firetacks and waypointing

[+Bean & Sprout]

Just submitted a new cache and been asked to waypoint the firetacks as physical stages.

I can't see in the night cache guidelines where it says this.

I though firetacks didnt count as a physical stage. Has that changed perhaps?

 

Can anyone advise what the actual guidelines are regarding this please? I can't seem to find anything about it in night caches, only multis.

 

My trail starts near another cache, but the final is over 528ft away. Does each firetack have to also be 528ft from any other existing cache? Beacause they arent at the moment. If they are waypointed as physical then presumably my cache will be disallowed...

[+T.D.M.22]

Fire tacks are a physical object placed for that geocache, so they have to be 161m away from physical locations of other caches. It's been in the guidelines for years. Not usually enforced, but it is there. Plus the part in the guidelines about there being no precedent. That is just because something has or has not been allowed before does not mean it will or will not be allowed now or in the future.

Edited May 31, 2015 by T.D.M.22

[+CanadianRockies]

This is the first time I've ever heard of a reviewer requiring waypoints for firetacks. I think your chances would be pretty good if you submitted this one to Groundspeak Appeals.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This is the first time I've ever heard of a reviewer requiring waypoints for firetacks. I think your chances would be pretty good if you submitted this one to Groundspeak Appeals.

 

I have never heard of that either. Firetacks are somewhat of a grey area as they techinical meet the definition of a physical stage (although they're not published as a multi) but listing each one as a separate waypoint doesn't make a lot of sense and one could argue that they are more like a reference point than a physical stage.

 

 

[knowschad]

Fire tacks are a physical object placed for that geocache, so they have to be 161m away from physical locations of other caches. It's been in the guidelines for years. Not usually enforced, but it is there. Plus the part in the guidelines about there being no precedent. That is just because something has or has not been allowed before does not mean it will or will not be allowed now or in the future.

 

Most definitely not enforced. I have NEVER heard of that. True, by definition they are physical stages, but I've never once heard of them being treated as such by reviewers. May not be a first, but it is a first for me.

 

As for your last sentence... that is what the OP is asking... "Has that changed perhaps?"

[+Touchstone]

There's nothing to prevent a Reviewer from asking for AW's for all the tacks, although it sounds a bit tedious, depending on the length of the trail. I would ask for clarification on whether they want them entered as Physical or Virtual waypoints.

 

Firetacks or other reflectors, and Beacon type caches, are two exceptions to the Proximity portion of the Guidelines that I'm aware of. The thought being that there's really nothing to search for, you just need to be "kind of close" in order to make progress.

[+Mudfrog]

This is the first time I've ever heard of a reviewer requiring waypoints for firetacks. I think your chances would be pretty good if you submitted this one to Groundspeak Appeals.

 

I have never heard of that either. Firetacks are somewhat of a grey area as they techinical meet the definition of a physical stage (although they're not published as a multi) but listing each one as a separate waypoint doesn't make a lot of sense and one could argue that they are more like a reference point than a physical stage.

 

I had planned a night cache a while back where a couple of the firetacks ended up being a bit close to an existing traditional cache. Before going ahead with placement, i emailed my reviewer about my concern. He told me that firetacks weren't treated as the same as other physical stages and that it was ok to place the tacks. And nope, he certainly didn't request coordinates for each firetack.

 

Of course, this was a couple or three years back so guidelines could have changed since then.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There's nothing to prevent a Reviewer from asking for AW's for all the tacks, although it sounds a bit tedious, depending on the length of the trail. I would ask for clarification on whether they want them entered as Physical or Virtual waypoints.

 

Firetacks or other reflectors, and Beacon type caches, are two exceptions to the Proximity portion of the Guidelines that I'm aware of. The thought being that there's really nothing to search for, you just need to be "kind of close" in order to make progress.

 

The use of firetacks and how they're handled as virtual vs. physical waypoints (or not listed as a waypoint at all) could open up a can of worms. Suppose rather than firetacks the CO tied a yellow ribbon on a tree branch or bush to guide seekers to a final location. You'd only need to be kind of close to make progress (and unfortunately, a muggle might notice a pattern of ribbons as well) to make progress.

 

 

[+Touchstone]

There's nothing to prevent a Reviewer from asking for AW's for all the tacks, although it sounds a bit tedious, depending on the length of the trail. I would ask for clarification on whether they want them entered as Physical or Virtual waypoints.

