New to site but known for decades.

[+Mic&Lou]

Hi guys n gals.

We have recently joined the community of the hunt and recently we placed our first cache BUT,

After reading all the material and following all the guidelines and found a place that would be perfect we acquired the co ords and submitted them online. Thats when it went down hill.

We received a welcome email form the reviewer and a few questions we needed to answer in which we did.

The second email we received from reviewer stated that maybe we needed to find more caches and be a member longer and talk to more people before we were to hide a cache of our own.

I immediately became offended as this person seemed to be questioning our intellect in regards to following simple instructions.

They told us that our cache was too close to a physical cache that was the end of a multi cache and he/she suggested we find this first. We found the cache and our co ords were more than 300 meters away from the other cache so we were well away and within the criteria for the placement.

They came back to us to try and tell us we were wrong and to look again?

Not sure how often we can find the same cache in the same spot still 300 plus meters away from where we want to place ours.

 

Has anybody else had any trouble placing caches and the review panel?

 

Feeling frustrated.

[+Sapience Trek]

I immediately became offended as this person seemed to be questioning our intellect in regards to following simple instructions.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. I looked at the comments on your cache and there is absolutely nothing I read that questions your intellect. It's often difficult to write and read "tone" in a note but I can assure you that your reviewer was trying to answer your questions and concerns as concisely as possible.

 

They told us that our cache was too close to a physical cache that was the end of a multi cache and he/she suggested we find this first. We found the cache and our co ords were more than 300 meters away from the other cache so we were well away and within the criteria for the placement.

 

Per the data on the site, that's exactly what I would have done. It looks like your reviewer made the extra effort to contact the other cache owner to verify their final location, though I can't tell what the current status on that query is.

[+T.D.M.22]

Just curious here-since geocaching started in 2000, that means it's 14 years old. How could you know about geocaching for decades?

 

 

Has anybody else had any trouble placing caches and the review panel?

 

 

Unless you find every single cache, you will run into the occasional problem with being too close to a cache you can't see, for whatever reason-be it part of a multi, mystery, PMO, or even a cache that's been approved but not published yet. In my city there has actually been 3, or 5(Can't remember) cachers who attempted to place a cache in the exact same spot to be published at the exact same time for an event that was happening.

 

Now keep in mind that reviewers are volunteers. They have paying jobs, personal lives. They have bad days, just like we do, and they do make mistakes. Maybe the reviewer mis-read the location? And then there are the dogs. Some reviewers are dogs so they may be paying more attention the squirrels that are running the geocaching.com servers. Just be happy there aren't cat reviewers-we'd have way less caches approved.

Edited June 16, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Sounds crude, but...

 

Reading the guidelines for hiding should be done at least four times, in their entirety:

 

1] to see what they say;

2] to see what you missed the first time;

3] to see what they DON'T say;

4] to understand what you read the first three times.

 

Reading the guidelines is a good thing (many don't do it at all), but you really need to read them a few times. Truly.

 

You think those instructions were simple? Really?

They are continually questioned, interpreted and discussed by those who have been at it for years... and many yet stumble.

 

Not saying that you shouldn't feel frustrated, but I can assure you that you're not alone. Successfully placing a hide is not easy, especially for the first one -- or two, or three. Not very many people have success with their first attempt.

[+Mic&Lou]

Thnks guys.

Yes I find the instructions simple and I guess it would be a matter of looking at the criteria every time you place a cache as a refresher and not try to remember them all.

 

I understand the need to find the final location of a multi cache as it is not disclosed on the map but maybe this could be a feature in the future on the "Hide a cache" page where the hider sees a map with red circles indicating where all the physical caches may be?

[+Touchstone]

I understand the need to find the final location of a multi cache as it is not disclosed on the map but maybe this could be a feature in the future on the "Hide a cache" page where the hider sees a map with red circles indicating where all the physical caches may be?

 

This has been debated in the past, but keep in mind there are some very clever people in our Community that would be able to "Battleship" hidden waypoints under such a scheme. Even if you limit the number of coordinate changes to frustrate this sort of behavior, I've heard that it can be done with as few a number of guesses as two.

