Difficulty Getting Cache Approval

[Mascari]

We have tried many times to get caches approved without success moving them multiple times as well

I have looked over the rules many times but cannot find the reasoning behind this last cancellation :

"It appears that your cache is next to or on a power pole. Please move your cache so that it is at least 50 feet from the power pole and any electronic equipment nearby. Or you can try to get permission for the hide from the power company that owns the pole and equipment. If you do get the permission then post a reviewer note with the name and contact information of the person granting permission."

 

- Please help this has been a very discouraging affair trying to add to the enjoyment of caching

 

FYI it is not on a light pole or under its infamous skirt, we didn't even notice a pole when placing

Is this a fair rejection?

Thank you

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Send the reviewer a photo of the hide location. That may help.

[GrandPotentate]

Your reviewer may be worried about trespassing issues. Utility poles are owned by the company that installed it, therefore you have to have permission to place a cache on or immediately next to it. If a cache is found messing with the utility pole, they could be charged with trespassing and arrested and that would severely interfere with the enjoyment of caching.

[Keystone]

Photos are always helpful.

 

This is what the reviewer sees when studying the cache in Google Street View:

 

 

Based on the Street View, showing all that utility equipment, it's not unreasonable for the reviewer to question your permission status for this cache placement. Reply with your permission information and a description of how the cache is hidden and you should be fine.

[+tozainamboku]

It is a strange rejection.

 

Perhaps the power company has let it be known that they don't give permission to place caches on their equipment. However I find the 50 foot from power company equipment hard to understand. It may be that the there is a right-of-way for transmission lines and the power company still has some rights over what is placed here. They might be able to ask that caches are placed some distance from the towers.

 

This would almost certainly be a local issue, as the guidelines don't call out this sort of restriction.

 

I would hope to hear from the reviewer in this case. Because the other option I can think of is a rogue reviewer who doesn't like caches near electrical equipment and is using the permission guideline to push a personal agenda.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Hmmm... OP is talkin' light pole, reviewer is talkin' power pole. Methinks somebody is reading but not seein' what is written.

 

This is assuming of course, that the quote made by the OP is accurate.

[GrandPotentate]

It is a strange rejection.

 

Perhaps the power company has let it be known that they don't give permission to place caches on their equipment. However I find the 50 foot from power company equipment hard to understand. It may be that the there is a right-of-way for transmission lines and the power company still has some rights over what is placed here. They might be able to ask that caches are placed some distance from the towers.

 

This would almost certainly be a local issue, as the guidelines don't call out this sort of restriction.

 

I would hope to hear from the reviewer in this case. Because the other option I can think of is a rogue reviewer who doesn't like caches near electrical equipment and is using the permission guideline to push a personal agenda.

 

It is not strange in the least. If you look as the picture that Keystone posted, you can see that it looks like the cache is either placed on utility equipment or very near to it. I would guess that most reviewers would assume that you do not have permission to place a cache in such an area even if that specific utility company has not expressed that they do not give permission.

 

It is also a danger issue. If a cache is place at to the top of a mountain you can decided if it is too dangerous to search for, however you do not have the luxury of making that same decision when it comes to high voltage. Here is a great video showing just how far away you can be from electrical equipment and it still be DEADLY

[Mr.Yuck]

It is a strange rejection.

 

Perhaps the power company has let it be known that they don't give permission to place caches on their equipment. However I find the 50 foot from power company equipment hard to understand. It may be that the there is a right-of-way for transmission lines and the power company still has some rights over what is placed here. They might be able to ask that caches are placed some distance from the towers.

 

This would almost certainly be a local issue, as the guidelines don't call out this sort of restriction.

 

I would hope to hear from the reviewer in this case. Because the other option I can think of is a rogue reviewer who doesn't like caches near electrical equipment and is using the permission guideline to push a personal agenda.

 

I, for one, am very happy to see such a cache rejected for permission issues. Now if we could only extend this reasoning to the rejection of caches in store parking lots, I'd probably change that to very, very happy.

[+Chief301]

I wonder if anyone has stopped to think just how hard it would be to find an urban or suburban location that is over 50' away from ANY power company equipment....

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

It is also a danger issue. If a cache is place at to the top of a mountain you can decided if it is too dangerous to search for, however you do not have the luxury of making that same decision when it comes to high voltage.