 

Firetacks or other reflectors, and Beacon type caches, are two exceptions to the Proximity portion of the Guidelines that I'm aware of. The thought being that there's really nothing to search for, you just need to be "kind of close" in order to make progress.

 

The use of firetacks and how they're handled as virtual vs. physical waypoints (or not listed as a waypoint at all) could open up a can of worms. Suppose rather than firetacks the CO tied a yellow ribbon on a tree branch or bush to guide seekers to a final location. You'd only need to be kind of close to make progress (and unfortunately, a muggle might notice a pattern of ribbons as well) to make progress.

I've never heard of exceptions granted for ribbons/surveyors tape and the like. Those sorts of things have always been treated as Physical Waypoints. The only exceptions I've heard of, are the ones I mentioned and the justification for the decision. Exceptions for other navigational aids would probably have to be taken up with Appeals I imagine.

 

The Firetack example is one that goes back at least a decade. The first "night cache" in our area was probably 2002 or 2003, so predates the AW feature on the website, and may have some bearing on why an exception was decided.

 

The Beacon issue is more recent, probably around the time Garmin introduced their device, although other "wardriving" type caches existed prior to that, that worked on a similar premise.

 

Other scenarios are no doubt possible, but those are the two that I'm familiar with.

[knowschad]

I can see a possible need for including those as alternate waypoints (AW). If there is (or may be) another firetack-guided night cache in the area, it may be useful to the review process to know if there are firetacks for another cache nearby enough to confuse finders.

[+Shaved Ewok]

I have hidden two night caches with two different reviewers and have never been asked to list the waypoints for my tacks. Really hope that this does not become the norm as I generally use more tacks than I need to, just to make sure it is as easy to follow as possible. I agree with an earlier poster that you should appeal this one to Groundspeak. It may be the case that your reviewer is new and has not published a night cache before and does not know any better.

[knowschad]

It would sure be nice if we had a reviewer or two around here to chime in, wouldn't it?

[Cascade Reviewer]

I'm not sure if I can be much help. I know that in the past we haven't required additional waypoints for firetacks, but it's possible that the guidance has changed and I don't know about it yet.

[+BlackRose67]

Fire tacks are a physical object placed for that geocache, so they have to be 161m away from physical locations of other caches. It's been in the guidelines for years. Not usually enforced, but it is there. Plus the part in the guidelines about there being no precedent. That is just because something has or has not been allowed before does not mean it will or will not be allowed now or in the future.

When I put out a night cache last year, I was told by the reviewer that firetacks did not count for proximity, only tags and containers.

Some of my firetacks are within 30 metres of other caches along the same trail.

[+narcissa]

Just submitted a new cache and been asked to waypoint the firetacks as physical stages.

I can't see in the night cache guidelines where it says this.

I though firetacks didnt count as a physical stage. Has that changed perhaps?

 

Can anyone advise what the actual guidelines are regarding this please? I can't seem to find anything about it in night caches, only multis.

 

My trail starts near another cache, but the final is over 528ft away. Does each firetack have to also be 528ft from any other existing cache? Beacause they arent at the moment. If they are waypointed as physical then presumably my cache will be disallowed...

 

How is this *not* a multi-cache?

[+rosebud55112]

Around here, Night caches tend to be considered a variation and fall under the "?" catch-all group.

 

I’m no Night-cache expert, but it seems to me that the final location of the cache is usually designated by a set of three or more firetacks right near the physical cache location. If firetacks are considered physical placed additional waypoints, and the 528-foot rule is enforced, wouldn’t that make the final set of tacks too close to the cache with the logbook? Then aren’t all such night caches essentially dead?

[+Ambrosia]

Around here, Night caches tend to be considered a variation and fall under the "?" catch-all group.

 

I’m no Night-cache expert, but it seems to me that the final location of the cache is usually designated by a set of three or more firetacks right near the physical cache location. If firetacks are considered physical placed additional waypoints, and the 528-foot rule is enforced, wouldn’t that make the final set of tacks too close to the cache with the logbook? Then aren’t all such night caches essentially dead?

No, because there is no proximity problem when the stages all belong to the same multi.

[+narcissa]

Around here, Night caches tend to be considered a variation and fall under the "?" catch-all group.