 

If you're submitting a Listing in an urban area, I highly recommend that you request coordinate checks prior to placing a cache, in order to lower the frustration and the amount of walking or driving you need to do comply with the Saturation portion of the Guidelines. Link for reference:

 

Checking for Geocache Saturation

[+Mic&Lou]

I understand the need to find the final location of a multi cache as it is not disclosed on the map but maybe this could be a feature in the future on the "Hide a cache" page where the hider sees a map with red circles indicating where all the physical caches may be?

 

This has been debated in the past, but keep in mind there are some very clever people in our Community that would be able to "Battleship" hidden waypoints under such a scheme. Even if you limit the number of coordinate changes to frustrate this sort of behavior, I've heard that it can be done with as few a number of guesses as two.

 

If you're submitting a Listing in an urban area, I highly recommend that you request coordinate checks prior to placing a cache, in order to lower the frustration and the amount of walking or driving you need to do comply with the Saturation portion of the Guidelines. Link for reference:

 

Checking for Geocache Saturation

 

I did do the saturation check first and we did find the cache that was said to be in conflict to ours and all is well within the criteria for placing a cache in the location we desire (Further than 161m).

This listing is out of suburban area and it has some significants to us. (Hence the reason for placement)

Any way I will just wait and see how the submitted location comes back from reviewer once again and see what happens.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Sounds like you did everything right, but there is something funny about the multi in question. Perhaps they moved their location, but did not update the waypoint on their cache page? I would personally try contacting the owner of the multi to see if they can help.

[+Mic&Lou]

"Just curious here-since geocaching started in 2000, that means it's 14 years old. How could you know about geocaching for decades? "

 

 

It used to be known as letterboxing.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Mic&Lou

[+uxorious]

"Just curious here-since geocaching started in 2000, that means it's 14 years old. How could you know about geocaching for decades? "

 

 

It used to be known as letterboxing.

 

Geocaching and Letterboxing are similar, but two different things. People still letterbox, and some Geocaches are letterbox hybrids, combining the two, but they are separate games.

[+Mic&Lou]

"Just curious here-since geocaching started in 2000, that means it's 14 years old. How could you know about geocaching for decades? "

 

 

It used to be known as letterboxing.

 

Geocaching and Letterboxing are similar, but two different things. People still letterbox, and some Geocaches are letterbox hybrids, combining the two, but they are separate games.

Yes I know. Thanks for the confirmation.

[+irisisleuk]

There are a lot of beginners who want to place a cache even after one find. They don't read the guidelines, they just go ahead and lots of mistakes are made. Mistakes that are frustrating for geocachers who want to find these caches, for land owners, for people in the neighborhood who weren't informed etc. etc., but its also frustrating for reviewers. These volunteers have spent their free time in reviewing a cache that they then will have to archive when things aren't they way they seem on the cache page. Wasted time they could have spent on finding/publishing nice caches.

 

When you keep this in mind it's remarkable how reviewers can keep positive and keep helping relative new cachers like you by not just saying: no your cache is not according to guidelines this and this. But give more info and try to advise you the best way they know how, based on all their experiences.

 

In your case there was a coordinates conflict. You were informed which cache was the problem and then you found this cache and discovered that, according to you, there is no coordinates conflict.

This could be the case, but based on the info the reviewer can see in his database has he has doubts about the information you have given.

 

There are many reasons why he can doubt what you have found, one of them is the problem that cachers often don't tell the truth anymore to their reviewers, they'll say anything just to get their cache published. The reviewer has only the facts to base his decisions on, should he trust what the CO of the multi has put in the database or should he blindly trust you when you say this cache is not where he thinks it is?

 

If I were a reviewer (and I'm glad I'm not) I would read your log on that cache. It is not a log that seems trustworthy (not even interesting or polite to the CO, but that is another matter), it is a weird log especially for a multi cache. With a log like this I would doubt if you have even found the cache.

So if I were the reviewer I might think it could be a found log that was only placed to convince that you have found the cache.

 

I'm not saying this is the case at all, you might be completely right about the coordinates, but keep in mind how things look like and be glad the reviewer is trying to help you anyway.

 

Just curious: you say the spot you have in mind has some significants to you; what kind of logs would you like to read with your future cache?

[Pup Patrol]

I think that the best route would be to continue to communicate with your Reviewer.

 

I'm wondering if the problem is with http://coord.info/GCY9P0

 

There is suppposed to be a physical container at Stage 1, but numerous finders including yourself report it to be missing.

