New multi requirement?

[+barefootjeff]

I've just had a proposed multi-cache knocked back because I didn't list the published starting point coordinates (the ones at the top of the page) as an Additional Waypoint. The reviewer said this is now a requirement because of the new cache planning map that shows 161 metre circles around existing caches, however my starting point is virtual so it won't appear on the map anyway. I can't see anything in the guidelines about this requirement, and if it is, why can't the cache-creation wizard do this automatically? To my mind, having the starting point doubled up as an Additional Waypoint only creates confusion. Additional means additional, doesn't it? I'm confused.

[+The_Incredibles_]

There's no point arguing with your reviewer because you won't win. Best to just do as they say. For this waypoint, under 'Type', select 'Virtual Stage'.

[+barefootjeff]

Yeah, I've done that and put it back in the review queue, but I'm just curious as to why?

[Moun10Bike]

Your reviewer is mistaken. With the release of the new Cache Submission Process (CSP) last month, there is no need for an additional waypoint at the posted coordinates. Instead, you can set the posted coordinates as virtual or physical as needed on the edit form, or during the submission process itself.

[+barefootjeff]

Thanks.

[Moun10Bike]

I've sent an email to your reviewer to make sure that he is aware of this change.

[+T.D.M.22]

I've just had a proposed multi-cache knocked back because I didn't list the published starting point coordinates (the ones at the top of the page) as an Additional Waypoint. The reviewer said this is now a requirement because of the new cache planning map that shows 161 metre circles around existing caches, however my starting point is virtual so it won't appear on the map anyway. I can't see anything in the guidelines about this requirement, and if it is, why can't the cache-creation wizard do this automatically? To my mind, having the starting point doubled up as an Additional Waypoint only creates confusion. Additional means additional, doesn't it? I'm confused.

 

I do believe it's for the computers sake, it's not like the reviewer is telling you to move the cache or anything.

 

Actually I'm confused about this as well.

 

However if your cache is not where the co-ords say it is, isn't it then a mystery/unknown? Don't trads, and multi's(at least the first stage) have to be where it show on the map? Quoted from the guidelines;

 

The coordinates posted at the top of the cache listing are for the first stage of a multi-cache. Provide the coordinates of all subsequent stages of the multi-cache by using the Additional Waypoints feature. If you do not want the coordinates for the additional stages displayed to the public, mark them as "hidden." Only the cache owner, reviewers and Groundspeak lackeys can view hidden coordinates.

 

And this covers anything the reviewer requests or tells you to do;

 

The reviewer will require or request changes. The geocache listing may be disabled by the reviewer while the geocache owner makes the changes.

 

Edit-ignore the messed up structure of my reply, I removed some stuff that was apparently wrong judging by Moun10bikes reply...

Edited June 29, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[+barefootjeff]

However if your cache is not where the co-ords say it is, isn't it then a mystery/unknown? Don't trads, and multi's(at least the first stage) have to be where it show on the map?

 

The first stage of my multi is at the listed coordinates, but it's a virtual location (not something I placed there) so it doesn't have a 161 metre exclusion zone around it on the new planning map. I think the confusion may have arisen because the old system didn't have a way of distinguishing between virtual and physical starting points, but that's now been fixed.

[+dprovan]

I think the confusion may have arisen because the old system didn't have a way of distinguishing between virtual and physical starting points, but that's now been fixed.

Right. And then to fix that problem, for a couple months they did require an additional waypoint that would tell the system which kind of waypoint the posted coordinates were. For multis, that was a great idea and a reasonable requirement, but then they made it even better with the direct indication so the extra waypoint was no longer required. Apparently your reviewer missed that last memo.

[+Beach_hut]

However any unpublished caches you might have had "in-flight" at the time the new submission wizard was rolled out would still require a waypoint denoting what the starting co-ords were. Although I think an edit of your cache page selecting Physical or Virtual would have done the trick?

Edited June 30, 2014 by Beach_hut

[+realityshownut(RSN)]

I've just had a proposed multi-cache knocked back because I didn't list the published starting point coordinates (the ones at the top of the page) as an Additional Waypoint. The reviewer said this is now a requirement because of the new cache planning map that shows 161 metre circles around existing caches, however my starting point is virtual so it won't appear on the map anyway. I can't see anything in the guidelines about this requirement, and if it is, why can't the cache-creation wizard do this automatically? To my mind, having the starting point doubled up as an Additional Waypoint only creates confusion. Additional means additional, doesn't it? I'm confused.

[+realityshownut(RSN)]

Would you know why some of those red circles overlap?

[+fishgeek]

...To my mind, having the starting point doubled up as an Additional Waypoint only creates confusion. Additional means additional, doesn't it? I'm confused.

I edit the coords on the cache page to show the stage I'm currently looking for. I like having the original as an additional waypoint so I'll have it in my GPS if I need to go back for some reason.

[+T.D.M.22]

Would you know why some of those red circles overlap?

 

Simple answer: the middle of the circle is where the cache is. If they are close enough the circles will overlap.

 

Answer to the question you meant to ask: the distance of the middle of the circle to the edge is 161 meters. That means a cache(the middle of the circle) can be on the edge of another circle but not within it. So as long as the cache itself(the middle of the circle) isn't in another circle you're good.

 

You could potentially have two cache with the edges of circle touching each other and have another cache where the first two circles meet.