 

I’m no Night-cache expert, but it seems to me that the final location of the cache is usually designated by a set of three or more firetacks right near the physical cache location. If firetacks are considered physical placed additional waypoints, and the 528-foot rule is enforced, wouldn’t that make the final set of tacks too close to the cache with the logbook? Then aren’t all such night caches essentially dead?

 

I don't understand why people are in such a rage to use Mystery/Unknown when other cache types adequately describe a cache.

 

I expect that the firetacks at a cache would be consider part of the final, not separate elements. No need to get too silly about it.

[+rosebud55112]

Around here, Night caches tend to be considered a variation and fall under the "?" catch-all group.

 

I’m no Night-cache expert, but it seems to me that the final location of the cache is usually designated by a set of three or more firetacks right near the physical cache location. If firetacks are considered physical placed additional waypoints, and the 528-foot rule is enforced, wouldn’t that make the final set of tacks too close to the cache with the logbook? Then aren’t all such night caches essentially dead?

No, because there is no proximity problem when the stages all belong to the same multi.

 

Right, that makes sense. Somehow I had it in my head that even in a single multi the 528 rule applied to physical stages.

[+bflentje]

Around here, Night caches tend to be considered a variation and fall under the "?" catch-all group.

 

I’m no Night-cache expert, but it seems to me that the final location of the cache is usually designated by a set of three or more firetacks right near the physical cache location. If firetacks are considered physical placed additional waypoints, and the 528-foot rule is enforced, wouldn’t that make the final set of tacks too close to the cache with the logbook? Then aren’t all such night caches essentially dead?

 

I don't understand why people are in such a rage to use Mystery/Unknown when other cache types adequately describe a cache.

 

I expect that the firetacks at a cache would be consider part of the final, not separate elements. No need to get too silly about it.

 

A couple months ago I setup a night cache and WANTED it to be a multicache. Our local reviewer would not publish it unless I made it a mystery even though everything about it was physical. The appeals process told me to go pound sand and said whatever the reviewer says goes.

[+rosebud55112]

I think that part of the issue is that when people see the UNKNOWN category icon, they have a greater tendency to read the cache page (that is, if they don’t decide to ignore the cache completely). If they see a MULTI-CACHE category icon, they have a greater tendency to just show up at the starting coordinates and start looking for a container with the next set of cords. Even though only a fraction of all Multis are set up like this, some people have that as their assumed default type.

 

Personally, I think people should be looking at the cache page more often for all types of caches, and if they are carrying around bad default assumptions, too bad for them. If they don’t realize they need to do this in the dark, or have a flashlight, or know that they should count the number of benches, or whatever, then they will learn—eventually. Making it an Unknown sort of hits them in the head with it for this cache, but they may never learn that it’s a good idea for all caches.

 

That is, of course, assuming the cache page actually gives the info required, either through description or attributes.

[+Bean & Sprout]

Thanks for all the replies.

I have now been advised that the waypoints are required to ensure any future night trails in the area don't cross each other, and that the firetacks can be placed near an existing cache without needing to be 528ft away.

For those wondering, my cache is a letterbox.

[+bflentje]

I think that part of the issue is that when people see the UNKNOWN category icon, they have a greater tendency to read the cache page (that is, if they don’t decide to ignore the cache completely). If they see a MULTI-CACHE category icon, they have a greater tendency to just show up at the starting coordinates and start looking for a container with the next set of cords. Even though only a fraction of all Multis are set up like this, some people have that as their assumed default type.

 

Perhaps. But as the cache owner that is not my problem.

[knowschad]

Just submitted a new cache and been asked to waypoint the firetacks as physical stages.

I can't see in the night cache guidelines where it says this.

I though firetacks didnt count as a physical stage. Has that changed perhaps?

 

Can anyone advise what the actual guidelines are regarding this please? I can't seem to find anything about it in night caches, only multis.

 

My trail starts near another cache, but the final is over 528ft away. Does each firetack have to also be 528ft from any other existing cache? Beacause they arent at the moment. If they are waypointed as physical then presumably my cache will be disallowed...

 

How is this *not* a multi-cache?

I think you understand what the OP meant. Let's all try a little harder for a welcoming environment here instead of challenging everything someone says, huh?

[knowschad]

I think that part of the issue is that when people see the UNKNOWN category icon, they have a greater tendency to read the cache page

That's a good point, on the surface, but the same should hold true with a multi-cache, where the pre-stages may be physical stages to find, or may be field problems to solve. If you haven't read the cache page, you may be looking long and hard for a physical container, when instead you need to be counting letters on a plaque.

