching in different ways. Apologies to those who seem to think I'm some sort of low-life for suggesting flexible pragmatism on "528".

I'm sorry you think anyone's calling you a low-life. The reason the distance is rigid to avoid forcing reviewers to make judgement calls. The more judgement calls reviewers have to make, the more accusations of favoritism there will be.

 

Argue that 528' is too far, fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Most people like the 528' limit, but feel free to change minds with good arguments. But it's not a good argument to say that 528' is fine, but the reviewers should be able to ignore it whenever they want.

[4wheelin_fool]

The truth is, if the coords are off by 12' and it is in an obvious spot, nobody will notice. Anymore than that is asking for trouble.

Edited March 19, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Oxford Stone]

The truth is, if the coords are off by 12' and it is in an obvious spot, nobody will notice. Anymore than that is asking for trouble.

Precisely.

[+larryc43230]

The truth is, if the coords are off by 12' and it is in an obvious spot, nobody will notice. Anymore than that is asking for trouble.

Precisely.

And that makes it OK? Interesting logic.

 

--Larry

[4wheelin_fool]

The truth is, if the coords are off by 12' and it is in an obvious spot, nobody will notice. Anymore than that is asking for trouble.

Precisely.

And that makes it OK? Interesting logic.

 

--Larry

 

If nobody notices, did it happen?

 

On a bridge coords will be sometimes be put intentionally off a little over the edge to narrow down the search area. Twelve feet is being flexible within reason.

[+bflentje]

I figure you don't need my opinion. Fifty people have already provided nearly the same answer. So I won't bother responding.

[+NeverSummer]

The truth is, if the coords are off by 12' and it is in an obvious spot, nobody will notice. Anymore than that is asking for trouble.

Precisely.

Well, then get good, actual coordinates that are 12' beyond the 528'. Adjust the D&T as needed. Done deal. Why skirt the guidelines when you can make it work within them?

 

And I'm sorry to say, but this isn't Dartmoor Letterboxing. This is a gps stash hunt on Geocaching.com. While not "a professional sport", we have guidelines to follow so that our game is more widely accepted by land managers whom might otherwise object to having too much "abandoned trash" on their lands. The tenth-of-a-mile guideline has been a good starting point to show land managers how successful the game has been played with minimal impact to the surrounding area. Many actually request larger distances between caches for that reason. If we suddenly see a reduction in the saturation distance guideline, it will certainly become a harder sell to either establish new agreements or renew those already in place.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

. The tenth-of-a-mile guideline has been a good starting point to show land managers how successful the game has been played with minimal impact to the surrounding area. Many actually request larger distances between caches for that reason. If we suddenly see a reduction in the saturation distance guideline, it will certainly become a harder sell to either establish new agreements or renew those already in place.

 

^This

 

There's a nice nature preserve not far from me that, fortunately has a fairly favorable geocaching policy. However, they go above and beyond and beyond the GS guidelines, including a .25 of a mile minimum distance between caches.

 

It seems that a lot of people just see that guidelines as an infringement on placing caches, when often they're in place to make sure that land manager have a perception of geocaching as a low impact game, so that we actually have places where *land managers* will allow us to place caches.

[GrandPotentate]

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

 

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

In my experience, it's not the best thing to complain about your reviewer on the message boards.

 

But back to the topic. Geocaching wasn't intended to be about the numbers, it was supposed to be about getting people outside and to interesting and unique locations. However for some of us, we live in a part of the country that doesn't have a lot of interesting and unique locations so we supplement the entertainment by coming up with creative cache containers, well camouflaged containers, puzzles, and caches that with local history. But we still must play within the rules. The rules that were designed to make sure the interesting and unique locations that geocaching originally brought us to remain interesting and unique and not just another trampled down path. If you cannot place as many caches as you want within this conservancy , perhaps you redirect that energy into fewer caches of a higher quality.

[+Off Grid]

The truth is, if the coords are off by 12' and it is in an obvious spot, nobody will notice. Anymore than that is asking for trouble.

