Gripes About Reviewing Hides

[+ben31cache]

I took a break from Geocaching (especially placing them), since it seemed the "Standards" of geocaching were becoming a bit much. The volunteers reviewing the caches began to question the need for things like: the number of caches along a trail; why a certain type of cache would be placed in a wooded area; etc. The craziest was when I tried to hide a geocache at the edge of a family cemetery. I had the permission of the family. I even talked to the Georgia State Patrol officer, who used that parking area to radar speeders. He said that it would be a great location (he also was a geocacher). However, the reviewer deemed it too near a set of railroad tracks and refused to publish it. Why? There was a parking area for use in visiting the cemetery, so people stopping there would not have been a problem. The reviewer refused to relent.

 

Now that I have tried to start again, it seems to have become worse. The reviewers seem to have become like the board members of an overactive Home Owners' Association, where the they want to dictate the type of curtains you put in your windows. I can see asking newbies some basic questions, but to ask the same questions with every single cache is a bit much. And to ask if I am going to be able to check on the cache at least once a week is crazy. The cache is in the woods in a fairly remote area and checking on it that often would be nearly impossible.

 

Is this really a hobby for the enjoyment for all of us, or are we trying to limit the number of caches and those caches may only be placed by someone who has a degree in geocache hiding? I would really like to know before I try putting out any more caches.

[+GeoBain]

If everyone tried to work within in "spirit" of the guidelines the reviewers would not need to question hides so much.

 

However, there are far too many hiders, not all, but a lot, who try to pick apart the guidelines and figure out ways to skirt around them.

 

Because of this, reviewers cannot always take people at their word. They need to question some hides a little further.

 

I have also found that if you have a situation such as railroad tracks involved, it goes much better if YOU bring this up to the reviewer with some type of documentation such as pictures of where the tracks sit in relation to parking and ground zero.

 

If the reviewer has to bring it up, then they might suspect you either were not aware of the guideline or that you were attempting to slide it by them. Either way, it is not nearly as credible as when you make them aware that you are aware of the guideline in question and this is why you think an exception is warranted.

[+Touchstone]

Sounds like a number of the issues you previously encountered are addressed in the section of the Guidelines titled, "Fundamental Placement Guidelines". Avoiding violating that particular section of the Guidelines will make you life much easier (along with Agenda's and Commercial content, which are both frequent topics on these Forums).

 

You appeared to join in 2009. I'd take a wild guess that the number of active Listings on the site has doubled in that time period, so calling the Reviewing process too restrictive sounds a bit off to me.

 

Best of luck with your cache placements!

[+cerberus1]

With over 2,600,000 caches worldwide, you could probably resume your break if it bugs you that much.

[+Mudfrog]

If everyone tried to work within in "spirit" of the guidelines the reviewers would not need to question hides so much.

 

I know there are more guidelines than there were in the "old" days but they sure don't seem to be slowing cache publications down any. If anything, standards are down and reviewers are more lenient now than ever. As per most of these type threads, i have a feeling there is a bit more going on than we've been told.

[+L0ne.R]

 

You appeared to join in 2009. I'd take a wild guess that the number of active Listings on the site has doubled in that time period, so calling the Reviewing process too restrictive sounds a bit off to me.

 

 

I don't think it's restrictive enough.

 

The GC site is quite bloated with too many caches by cache owners that hide caches just to provide a smiley, no better reason. Too many cache owners who plant-em-and-forget-em, never planning any form of regular maintenance. Many cache owners that let a missing cache wallow for months before a reviewer finally archives the cache.

 

[+cerberus1]

I don't think it's restrictive enough.

 

The GC site is quite bloated with too many caches by cache owners that hide caches just to provide a smiley, no better reason. Too many cache owners who plant-em-and-forget-em, never planning any form of regular maintenance. Many cache owners that let a missing cache wallow for months before a reviewer finally archives the cache.

I agree.

When a Reviewer has to get involved over-and-over archiving one's hides, I'm kinda surprised they're allowed to continue hiding caches.

[+Sapience Trek]

Now that I have tried to start again, it seems to have become worse. The reviewers seem to have become like the board members of an overactive Home Owners' Association, where the they want to dictate the type of curtains you put in your windows. I can see asking newbies some basic questions, but to ask the same questions with every single cache is a bit much. And to ask if I am going to be able to check on the cache at least once a week is crazy. The cache is in the woods in a fairly remote area and checking on it that often would be nearly impossible.