[+narcissa]

For those wondering, my cache is a letterbox.

 

Yay!

[+jellis]

There's nothing to prevent a Reviewer from asking for AW's for all the tacks, although it sounds a bit tedious, depending on the length of the trail. I would ask for clarification on whether they want them entered as Physical or Virtual waypoints.

 

Firetacks or other reflectors, and Beacon type caches, are two exceptions to the Proximity portion of the Guidelines that I'm aware of. The thought being that there's really nothing to search for, you just need to be "kind of close" in order to make progress.

 

The use of firetacks and how they're handled as virtual vs. physical waypoints (or not listed as a waypoint at all) could open up a can of worms. Suppose rather than firetacks the CO tied a yellow ribbon on a tree branch or bush to guide seekers to a final location. You'd only need to be kind of close to make progress (and unfortunately, a muggle might notice a pattern of ribbons as well) to make progress.

 

I've never heard of exceptions granted for ribbons/surveyors tape and the like. Those sorts of things have always been treated as Physical Waypoints. The only exceptions I've heard of, are the ones I mentioned and the justification for the decision. Exceptions for other navigational aids would probably have to be taken up with Appeals I imagine.

 

The Firetack example is one that goes back at least a decade. The first "night cache" in our area was probably 2002 or 2003, so predates the AW feature on the website, and may have some bearing on why an exception was decided.

 

The Beacon issue is more recent, probably around the time Garmin introduced their device, although other "wardriving" type caches existed prior to that, that worked on a similar premise.

 

Other scenarios are no doubt possible, but those are the two that I'm familiar with.

I don't know about all the parks but I witnessed a park ranger removing the ribbons saying they look like trash hit the trees. I don't know how he felt about the tacks or if he even saw them, but I didn't want to ask. Edited June 4, 2015 by jellis

[+coachstahly]

Slightly off topic (but related) - I have had to list all my virtual waypoints for my single intercache as well as all my Wherigos. I haven't placed a letterbox in quite some time but I bet that I might be asked to list the landmark features in the description as virtual waypoints as well.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I had a Reviewer ask for the start of the firetack trail be waypointed if it wasn't also the posted coords, but otherwise they did not require waypointing all tacks.

 

Is there a potential property issue here? Night cache might pass near a school, railroad, private property, etc? (So often on here there is more to the story.)

 

This is probably something you should appeal to Groundspeak.

 

FWIW I like night caches to be Mysteries, not Multis, although here in FL they get published both ways. I wish they would be standardized to one or the other.

[knowschad]

Is there a potential property issue here? Night cache might pass near a school, railroad, private property, etc? (So often on here there is more to the story.)

That is an excellent question!

[+redsox_mark]

Slightly off topic (but related) - I have had to list all my virtual waypoints for my single intercache as well as all my Wherigos. I haven't placed a letterbox in quite some time but I bet that I might be asked to list the landmark features in the description as virtual waypoints as well.

 

That's interesting; I've never heard of reviewers requesting details of Wherigo zones as virtual waypoints. And I own 2 Wherigos. I wonder if it is recent changes in reviewer guidelines, or unique to your reviewer?

[+coachstahly]

Slightly off topic (but related) - I have had to list all my virtual waypoints for my single intercache as well as all my Wherigos. I haven't placed a letterbox in quite some time but I bet that I might be asked to list the landmark features in the description as virtual waypoints as well.

 

That's interesting; I've never heard of reviewers requesting details of Wherigo zones as virtual waypoints. And I own 2 Wherigos. I wonder if it is recent changes in reviewer guidelines, or unique to your reviewer?

No idea, but I'm guesssing it's recent as I've only had to do it for the most recent one. I updated the rest of them when editing the cartridge and the page. Not too big a deal, but it certainly makes the process a longer one.

[+jellis]

Slightly off topic (but related) - I have had to list all my virtual waypoints for my single intercache as well as all my Wherigos. I haven't placed a letterbox in quite some time but I bet that I might be asked to list the landmark features in the description as virtual waypoints as well.

 

That's interesting; I've never heard of reviewers requesting details of Wherigo zones as virtual waypoints. And I own 2 Wherigos. I wonder if it is recent changes in reviewer guidelines, or unique to your reviewer?