 

Any new cache placements need to be more than 161 metres from that physical container.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=232

 

I'm just guessing here, as the other multicache you've found involves a lot of stages that shouldn't be a problem for saturation issues.

 

 

B.

[+Sapience Trek]

Since you haven't posted a "found" on the other cache, but have indicated on the cache page that you have solved the equation, I wonder if you know that the equation appears to lead you to a physical stage that is not the actual final cache. The location that you indicate the other cache is at is the physical stage before the final of the other cache. At least that's what it appears to be to me, and I certainly could be wrong.

[Keystone]

I looked at your cache submission. Like every other reviewer who looks at it, I saw a warning for a stage of a multicache that's very close to your cache. So, there is no point in asking for a different reviewer as each will tell you the same thing. The cache saturation conflict needs to be resolved, either by you moving your cache or by the owner of the multicache updating the waypoint in question. Once you've accomplished one of these two things, your reviewer will be happy to publish your cache.

[+Touchstone]

I understand the need to find the final location of a multi cache as it is not disclosed on the map but maybe this could be a feature in the future on the "Hide a cache" page where the hider sees a map with red circles indicating where all the physical caches may be?

 

This has been debated in the past, but keep in mind there are some very clever people in our Community that would be able to "Battleship" hidden waypoints under such a scheme. Even if you limit the number of coordinate changes to frustrate this sort of behavior, I've heard that it can be done with as few a number of guesses as two.

 

If you're submitting a Listing in an urban area, I highly recommend that you request coordinate checks prior to placing a cache, in order to lower the frustration and the amount of walking or driving you need to do comply with the Saturation portion of the Guidelines. Link for reference:

 

Checking for Geocache Saturation

 

I did do the saturation check first and we did find the cache that was said to be in conflict to ours and all is well within the criteria for placing a cache in the location we desire (Further than 161m).

This listing is out of suburban area and it has some significants to us. (Hence the reason for placement)

Any way I will just wait and see how the submitted location comes back from reviewer once again and see what happens.

 

Just to confirm, the type of Saturation Check I'm referring to, and what is described in the article I linked to, is to actually submit a Listing ahead of placing the cache. It just saves a bit of foot work, and back and forth that appears to be going on between you and the Reviewer.

 

At this stage of the process, If I were you, I'd ask the Reviewer for the coordinates of the conflicting Stage or Final, which is holding up your submission. You've technically Found the other cache and signed the Log, so there's really no point in being all that secretive about it anymore. Seems like it would help move the process a bit further along. My 0.02.

[+Bunjil]

As the Reviewer for this cache, just a couple of points to set the record straight.

 

When I did this 5/5 (just after it had been published) the GZ was in another spot, hence my initial query to the CO as I incorrectly believed there had been a genuine mistake with the provision of the final co-ords to Groundspeak. The CO had in fact changed the GZ due to muggles and noted that information on the cache page. Had I looked more closely at the cache notes I would have identified that. The GZ as provided to Groundspeak is correct.

 

What this correspondent has sighted - note not found, is in fact the fifth way point in the Multi. As there are calculations associated with establishing this way point the CO has kindly provided a facility for seekers to check they have calculated correctly for this way point.

 

When they eventually reach the container they have sighted (hence the T5 rating) they will not find a log but a document indicating what the actual GZ co-ords are.

 

Going from the cache logs, they are not the first team to have been caught by this devious ploy. There are a number of Multi and Mystery caches around that have the same twist - Bendigo is renowned for them!

[+stooy]

Ahhh.. geocaching never gets boring As the CO of the "Above and Beyond" series I have been quite entertained this week. Thanks to everyone involved, especially Bunjil Reviewer for adding to the fun story of this cache and I look forward to the logs from those who have not quite finished this cache... HINT: Reading the previous cache logs may reveal just how easy some have overcome these challenges. So with this in mind.. I have devised some new challenges for Bendigo to be published in the near future

Happy Hunting!

[+Romax]

Being FTF on the the final in this most challenging series by stooy we can appreciate how an inexperienced and relatively new to geocaching player can jump to the conclusion they know where GZ is located, that is not how stooy sets up his challenges!

With some ten years of geocaching now behind us we have learnt to appreciate all the help and guidance those reveiwers that we have come in contact with during that time have helped and guided us in those early days and up until now, without their dedication there would be no game to play.