Precisely.

And that makes it OK? Interesting logic.

 

--Larry

Does not make it OK and what happens when you go back up there a few months later and not only would the coordinates be off they might be off a bit more..

[+Off Grid]

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

 

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

In my experience, it's not the best thing to complain about your reviewer on the message boards.

 

But back to the topic. Geocaching wasn't intended to be about the numbers, it was supposed to be about getting people outside and to interesting and unique locations. However for some of us, we live in a part of the country that doesn't have a lot of interesting and unique locations so we supplement the entertainment by coming up with creative cache containers, well camouflaged containers, puzzles, and caches that with local history. But we still must play within the rules. The rules that were designed to make sure the interesting and unique locations that geocaching originally brought us to remain interesting and unique and not just another trampled down path. If you cannot place as many caches as you want within this conservancy , perhaps you redirect that energy into fewer caches of a higher quality.

Who is to say that his caches would not be of equal quality if there was ten or twenty in a row? Before you bug him about that think of the people that hav 150 can they maintain them and keep them high quality?

[+Oxford Stone]

Contributors to this thread would have been pleased to see me this morning holding a ruler up to my screen to make sure my latest idea for a hiding place is more than 528' from the next cache (think we're in the 600s but will check with my reviewer) - when there's a sign on a wall pointing out a short-cut to a residential street and it says

 

<--- MAGNETTE CLOSE

 

the temptation is just too much!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Contributors to this thread would have been pleased to see me this morning holding a ruler up to my screen to make sure my latest idea for a hiding place is more than 528' from the next cache (think we're in the 600s but will check with my reviewer) - when there's a sign on a wall pointing out a short-cut to a residential street and it says

 

<--- MAGNETTE CLOSE

 

the temptation is just too much!

 

I've done the ruler trick as well, but if you're looking for something more accurate (and have a PC) I'd recommend downloading a copy of FIzzyCalc

[+MartyBartfast]

Contributors to this thread would have been pleased to see me this morning holding a ruler up to my screen to make sure my latest idea for a hiding place is more than 528' from the next cache (think we're in the 600s but will check with my reviewer) - when there's a sign on a wall pointing out a short-cut to a residential street and it says

 

<--- MAGNETTE CLOSE

 

the temptation is just too much!

 

I've done the ruler trick as well, but if you're looking for something more accurate (and have a PC) I'd recommend downloading a copy of FIzzyCalc

 

or use the Geocaching Map Enhancements addon, it allows you to drop a circle on a spot to highlight the 'exclusion zone'

[+Oxford Stone]

Ah those both sound like good toys to look at - many thanks! Have to go and find my customary lunchtime cache first though.

I'd thought of a plan B (no, not lying about the co-ordinates!!!) if it was within 528' - just have a spiel along the lines of "ignore the bad spelling - and the arrow's pointing the wrong way..." and find a hide to the W where there's no cache for about 1/2 a mile IIRC.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Contributors to this thread would have been pleased to see me this morning holding a ruler up to my screen to make sure my latest idea for a hiding place is more than 528' from the next cache (think we're in the 600s but will check with my reviewer) - when there's a sign on a wall pointing out a short-cut to a residential street and it says

 

<--- MAGNETTE CLOSE

 

the temptation is just too much!

 

I've done the ruler trick as well, but if you're looking for something more accurate (and have a PC) I'd recommend downloading a copy of FIzzyCalc

 

or use the Geocaching Map Enhancements addon, it allows you to drop a circle on a spot to highlight the 'exclusion zone'

 

Or create a listing with the coordinates you want to use, don't activate it, and then selected the "Find Nearest Caches" link to chnage ranges. Of course this will only work for checking proximity to Traditionals.

[GrandPotentate]

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

 

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

In my experience, it's not the best thing to complain about your reviewer on the message boards.