 

Is this really a hobby for the enjoyment for all of us, or are we trying to limit the number of caches and those caches may only be placed by someone who has a degree in geocache hiding? I would really like to know before I try putting out any more caches.

 

I looked at your two most recent submissions, and I don't see the reviewer asking anything out of the ordinary.

 

Your reviewer is asking for some basic information that will allow them to assess the cache properly such as:

- property; some areas have limitations imposed by the owners or managers, not by Groundspeak or reviewers

- container; some areas dictate the types of containers that can be used

- hide style; making sure it's not buried, or bolted into a tree, that sort of thing

 

As your reviewer says, the more information you give the easier and faster the review process will be. Reviewers typically work with hundreds - or more - of cachers each month so they may not always recall all the details about an individual's ability to consistently follow the guidelines. Providing the three bits of information above each time should make your review smooth. It shouldn't add more than a minute or two to the submission process.

 

I don't see anything on your cache page asking if you are going to check on the cache weekly. I do see the reviewer asking if you are able to make occasional (not weekly) visits to the cache for maintenance. This was driven though by a previous cache you had at this location where the cache was archived for non-maintenance issues.

[+Walts Hunting]

 

I don't see anything on your cache page asking if you are going to check on the cache weekly. I do see the reviewer asking if you are able to make occasional (not weekly) visits to the cache for maintenance. This was driven though by a previous cache you had at this location where the cache was archived for non-maintenance issues.

 

I was wondering about that question but it looks like it is a result of failure to maintain in the past. Prior performance may be an indication of future performance.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Walts Hunting

[knowschad]

Now that I have tried to start again, it seems to have become worse. The reviewers seem to have become like the board members of an overactive Home Owners' Association, where the they want to dictate the type of curtains you put in your windows. I can see asking newbies some basic questions, but to ask the same questions with every single cache is a bit much. And to ask if I am going to be able to check on the cache at least once a week is crazy. The cache is in the woods in a fairly remote area and checking on it that often would be nearly impossible.

 

Is this really a hobby for the enjoyment for all of us, or are we trying to limit the number of caches and those caches may only be placed by someone who has a degree in geocache hiding? I would really like to know before I try putting out any more caches.

 

I looked at your two most recent submissions, and I don't see the reviewer asking anything out of the ordinary.

 

Your reviewer is asking for some basic information that will allow them to assess the cache properly such as:

- property; some areas have limitations imposed by the owners or managers, not by Groundspeak or reviewers

- container; some areas dictate the types of containers that can be used

- hide style; making sure it's not buried, or bolted into a tree, that sort of thing

 

As your reviewer says, the more information you give the easier and faster the review process will be. Reviewers typically work with hundreds - or more - of cachers each month so they may not always recall all the details about an individual's ability to consistently follow the guidelines. Providing the three bits of information above each time should make your review smooth. It shouldn't add more than a minute or two to the submission process.

 

I don't see anything on your cache page asking if you are going to check on the cache weekly. I do see the reviewer asking if you are able to make occasional (not weekly) visits to the cache for maintenance. This was driven though by a previous cache you had at this location where the cache was archived for non-maintenance issues.

 

Really, those questions never used to be asked. Not unless the reviewer had reason to believe that you had violated some of those conditions in the past. Our innocence was assumed, just as it is with the two checkboxes at the end of the submission form. While I understand, I guess... the need for such questions, they were not asked in the "old days", and I can understand the OP's frustrations, especially if his behavior in the past has been shown to be trustworthy. Unfortunately, (and this is said more to the OP than anything else) we won't be going back to those innocent times.

 

(also to the OP: The railroad rules are based upon trespass laws, not safety.)

Edited June 21, 2015 by knowschad

[Keystone]

I agree with Sapience Trek's assessment. You can expect extra scrutiny when you are re-hiding a cache at a spot where you previously had one, but allowed it to wither away from lack of maintenance.

 

In addition, let me answer a question you recently asked of your reviewer:

 

Why the newbie questions for every single geocache? Not a total pain, but it is like asking a kid if they know not to touch a hot stove, every time they enter the kitchen...even when they turn 18.

 

I ask EVERY hider, from newbie to veteran, to include basic information in their initial reviewer note: the type of cache container, how/where it is hidden, and compliance with any applicable land manager policies. The vast majority of cache owners receive that note one time, and then start including the information on all their cache submissions after that. They find their caches get published quite quickly after they leave a note saying "clear plastic container with a geocache label, hidden on the ground behind a tree."