No idea, but I'm guesssing it's recent as I've only had to do it for the most recent one. I updated the rest of them when editing the cartridge and the page. Not too big a deal, but it certainly makes the process a longer one.

I've done two wherigos and I was never asked about each stop. There is nothing there to be physical cache and that goes for Intercache. Firetacks and chirps are tricky because you placed them but they can't be mistaken for a container.

[+Bean & Sprout]

I can see that it may be useful for the reviewer to know if my trail goes from start to finish via the shortest route or meanders for miles around urban areas or areas which might be SSSI etc.

 

In my case I thought it was pretty obvious to them where my trail would go knowing the start and final points. There are no potentail places on route which may be an issue as described above. It passes no buildings and I checked magic maps. But I could equally get there using several other footpaths on route, or on a huge circular walk around the village nearby. How could the reviewer know which route I have chosen to use unless I show it somehow? So maybe showing the route via waypoints is helpful for that, as well as ensuring any current or future night trails nearby won't conflict and cause confusion.

 

I just wish it had said in the guidelines as we'd have waypointed as we went and submitted the cache with the waypoints.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Slightly off topic (but related) - I have had to list all my virtual waypoints for my single intercache as well as all my Wherigos. I haven't placed a letterbox in quite some time but I bet that I might be asked to list the landmark features in the description as virtual waypoints as well.

 

That's interesting; I've never heard of reviewers requesting details of Wherigo zones as virtual waypoints. And I own 2 Wherigos. I wonder if it is recent changes in reviewer guidelines, or unique to your reviewer?

No idea, but I'm guesssing it's recent as I've only had to do it for the most recent one. I updated the rest of them when editing the cartridge and the page. Not too big a deal, but it certainly makes the process a longer one.

I've done two wherigos and I was never asked about each stop. There is nothing there to be physical cache and that goes for Intercache. Firetacks and chirps are tricky because you placed them but they can't be mistaken for a container.

 

Sure, but a location can have physical stage and not be a container. It could be a rock with some numbers written on it. If it was placed there by CO it's a physical stage.

 

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I can see that it may be useful for the reviewer to know if my trail goes from start to finish via the shortest route or meanders for miles around urban areas or areas which might be SSSI etc.

 

In my case I thought it was pretty obvious to them where my trail would go knowing the start and final points. There are no potentail places on route which may be an issue as described above. It passes no buildings and I checked magic maps. But I could equally get there using several other footpaths on route, or on a huge circular walk around the village nearby. How could the reviewer know which route I have chosen to use unless I show it somehow? So maybe showing the route via waypoints is helpful for that, as well as ensuring any current or future night trails nearby won't conflict and cause confusion.

 

I just wish it had said in the guidelines as we'd have waypointed as we went and submitted the cache with the waypoints.

 

A tracklog would show the route taken but the waypoints captured to make it wouldn't necessarily be at locations where a firetack was placed. Actually, that would probably be better than specific waypoints for showing that their aren't any proximity or permissions issues. The direct line between two waypoints could cross private property, but a track log could show that the path taken would avoid it.

 

 

[knowschad]

I can see that it may be useful for the reviewer to know if my trail goes from start to finish via the shortest route or meanders for miles around urban areas or areas which might be SSSI etc.

 

In my case I thought it was pretty obvious to them where my trail would go knowing the start and final points. There are no potentail places on route which may be an issue as described above. It passes no buildings and I checked magic maps. But I could equally get there using several other footpaths on route, or on a huge circular walk around the village nearby. How could the reviewer know which route I have chosen to use unless I show it somehow? So maybe showing the route via waypoints is helpful for that, as well as ensuring any current or future night trails nearby won't conflict and cause confusion.

 

I just wish it had said in the guidelines as we'd have waypointed as we went and submitted the cache with the waypoints.

 

So, have you submitted this to Appeals yet? Heard any more from your reviewer as to why he/she is requesting this from you?

[+TriciaG]

Why submit to appeals? The reviewer isn't refusing the cache, is he/she?

 

If the appeal is simply, "I don't want to take the time to do it," they'll probably roll their eyes.

[knowschad]

Why submit to appeals? The reviewer isn't refusing the cache, is he/she?

 

If the appeal is simply, "I don't want to take the time to do it," they'll probably roll their eyes.

 

Because it is something that is not normally requested by a reviewer, and unless there are special circumstances in this case, or the guidelines have changed, it is something that should not have to be done.