 

Yes you do. As you pull into the parking lot, and your receiver is pointing you towards power equipment, you can make the decision to turn around and cache elsewhere.

Edited January 2, 2014 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[GrandPotentate]

It is also a danger issue. If a cache is place at to the top of a mountain you can decided if it is too dangerous to search for, however you do not have the luxury of making that same decision when it comes to high voltage.

 

Yes you do. As you pull into the parking lot, and your receiver is pointing you towards power equipment, you can make the decision to turn around and cache elsewhere.

 

And that is advice that should be given to every cacher no matter skill or ability, so it is still understandable for reviewers to not publish such caches.

[jholly]

I wonder if anyone has stopped to think just how hard it would be to find an urban or suburban location that is over 50' away from ANY power company equipment....

I would think it would not be to hard.

 

Glad to see this rejection. There is *NO* power company that will give permission to hide a cache on their pole or equipment. The only thing they allow is Ma and the Cable folks. There is also an easement and they do not like stakes and other stuff stuck in the ground in this easement. It is all safety issues for the workers.

[Keystone]

I have looked over the rules many times but cannot find the reasoning behind this last cancellation

You only quoted the beginning of the reviewer's note. He went on to cite the exact guideline language relied upon, and included a link that went right to that paragraph in the listing guidelines.

 

Also, your cache has not been "canceled." It's been placed on hold until you answer the reviewer's questions. Once you've answered the questions satisfactorily, then your cache can be published.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Keystone

[+fbingha]

Shall I make a list of streetview urls that point out caches located on boxes like this? I know I have found many of them and I doubt the reviewers in California want to start archiving them based on my gumption to do something about it!

 

To me, reading between the lines, I see the real issue is those silver power poles. The reviewers here archive any cache that is brought to their attention that is near such poles. If that box was just sitting in the lot by itself, I am sure the cache would have went right on through.

[4wheelin_fool]

Photos are always helpful.

 

This is what the reviewer sees when studying the cache in Google Street View:

 

 

Based on the Street View, showing all that utility equipment, it's not unreasonable for the reviewer to question your permission status for this cache placement. Reply with your permission information and a description of how the cache is hidden and you should be fine.

 

It is not unreasonable in the least, but it is unusual. I've found plenty hidden on those which consist of magnetic key holders, nanos, and magnetic numbers. If one reviewer is denying those, there must be either a change in guideline enforcements, reviewer inconsistencies, or due to a request from a local utility company.

[Mascari]

Thank you for all your replies but the danger assumptions aren't correct

We certainly didn't place a cache anywhere near the box on the picture

It's between the brick wall the street

The google street view or my cords or a combo of the two are off

I will send a picture to reviewer

Thanks for the help!

[Mascari]

I wonder if anyone has stopped to think just how hard it would be to find an urban or suburban location that is over 50' away from ANY power company equipment....

 

Second that

[+FunnyNose]

Thank you for all your replies but the danger assumptions aren't correct

We certainly didn't place a cache anywhere near the box on the picture

It's between the brick wall the street

The google street view or my cords or a combo of the two are off

I will send a picture to reviewer

Thanks for the help!

 

If the only reason people would want to go there is for the cache then it’s not a good location.

 

-briansnat-

[+tozainamboku]

It is a strange rejection.

 

Perhaps the power company has let it be known that they don't give permission to place caches on their equipment. However I find the 50 foot from power company equipment hard to understand. It may be that the there is a right-of-way for transmission lines and the power company still has some rights over what is placed here. They might be able to ask that caches are placed some distance from the towers.

 

This would almost certainly be a local issue, as the guidelines don't call out this sort of restriction.

 

I would hope to hear from the reviewer in this case. Because the other option I can think of is a rogue reviewer who doesn't like caches near electrical equipment and is using the permission guideline to push a personal agenda.

 

It is not strange in the least. If you look as the picture that Keystone posted, you can see that it looks like the cache is either placed on utility equipment or very near to it. I would guess that most reviewers would assume that you do not have permission to place a cache in such an area even if that specific utility company has not expressed that they do not give permission.