 

I started asking those basic questions after growing tired of being surprised by cache placements that violate fundamental listing guidelines. You see enough emails and forum posts saying "why do you publish buried caches?" etc., and you decide to do something. It works!

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I agree with Sapience Trek's assessment. You can expect extra scrutiny when you are re-hiding a cache at a spot where you previously had one, but allowed it to wither away from lack of maintenance.

 

In addition, let me answer a question you recently asked of your reviewer:

 

Why the newbie questions for every single geocache? Not a total pain, but it is like asking a kid if they know not to touch a hot stove, every time they enter the kitchen...even when they turn 18.

 

I ask EVERY hider, from newbie to veteran, to include basic information in their initial reviewer note: the type of cache container, how/where it is hidden, and compliance with any applicable land manager policies. The vast majority of cache owners receive that note one time, and then start including the information on all their cache submissions after that. They find their caches get published quite quickly after they leave a note saying "clear plastic container with a geocache label, hidden on the ground behind a tree."

 

I started asking those basic questions after growing tired of being surprised by cache placements that violate fundamental listing guidelines. You see enough emails and forum posts saying "why do you publish buried caches?" etc., and you decide to do something. It works!

 

I include at least this much information with each submission ( years ago it was not required )....now caches submitted in the evening are sometimes found before I get up.....simply give the reviewer what they ask of you.

[+gpsblake]

 

I ask EVERY hider, from newbie to veteran, to include basic information in their initial reviewer note: the type of cache container, how/where it is hidden, and compliance with any applicable land manager policies.

 

Except some reviewers do this and some don't. One of these days, this inconsistent is going to land GS in major legal trouble. Say if someone dies and the reviewer FAILED to ask those questions but approved the geocache anyways.

 

If GS really wants to make those questions standard, then include a form to fill in that information upon submittal. Solves 90% of the problem right there.

[+Sapience Trek]

Except some reviewers do this and some don't. One of these days, this inconsistent is going to land GS in major legal trouble. Say if someone dies and the reviewer FAILED to ask those questions but approved the geocache anyways.

 

If GS really wants to make those questions standard, then include a form to fill in that information upon submittal. Solves 90% of the problem right there.

 

Geocaches are not reviewed with safety in mind. The questions asked do not make a cache "safe" to find. Mostly they are about complying with land manager requests and Groundspeak's own guidelines.

[+Touchstone]

Really, those questions never used to be asked.

 

I can remember being asked these types of questions back in 2004 or so. This is really nothing new IMO. The only difference (which isn't relevant to the OP's situation per se), is that now Disabled Listings are flagged at the time of a new submission, to bring the issue to the CO's attention. From my perspective, it seems like this new feature has actually made things more consistent, as it doesn't require a Reviewer to go fishing through each CO's Hide list to see if there's any issues that needs to be addressed.

[knowschad]

I agree with Sapience Trek's assessment. You can expect extra scrutiny when you are re-hiding a cache at a spot where you previously had one, but allowed it to wither away from lack of maintenance.

 

In addition, let me answer a question you recently asked of your reviewer:

 

Why the newbie questions for every single geocache? Not a total pain, but it is like asking a kid if they know not to touch a hot stove, every time they enter the kitchen...even when they turn 18.

 

I ask EVERY hider, from newbie to veteran, to include basic information in their initial reviewer note: the type of cache container, how/where it is hidden, and compliance with any applicable land manager policies. The vast majority of cache owners receive that note one time, and then start including the information on all their cache submissions after that. They find their caches get published quite quickly after they leave a note saying "clear plastic container with a geocache label, hidden on the ground behind a tree."

 

I started asking those basic questions after growing tired of being surprised by cache placements that violate fundamental listing guidelines. You see enough emails and forum posts saying "why do you publish buried caches?" etc., and you decide to do something. It works!

 

Thanks for the perspective from the reviewer's point of view. From your point of view, I don't blame you one bit. But from my POV and apparently the OP's, we would expect a certain amount of recognition after years of hiding good caches. To be treated as an unknown quantity after having proven ourselves is a bit disconcerting. Yeah, of course I can understand the concept of treating everybody equally, but I can also understand the concept of respecting somebody who has proven that they are worthy of your trust. Tough call, I'm sure. But I think that is where the OP is coming from, and certainly where I am coming from.

[knowschad]

Really, those questions never used to be asked.