 

But back to the topic. Geocaching wasn't intended to be about the numbers, it was supposed to be about getting people outside and to interesting and unique locations. However for some of us, we live in a part of the country that doesn't have a lot of interesting and unique locations so we supplement the entertainment by coming up with creative cache containers, well camouflaged containers, puzzles, and caches that with local history. But we still must play within the rules. The rules that were designed to make sure the interesting and unique locations that geocaching originally brought us to remain interesting and unique and not just another trampled down path. If you cannot place as many caches as you want within this conservancy , perhaps you redirect that energy into fewer caches of a higher quality.

Who is to say that his caches would not be of equal quality if there was ten or twenty in a row? Before you bug him about that think of the people that hav 150 can they maintain them and keep them high quality?

I'm not saying someone cannot have a large number of high quality caches, I'm saying that this person should understand why Groundspeak created the density rule and abide by it, thus allowing him/her to focus the extra energy into other caches that do not put undue stress on the environment they are in.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Who is to say that his caches would not be of equal quality if there was ten or twenty in a row? Before you bug him about that think of the people that hav 150 can they maintain them and keep them high quality?

 

Some of us can.

[Clan Riffster]

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.

Or, even better: 5 total caches.

 

1 Traditional

1 Letterbox

1 (easy peasy) Puzzle

1 Multi

1 Wherigo

[+Markwell]

The truth is, if the coords are off by 12' and it is in an obvious spot, nobody will notice. Anymore than that is asking for trouble.

Precisely.

And that makes it OK? Interesting logic.

 

--Larry

OK - so let's run it in the other direction. Since 12 feet doesn't matter, maybe reviewers should start disallowing caches that are less than 539 feet.

 

Since the coordinates could be off by 12 feet, make sure that no cache under 528 feet exists - and add a 11 foot buffer zone?

 

See? It could work both ways. So why not just find a spot that's a whole lot more than 528 feet from another cache and never worry about it?

[+dprovan]

Contributors to this thread would have been pleased to see me this morning holding a ruler up to my screen to make sure my latest idea for a hiding place is more than 528' from the next cache (think we're in the 600s but will check with my reviewer) - when there's a sign on a wall pointing out a short-cut to a residential street and it says

 

<--- MAGNETTE CLOSE

 

the temptation is just too much!

Google maps has a built in ruler, but you have to enable it to get the little ruler symbol to appear in the lower left hand corner. You might have to login with a Google account.

 

But measuring the distance on maps or space view is just going to be an estimate, so definitely use fizzycalc to calculate the actual distance between two coordinates.

 

I love the idea of your cache. That's one I'd try to talk the reviewer into if the violation was only a few feet.

[+GeoTrekker26]

Google maps has a built in ruler, but you have to enable it to get the little ruler symbol to appear in the lower left hand corner. You might have to login with a Google account.

 

 

I am permanently logged into Google so every time I open Google maps directly I see, and often use, the ruler tool. However I have never seen the tool when using Google maps (my default) through GC.com. The context of your post seems to imply that I should. Am I doing something wrong?

[+dprovan]

Google maps has a built in ruler, but you have to enable it to get the little ruler symbol to appear in the lower left hand corner. You might have to login with a Google account.

I am permanently logged into Google so every time I open Google maps directly I see, and often use, the ruler tool. However I have never seen the tool when using Google maps (my default) through GC.com. The context of your post seems to imply that I should. Am I doing something wrong?

Nope, sorry for not being clear. Yes, I have to go directly to Google maps before the ruler tool is available. I often use the Google Maps link in the cache description page to bring up Google Maps with the cache I'm interested shown, then either create a second mark or just eyeball to measure the distance. (And, yes, I also am permanently logging into Google Maps which makes it all much easier.)

[+larryc43230]

OK - so let's run it in the other direction. Since 12 feet doesn't matter, maybe reviewers should start disallowing caches that are less than 539 feet.

 

Since the coordinates could be off by 12 feet, make sure that no cache under 528 feet exists - and add a 11 foot buffer zone?