 

It is also a danger issue. If a cache is place at to the top of a mountain you can decided if it is too dangerous to search for, however you do not have the luxury of making that same decision when it comes to high voltage. Here is a great video showing just how far away you can be from electrical equipment and it still be DEADLY

The issue of danger has been brought up many times. There are no guidelines regarding safety. If so all kinds of cache would be rejected - too near the edge of cliff, too near a beehive, requires swimming or rock climbing.

 

While most reviewers may be aware the that power company is unlikely to give permission for caches on transformer and other utility boxes, and the power company might state safety concerns as one reason they wouldn't give permission, safety is not the reason the reviewers would reject this.

 

A person most certainly has the luxury of deciding no go near electrical equipment just because the GPS points there. I'd argue this is an easier decision to make than having hiked for several miles and finding the GPS is pointing over the edge of cliff.

 

The power companies seem to have a problem with what they say to the public about ground mounted equipment. One side says keep away, don't touch, DANGER! while the other side says these are safe, there is no danger if accidentally touch or brush up against the enclosure as it is built to resist tampering and is well grounded.

 

I, for one, am very happy to see such a cache rejected for permission issues. Now if we could only extend this reasoning to the rejection of caches in store parking lots, I'd probably change that to very, very happy.

The traditional view is that people have checked a box indicating they read the guidelines. Most reviewers would only question the permission in rare circumstances. A local incident with the power company may be a reason for the reviewer to question it here.

 

It might be very true that many caches on transformer boxes or in light pole skirts have been put there without permission. For the most part these are found everyday without incident. In the rare instance that there is some incident, Groundspeak can claim that the cache owner checked some box. If the some reveiwers are going to start questioning every cache withing 50 feet of power company equipment, then its going to become a defacto question that has to be asked on every cache placement where a transformer box shows up in Google street view, or Groundspeak and the reviewer are going to held responsible.

 

If the OP actually has hidden the cache in a reasonable place in that picture, he is being made to jump through hoops, trying to guess what the new secret reviewer guidelines are. Ok, the reviewer indicates the concerns in the rejection, so maybe I can't call it secret. But if there is a new 50 foot from electrical equipment guideline - that that is new. Moreover no explanation has been given for it.

 

If the only reason people would want to go there is for the cache then it’s not a good location.

 

-briansnat-

briansnat can well believe there needs to be something other than a cache to find, and TPTB can quote him on the website. But nobody is going to get the reviewers to enforces such a arbitrary and subjective guideline. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of cachers just want a cache. A location that has something else is a bonus but not a requirement.

 

This location appears to have all kinds of interesting places to hide a cache, possibly even a unique or creative style of hide, but since there is a electrical box of some sort visable right where Google street view puts the coordinates the cache is rejected and the owner is made to jump through hoops. Based one the rule the reviewer seems to have made up, the owner needs to get permission from the power company if his cache is anywhere within 50 feet of the equipment. That certainly would be a surprise to anyone hiding a cache here.

[+Walts Hunting]

Photos are always helpful.

 

This is what the reviewer sees when studying the cache in Google Street View:

 

 

Based on the Street View, showing all that utility equipment, it's not unreasonable for the reviewer to question your permission status for this cache placement. Reply with your permission information and a description of how the cache is hidden and you should be fine.

This must be a new rule or new tool for the reviewers since I have found many, many caches attached to electrical boxes. Probably a good change though.

[+NeecesandNephews]

IMHO if GS is going to start denying publications on cache locations like this based on "guidelines"... I feel they should enforce that "guideline " on EVERY cache.

 

There are a multitude of caches within driving distance of my location that are in violation.

 

If we are going to have "rules"....if we are going to enforce "rules"... lets do it equitably.

 

 

[+briansnat]

Photos are always helpful.

 

This is what the reviewer sees when studying the cache in Google Street View:

 

 

Based on the Street View, showing all that utility equipment, it's not unreasonable for the reviewer to question your permission status for this cache placement. Reply with your permission information and a description of how the cache is hidden and you should be fine.

This must be a new rule or new tool for the reviewers since I have found many, many caches attached to electrical boxes. Probably a good change though.

 

The guideline has been there since nearly the beginning. No caches on private property without permission. The "new" tool is Google street view. As more places are on street view reviewers will catch more caches like this.

[+popokiiti]

In BC, Canada, the utility company that provides our power, BC Hydro, has requested that all geocaches be removed from ALL of their equipment and that no more be placed. I think this is down to a safety/liability issue, but I don't work for them, so can't say for sure. I don't think permission was requested in many of those that were there, maybe the answer would have been 'no' had it been asked.

Have to say the one we found under a honking great tower put me off anything electrical...'if it's a hummer, it's a bummer' is my motto now.

 

edit to add: link to BC Hydro message

Edited January 2, 2014 by popokiiti

[+Manville Possum]

More places require a permit or fee, like Parks and NF property. I was even asked to fill out a permit for a EarthCache that was already published when I placed a new hide in a State Park recently. I had to provide the GS reviewer a phone number to prove I had permission after even stating on the cache page that I have a permit on file. I archived the EC, which at the same location is a Waymark that does not require permission. It's not easy to be a cache owner.

[+L0ne.R]

 

If the only reason people would want to go there is for the cache then it's not a good location.

 

-briansnat-

briansnat can well believe there needs to be something other than a cache to find, and TPTB can quote him on the website. But nobody is going to get the reviewers to enforces such a arbitrary and subjective guideline. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of cachers just want a cache. A location that has something else is a bonus but not a requirement.

 

Brian's quote might make the OP consider why they want to take some one to a busy street corner with transformers and utility poles.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Well, if the rules in your area say it must be 50 feet from a power pole and it isn't, then you need to move it.

 

Hiding a cache can be frustrating. If you find the process too much, just take a break from hiding and enjoy finding for a while.

 

My suggestion in this particular case is to look for a new location. Preferably a nice spot that you would bring an out-of-town relative. If you're having real trouble with proximity, maybe contact some local cachers who have hidden caches in your area to ask for help finding a spot.

[4wheelin_fool]

The guideline has been there since nearly the beginning. No caches on private property without permission. The "new" tool is Google street view. As more places are on street view reviewers will catch more caches like this.

 

Approximately 40% of all hides are on privately owned commercial property without permission. That's about 800,000. Now we have a single reviewer "catching" someone with a few dozen finds doing this because of Google street view?

Edited January 2, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Don_J]

It is a strange rejection.

 

Perhaps the power company has let it be known that they don't give permission to place caches on their equipment. However I find the 50 foot from power company equipment hard to understand. It may be that the there is a right-of-way for transmission lines and the power company still has some rights over what is placed here. They might be able to ask that caches are placed some distance from the towers.

 

This would almost certainly be a local issue, as the guidelines don't call out this sort of restriction.

 

I would hope to hear from the reviewer in this case. Because the other option I can think of is a rogue reviewer who doesn't like caches near electrical equipment and is using the permission guideline to push a personal agenda.

 

It is not strange in the least. If you look as the picture that Keystone posted, you can see that it looks like the cache is either placed on utility equipment or very near to it. I would guess that most reviewers would assume that you do not have permission to place a cache in such an area even if that specific utility company has not expressed that they do not give permission.

 

It is also a danger issue. If a cache is place at to the top of a mountain you can decided if it is too dangerous to search for, however you do not have the luxury of making that same decision when it comes to high voltage. Here is a great video showing just how far away you can be from electrical equipment and it still be DEADLY

 

Too funny. In another thread, I reported that there were over 2000 caches within 10 miles of my home coordinates. I'm guessing that at least 200, (low estimate), are hidden on this type of equipment. Throw in LPCs and locked electrical boxes on the sides/backs of commercial buildings and I bet we go way past 500.

[+briansnat]

The guideline has been there since nearly the beginning. No caches on private property without permission. The "new" tool is Google street view. As more places are on street view reviewers will catch more caches like this.

 

Approximately 40% of all hides are on privately owned commercial property without permission. That's about 800,000. Now we have a single reviewer "catching" someone with a few dozen finds doing this because of Google street view?

 

There is also the assumed permission that most reviewers work under. As a reviewer I'm going to assume you have permission unless something tells me you might not. I can buy that you have adequate permission in a mall parking lot where the general public is expected to enter. I will not assume that the power company allowed you play on their equipment just as I won't assume that you received permission from the RR to place a cache on their tracks. If you did, great. Surprise me with proof and I'd be happy to publish your cache.

 

As far as a "single reviewer" catching this sort of hide. I've refused to publish many of these over the years and it's obvious I'm not alone. Sure there are a lot of them out there but most are there because the reviewer didn't know the specifics of the hide. As sat maps are getting higher resolution and street view is available in more places the specifics of the hide are becoming easier for a reviewer figure out.