 

See? It could work both ways. So why not just find a spot that's a whole lot more than 528 feet from another cache and never worry about it?

Works for me!

 

--Larry

[+NeverSummer]

The truth is, if the coords are off by 12' and it is in an obvious spot, nobody will notice. Anymore than that is asking for trouble.

Precisely.

Well, then get good, actual coordinates that are 12' beyond the 528'. Adjust the D&T as needed. Done deal. Why skirt the guidelines when you can make it work within them?

 

And I'm sorry to say, but this isn't Dartmoor Letterboxing. This is a gps stash hunt on Geocaching.com. While not "a professional sport", we have guidelines to follow so that our game is more widely accepted by land managers whom might otherwise object to having too much "abandoned trash" on their lands. The tenth-of-a-mile guideline has been a good starting point to show land managers how successful the game has been played with minimal impact to the surrounding area. Many actually request larger distances between caches for that reason. If we suddenly see a reduction in the saturation distance guideline, it will certainly become a harder sell to either establish new agreements or renew those already in place.

 

OK - so let's run it in the other direction. Since 12 feet doesn't matter, maybe reviewers should start disallowing caches that are less than 539 feet.

 

Since the coordinates could be off by 12 feet, make sure that no cache under 528 feet exists - and add a 11 foot buffer zone?

 

See? It could work both ways. So why not just find a spot that's a whole lot more than 528 feet from another cache and never worry about it?

Works for me!

 

--Larry

Precisely. If 12' isn't that big of an issue, then move it 12' farther away to be sure. If this puts the cache farther away from a trail, or makes the cache more difficult to find, then you can up the D/T ratings.

 

And, if the area beyond that fits the saturation guidelines isn't suited for a geocache, you are are out of luck; you will have to find another place for your cache.

[+Don_J]

Apologies for posting same thing on 2 threads but - would "accidentally" posting inaccurate co-ords @529 feet, so 12 feet off, the sort of thing which cachers are quite used to suffering anyway, be a terribly naughty thing to do in the circs?

 

It's not something that I would normally suggest, but we are talking about 12' here. N/S coordinates change by about 6' for every final digit in the coordinate system that most of us are familiar. E/W fluctuates with it being 6' at the equator, narrowing to nothing at the poles. In this specific case, it is possible to change one of the final digits on each cache to create an additional 12'. This would have virtually no effect on the cache hunt except to add a second cache. As one well respected forum member and reviewer noted, he could achieve the same result by standing there and repeatedly snapping coordinates until he got ones that worked, and there would be nothing wrong with that. I also note that the OP stated that he stood at one cache and measured the distance to the other waypoint on his GPS, then he did the same thing at the other cache and got a different result. The difference was greater that the 12' we are talking about, so it is obvious that the topography is affected his ability to get perfect coordinates in the first place.

 

So, a good question would be, are you gaming the system to get the result that you desire. In a sense yes, but in my opinion, since we are talking about values that are well within the normal margin of error anyway, I don't see the harm. Is there any real difference between two caches that are 528' apart and two that are 516', especially if they are on opposite sides of a pond?

 

Also, a lot has been said in this thread about how or how not a reviewer evaluates a cache. At least one reviewer posted that he would look at the overall picture of the area in question and make a decision based on that. Are there 100 caches already in the immediate area? If so, we really don't need another cache and the thought of making allowance goes no further.

 

Of course, the perfect solution here is a two part simple multi-cache. I am not really a big fan of multis and of all my caches, I only have one which is an offset style, but if I had two locations that I simply felt compelled to bring people to, and they were too close together for individual caches, I would jump at the chance to create a multi.

[+Don_J]

 

Precisely. If 12' isn't that big of an issue, then move it 12' farther away to be sure. If this puts the cache farther away from a trail, or makes the cache more difficult to find, then you can up the D/T ratings.

 

And, if the area beyond that fits the saturation guidelines isn't suited for a geocache, you are are out of luck; you will have to find another place for your cache.