Edited January 2, 2014 by briansnat

[nostra-dumass]

 

"It appears that your cache is next to or on a power pole. Please move your cache so that it is at least 50 feet from the power pole and any electronic equipment nearby. Or you can try to get permission for the hide from the power company that owns the pole and equipment. If you do get the permission then post a reviewer note with the name and contact information of the person granting permission."

 

 

Meh...

Caches on ground-mounted transformers are our bread-and-butter here. If you arrive within 100 feet of GZ and see a transformer nearby, a direct beeline is made for it to search there first.

 

I even reported a cache placed in a 1-1/4" hole DRILLED BY THE CO in a utility pole...nothing was done.

Edited January 2, 2014 by nostra-dumass

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Photos are always helpful.

 

This is what the reviewer sees when studying the cache in Google Street View:

 

 

Based on the Street View, showing all that utility equipment, it's not unreasonable for the reviewer to question your permission status for this cache placement. Reply with your permission information and a description of how the cache is hidden and you should be fine.

This must be a new rule or new tool for the reviewers since I have found many, many caches attached to electrical boxes. Probably a good change though.

 

This is the third response that mentions the existence of currently published caches as a justification for the publishing of the one in the photo. Although there isn't a guideline about placing a cache within 50 feet of a power pole, there *is* a "no precedent" guideline that many seem to forget whenever a "why wasn't my cache published" thread is started.

 

 

[+Walts Hunting]

Perhaps one cautious reviewer has decided to not allow then from now on. Doesn't mean it is a site wide official policy.

[+Michaelcycle]

 

"It appears that your cache is next to or on a power pole. Please move your cache so that it is at least 50 feet from the power pole and any electronic equipment nearby. Or you can try to get permission for the hide from the power company that owns the pole and equipment. If you do get the permission then post a reviewer note with the name and contact information of the person granting permission."

 

 

Meh...

Caches on ground-mounted transformers are our bread-and-butter here. If you arrive within 100 feet of GZ and see a transformer nearby, a direct beeline is made for it to search there first.

 

I even reported a cache placed in a 1-1/4" hole DRILLED BY THE CO in a utility pole...nothing was done.

My experience was exactly the opposite. This is a human enterprise run by fallible people and played by individuals with a broad range of ethics. I am happy to see this action and I encourage other reviewers to act similarly.

[Clan Riffster]

Shall I make a list of streetview urls that point out caches located on boxes like this? I know I have found many of them and I doubt the reviewers in California want to start archiving them based on my gumption to do something about it!

Yes, please! And include the GC #.

[Mr.Yuck]

Thank you for all your replies but the danger assumptions aren't correct

We certainly didn't place a cache anywhere near the box on the picture

It's between the brick wall the street

The google street view or my cords or a combo of the two are off

I will send a picture to reviewer

Thanks for the help!

 

This has obviously turned into a cache on an electrical box debate, but you will obviously have to go back and get better coords. I agree with what some others have said "If the only reason people would want to go there is for the cache then it's not a good location", but this is the forums, and in reality you'll have hundreds of happy finders. Most of them might drop Tftc or Found it logs on you, but they'll be happy.

[7rxc]

Thank you for all your replies but the danger assumptions aren't correct

We certainly didn't place a cache anywhere near the box on the picture

It's between the brick wall the street

The google street view or my cords or a combo of the two are off

I will send a picture to reviewer

Thanks for the help!

 

This has obviously turned into a cache on an electrical box debate, but you will obviously have to go back and get better coords. I agree with what some others have said "If the only reason people would want to go there is for the cache then it's not a good location", but this is the forums, and in reality you'll have hundreds of happy finders. Most of them might drop Tftc or Found it logs on you, but they'll be happy.

 

I find it is more about permissions and when/why they are required... also about being clear to your reviewer about how and where the hide is made... only takes a quick description of the cache in a note on the submitted page. A photo in this case will help.

 

Another good point raised is that Google Earth / Google Maps can be quite a bit off displaying coordinates OR your coordinates can be off a bit OR both. Using a GE/GM image edited to show the reviewer where the cache is when viewed on GE/GM would do as well.

 

Using information provided in this topic, it did not take long to locate GZ and view the air photos as well as more of the Streetview. (I like photo games, what can I say). I won't give that away of course. However, as an urban/ semi urban cache it is about as good as any average cache, and we haven't seen anything about its appearance or camo. It may be quite a good challenge, or the final of a good puzzle. It's nice to assume that there would be more to the hide than being stuffed into some bushes beside the road etc. Many would find this a good type of location for a puzzle with a small to medium container since it has some cover. It would be good to check out who controls that land, though it seems to be a road allowance. U.S. rules vary quite a bit sometimes from up here, but someone holds that title, goverment or private.

 

As far as the attraction of electrical equipment... the cache hider should perhaps make a clear statement on the cache page that it is NOT located on any of that stuff.. and do it in clear text, not encrypted. All that wiring overhead could easily mess up GPS reception as well. Well to really vet what coordinates are, not just average a few minutes... this could be over days. I have only one cache and it was almost impossible to quickly get easily duplicated coordinates at first... 3 different GPSrs over a month and it finally came close. Still gave a good hint as well, since it was to be a loggable trail marker on a tricky path. Yep it's a bison tube in the woods... but the hike and views make up for it, plus it helps get to two other mountain ridge caches... and more important marks the best 'exit' to that trail system if nighted out. It does offer more than a 'because' cache.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+fbingha]

Shall I make a list of streetview urls that point out caches located on boxes like this? I know I have found many of them and I doubt the reviewers in California want to start archiving them based on my gumption to do something about it!

Yes, please! And include the GC #.

Sorry, I won't do that as I was being facetious. I do not wish to anger my local community by bringing attention to caches stuck to large green boxes.

 

I still insist that this cache was denied due to the proximity of the those silver transmission poles. To quote a California reviewer on a cache that I reported that was stuck to the leg of a transmission tower. The tower legs were updated to be encased in concrete, which was where a keyholder was. I noticed it when running by after having found the terrible cache many months previous.

 

In the past, there have been a number of problems with caches placed on transmission line towers and as a result we will no longer publish caches placed on or near these towers.

 

In addition, as existing examples of caches placed on/near powerline towers come our attention, these caches are being archived.

 

 

[4wheelin_fool]

There is also the assumed permission that most reviewers work under. As a reviewer I'm going to assume you have permission unless something tells me you might not. I can buy that you have adequate permission in a mall parking lot where the general public is expected to enter. I will not assume that the power company allowed you play on their equipment just as I won't assume that you received permission from the RR to place a cache on their tracks. If you did, great. Surprise me with proof and I'd be happy to publish your cache.

 

As far as a "single reviewer" catching this sort of hide. I've refused to publish many of these over the years and it's obvious I'm not alone. Sure there are a lot of them out there but most are there because the reviewer didn't know the specifics of the hide. As sat maps are getting higher resolution and street view is available in more places the specifics of the hide are becoming easier for a reviewer figure out.

 

Good luck. I know it may be easy to say no to someone with little experience, but I doubt that an obsessed 10K finder will take it well, especially after they have found a few hundred of them. It sounds like the main issue is reviewers not asking for specifics of hides, as well as reviewer consistency, as Google street view has been available for more than a few years now.

[+Mudfrog]

Briansnat stated:

I can buy that you have adequate permission in a mall parking lot where the general public is expected to enter.

 

Sorry, but i just can't see how anyone can buy this. A parking lot is open to the public, to park and then move on into the store. They were not built to to accomodate loiterers and lightpole skirt dismantlers.

 

Our local mall for instance, has had their security chase cachers away. As far as i know, there are no physical caches placed on that property. I know of a Walmart where the manager came out and raised cane when he caught a cacher lifting up a lampskirt. I have also talked with the local Gander Mountain store manager who told me that he would not allow a hide under a light post skirt. It just stands to reason that the majority of property owners/managers would never allow these types of hides because they pose both, a safety liability and a situation where their property can be torn up.

 

The 50 feet from power company equipment requirement seems strange. The wall in the Google earth image above is within 50 feet but should be a satisfactory spot for a cache,,, that is if the OP has permission from that wall's owner. If he does, then supplying corrected coordinates should be all that's needed to get the cache published.

[+Don_J]

 

If the only reason people would want to go there is for the cache then it's not a good location.