 

I always do this when placing caches. I always like to leave a big enough gap between two of my caches that someone else can place one between them, if they wish. In the case where two nearer locations interest me, I always walk just a bit further past the point that my Garmin switches from 527' to .10mi. I realize that there is going to be a margin of error simply because of the type of devices we use, and I prefer to be on the good side of that margin, not where the OP found himself.

[+Off Grid]

Who is to say that his caches would not be of equal quality if there was ten or twenty in a row? Before you bug him about that think of the people that hav 150 can they maintain them and keep them high quality?

 

Some of us can.

till I see proof I'll be blinded like you guys agree with my grammer cause that's an adult thing to do

[+Don_J]

Who is to say that his caches would not be of equal quality if there was ten or twenty in a row? Before you bug him about that think of the people that hav 150 can they maintain them and keep them high quality?

 

Some of us can.

till I see proof I'll be blinded like you guys agree with my grammer cause that's an adult thing to do

 

I think that you may have wrote two different sentences on two different topics, so, I'll take a shot at the first one.

 

You are welcome to search through my profile. I have a 133 active caches. Of them, one is disabled and needs to be replaced. None have Needs Maintenance attributes set. I need to check two others because the logs are getting a bit funny and I think someone may have set a second container because they couldn't find mine. It is easy to maintain 150 caches if you place 150 good caches in good containers in good locations.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Don_J

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Who is to say that his caches would not be of equal quality if there was ten or twenty in a row? Before you bug him about that think of the people that hav 150 can they maintain them and keep them high quality?

 

Some of us can.

till I see proof I'll be blinded like you guys agree with my grammer cause that's an adult thing to do

 

I think that you may have wrote two different sentences on two different topics, so, I'll take a shot at the first one.

 

You are welcome to search through my profile. I have a 133 active caches. Of them, one is disabled and needs to be replaced. None have Needs Maintenance attributes set. I need to check two others because the logs are getting a bit funny and I think someone may have set a second container because they couldn't find mine. It is easy to maintain 150 caches if you place 150 good caches in good containers in good locations.

 

Like Don_J, I have ~150 caches out there. One has a NM flag set for a wet log. None are disabled.

 

As Don_J states, using good quality containers, and placing hides in locations suitable for a cache, really cuts down on the maintenance hassles. I had a string of caches in an urban environment, and they presented the bggest headache; they were nanos and were quite popular, and I had to continually replace logs. I have since converted the series to a multi with a larger container. The maintenance issues have disappeared.

 

So yes, some folks throw caches out there like litter, with no maintenance. Others (like Don_J and myself and loads of others) care for and maintain their caches.

 

Just like some folks know how to use punctuation to make sure our points are not misconstrued. While others will post long run-on sentences, merged sentences, etc. that are open to all sorts of Misinterpretation.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Apologies for posting same thing on 2 threads but - would "accidentally" posting inaccurate co-ords @529 feet, so 12 feet off, the sort of thing which cachers are quite used to suffering anyway, be a terribly naughty thing to do in the circs?

By placing a geocache on Geocaching.com, you are essentially asked to get the best coordinates possible for your caches. "Soft" coordinates are not good coordinates.

 

Now, could you fudge it? Sure. But deliberately posting bad coords is asking for trouble.

 

We had a local who hid two caches. They were about 70' too close. So, the coords on the second one were changed 70'. When the reviewer heard about it, the second one was archived.

I did an excellent mystery cache once. The final was 70' from another (far less interesting) cache. I suspect that the hider of the mystery cache must have lied about the location of the final. It was retracted. (Which seemed like a strange way to handle it...)

While not a proximity issue, I looked for a 4.5 difficulty cache where the coords were at least 40' off. I do not know if that was accidental, or done deliberately to make the cache harder. It's somewhere on an abandoned rail car on an abandoned rail line. Or maybe it is a proximity issue. The given coords are 633 feet from an existing cache...