 

-briansnat-

briansnat can well believe there needs to be something other than a cache to find, and TPTB can quote him on the website. But nobody is going to get the reviewers to enforces such a arbitrary and subjective guideline. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of cachers just want a cache. A location that has something else is a bonus but not a requirement.

 

Brian's quote might make the OP consider why they want to take some one to a busy street corner with transformers and utility poles.

 

All of which has nothing to do with the topic.

[+Don_J]

Photos are always helpful.

 

This is what the reviewer sees when studying the cache in Google Street View:

 

 

Based on the Street View, showing all that utility equipment, it's not unreasonable for the reviewer to question your permission status for this cache placement. Reply with your permission information and a description of how the cache is hidden and you should be fine.

This must be a new rule or new tool for the reviewers since I have found many, many caches attached to electrical boxes. Probably a good change though.

 

This is the third response that mentions the existence of currently published caches as a justification for the publishing of the one in the photo. Although there isn't a guideline about placing a cache within 50 feet of a power pole, there *is* a "no precedent" guideline that many seem to forget whenever a "why wasn't my cache published" thread is started.

 

I don't think that anyone has forgotten the "no cache sets a precedence for another". I think that most of us are wondering, "why now", and the 50' thing.

 

I'd like to know where that number came from.

[+Don_J]

Shall I make a list of streetview urls that point out caches located on boxes like this? I know I have found many of them and I doubt the reviewers in California want to start archiving them based on my gumption to do something about it!

Yes, please! And include the GC #.

 

Why? Are you going to post NA logs on them?

[+Don_J]

Thank you for all your replies but the danger assumptions aren't correct

We certainly didn't place a cache anywhere near the box on the picture

It's between the brick wall the street

The google street view or my cords or a combo of the two are off

I will send a picture to reviewer

Thanks for the help!

 

This has obviously turned into a cache on an electrical box debate, but you will obviously have to go back and get better coords. I agree with what some others have said "If the only reason people would want to go there is for the cache then it's not a good location", but this is the forums, and in reality you'll have hundreds of happy finders. Most of them might drop Tftc or Found it logs on you, but they'll be happy.

 

Why would he need new coordinates? How many discussions have we had over the inconsistencies of Google Maps and that they are not reliable enough to get coordinates to place a cache. There is even a guideline saying that you must use a GPS device.

 

I've see plenty of caches where Street View puts the pin right in the middle of the street, while the cache is safely attached to the pad mounted transformer box, set back from the sidewalk.

[Clan Riffster]

Shall I make a list of streetview urls that point out caches located on boxes like this? I know I have found many of them and I doubt the reviewers in California want to start archiving them based on my gumption to do something about it!

Yes, please! And include the GC #.

 

Why? Are you going to post NA logs on them?

I'm sure there are some fluffy footwear who might take interest. Personally, I dislike the notion of armchair logs of any type. Perhaps an email to TPTB would suffice to bring these alleged guideline violations into compliance? Without GC #s, and pictures verifying the locations, all there is at this point is an unsubstantiated claim.

Edited January 2, 2014 by Clan Riffster

[+GeoBain]

This location appears to have all kinds of interesting places to hide a cache, possibly even a unique or creative style of hide, but since there is a electrical box of some sort visable right where Google street view puts the coordinates the cache is rejected and the owner is made to jump through hoops. Based one the rule the reviewer seems to have made up, the owner needs to get permission from the power company if his cache is anywhere within 50 feet of the equipment. That certainly would be a surprise to anyone hiding a cache here.

 

I have no problem with reviewers using the permission guideline to deny electrical equipment caches. I've seen more than a few reviewers state this was a viable use of the guidelines to deny such caches. But the 50' "rule" is indeed troubling. I was unaware that the electric company owns a 50' swath around all of the poles and equipment. I'm pretty sure that was not mentioned when I bought property which happens to contain a number of their poles on it.

 

There is also the assumed permission that most reviewers work under. As a reviewer I'm going to assume you have permission unless something tells me you might not. I can buy that you have adequate permission in a mall parking lot where the general public is expected to enter. I will not assume that the power company allowed you play on their equipment just as I won't assume that you received permission from the RR to place a cache on their tracks. If you did, great. Surprise me with proof and I'd be happy to publish your cache.

 

You have no more reason to assume that skirt caches have any more adequate permission than light pole or electrical equipment caches. It has long been geocaching's dirty little secret that most skirt caches do not have permission. In fact, I would hazard to guess that more than half of overall caches lack proper permission. Requiring proof of permission would both greatly increase the time it takes to approve caches and greatly reduce the number of caches hidden; especially if they now have to be more than 50' from electrical equipment.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Using information provided in this topic, it did not take long to locate GZ and view the air photos as well as more of the Streetview. (I like photo games, what can I say).

Doug 7rx

 

Have you tried geoguessr? Warning. It's addictive.

 

 

[7rxc]

 

Using information provided in this topic, it did not take long to locate GZ and view the air photos as well as more of the Streetview. (I like photo games, what can I say).

Doug 7rx

 

Have you tried geoguessr? Warning. It's addictive.

Thanks for the reference... I tried the first offering it made... only took a few seconds to look at the image but hit fairly close on a global scale... 832.4 km. Still have to figure out which was the correct locaion A or B.

Not much by way of instructions.

 

Can't remember if you ever dropped in on the Canada forum 'Where in Canada' quiz that fizzled a year or two back, but I did well there... had to let others get some 'first' to be fair. Only jumped on the 'harder' claims, but always let the poster know the results ASAP... People got frustrated, but I helped a lot figure out how to play well on the side... had fun.

 

I wasn't trying to play on this one, just wanted a better viewing of the site, and revealed nothing new about it. I also am not privy to the cache description either so no speculation on that or anything else except maybe to offer that the '50 foot' ruling might have to do with local right of way regulations for the MAIN Line that runs on the taller towers, clearly high voltage transmission there. The dark wooden poles appear to be local distribution trunks, high but nothing like the transmission lines and the shorter poles seem to be local distribution. Not sure if the boxes are even electrical, they might be phone and cable services. I did notice that there appears to be NatGAS lines there as well in another SV. This might be a spot ID'ed as a critical junction and subject to 'non interference' regs we are unaware of. Still lots of places around for the OP if they try a bit further afield if needed.

 

Seems like everyone is expecting snow tonight and tomorrow, so time to play... I actually went out and found a new cache today, sadly 3tf, I missed the announcement. That's life.

 

Hope you had a good holiday season and new year all!

 

Doug 7rxc

[+fbingha]

Shall I make a list of streetview urls that point out caches located on boxes like this? I know I have found many of them and I doubt the reviewers in California want to start archiving them based on my gumption to do something about it!

Yes, please! And include the GC #.

 

Why? Are you going to post NA logs on them?

I'm sure there are some fluffy footwear who might take interest. Personally, I dislike the notion of armchair logs of any type. Perhaps an email to TPTB would suffice to bring these alleged guideline violations into compliance? Without GC #s, and pictures verifying the locations, all there is at this point is an unsubstantiated claim.

"Unsubstantiated claims". Just because you only hunt caches buried in swamps, does not give you a fat brush to paint my observances as unsubstantiated.

 

Look at GC1P35B

 

It was archived by an unattentive owner. I believe it was a flat magnet type cache and stuck directly to one of the type of boxes in question. I can recall that of my 364 find, at least 10 of them were on boxes similar to this.

 

 

[Mr.Yuck]

 

Using information provided in this topic, it did not take long to locate GZ and view the air photos as well as more of the Streetview. (I like photo games, what can I say).

Doug 7rx

 

Have you tried geoguessr? Warning. It's addictive.

 

Correct. But could be vastly improved. Like having accounts and storing your scores. I'm sure they're working on it, I don't follow them on social media or anything.

[4wheelin_fool]

Shall I make a list of streetview urls that point out caches located on boxes like this? I know I have found many of them and I doubt the reviewers in California want to start archiving them based on my gumption to do something about it!

Yes, please! And include the GC #.

 

Why? Are you going to post NA logs on them?

I'm sure there are some fluffy footwear who might take interest. Personally, I dislike the notion of armchair logs of any type. Perhaps an email to TPTB would suffice to bring these alleged guideline violations into compliance? Without GC #s, and pictures verifying the locations, all there is at this point is an unsubstantiated claim.

 

Well, this one is quite obvious. Google street view even shows what appears to be a geocacher approaching it.