 

I can remember being asked these types of questions back in 2004 or so. This is really nothing new IMO. The only difference (which isn't relevant to the OP's situation per se), is that now Disabled Listings are flagged at the time of a new submission, to bring the issue to the CO's attention. From my perspective, it seems like this new feature has actually made things more consistent, as it doesn't require a Reviewer to go fishing through each CO's Hide list to see if there's any issues that needs to be addressed.

 

I was not referring to the automated "You have disabled caches that need attention" question (or whatever the exact wording is). I was referring to questions about the container, where and how it is hidden, how a puzzle is to be solved, and so-on. Not saying that these don't need to be asked... perhaps they should have been asked 10 years ago. But at least with the reviewers that I had in the early days, they weren't. You were trusted until proven otherwise. I kind of liked that, you know?

[Pup Patrol]

But from my POV and apparently the OP's, we would expect a certain amount of recognition after years of hiding good caches.

 

Does the term "good caches" include the history of diligent owner maintenance?

 

A lot of people don't know that they should be posting a "needs maintenance" log along with their "found it" log.

 

Mentioning the poor condition of the cache/log/container in their "found it" log should alert the cache owner that something needs fixing.

 

After the maintenance has been performed, the cache owner should post an "owner maintenance" log.

 

The absence of "red wrenches" on a cache page doesn't really tell you anything. You need to read the logs of the finders.

 

Yeah, of course I can understand the concept of treating everybody equally, but I can also understand the concept of respecting somebody who has proven that they are worthy of your trust

 

Again, here we have (maybe) a situation where the Reviewer knows more than "we" do.

 

It's a bit unrealistic that the Reviewers should be asked to decide whether or not they can "trust" someone.

 

Why should one's "join date" matter to a Reviewer? Or one's cache placing history? Maybe the caches are all garbage because of lack of owner maintenance.

 

One side of the story is what we get here on the forums.

 

Communicating calmly and rationally with the Reviewer is a better option than airing one-sided rants on the forum.

 

 

B.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+GeoBain]

But from my POV and apparently the OP's, we would expect a certain amount of recognition after years of hiding good caches.

 

Conversely, I would expect a certain amount of scrutiny if I had previous problems with cache hides.

 

This was driven though by a previous cache you had at this location where the cache was archived for non-maintenance issues.

[knowschad]

But from my POV and apparently the OP's, we would expect a certain amount of recognition after years of hiding good caches.

 

Does the term "good caches" include the history of diligent owner maintenance?

 

A lot of people don't know that they should be posting a "needs maintenance" log along with their "found it" log.

 

Mentioning the poor condition of the cache/log/container in their "found it" log should alert the cache owner that something needs fixing.

 

After the maintenance has been performed, the cache owner should post an "owner maintenance" log.

 

The absence of "red wrenches" on a cache page doesn't really tell you anything. You need to read the logs of the finders.

 

Yeah, of course I can understand the concept of treating everybody equally, but I can also understand the concept of respecting somebody who has proven that they are worthy of your trust

 

Again, here we have (maybe) a situation where the Reviewer knows more than "we" do.

 

It's a bit unrealistic that the Reviewers should be asked to decide whether or not they can "trust" someone.

 

Why should one's "join date" matter to a Reviewer? Or one's cache placing history? Maybe the caches are all garbage because of lack of owner maintenance.

 

One side of the story is what we get here on the forums.

 

Communicating calmly and rationally with the Reviewer is a better option than airing one-sided rants on the forum.

 

 

B.

 

Check my caches. They are all open to your scrutiny. I was pretty clear, I think, about deserved respect vs. expected respect. You are not going to find a lack of maintenance or any problem with cache placing history. The "Join Date" that you refer to has to do with a relationship that is built over time.

 

I don't know if you were referring to me, or in general, when you mentioned "one-sided rants", but I don't believe that I am ranting in the least, if that is what you are referring to.

[knowschad]

But from my POV and apparently the OP's, we would expect a certain amount of recognition after years of hiding good caches.

Conversely, I would expect a certain amount of scrutiny if I had previous problems with cache hides.

Of course.

[Pup Patrol]

I don't know if you were referring to me, or in general, when you mentioned "one-sided rants", but I don't believe that I am ranting in the least, if that is what you are referring to.

 

No, I wasn't referring to you.

 

 

B.

[+T.D.M.22]

 

I ask EVERY hider, from newbie to veteran, to include basic information in their initial reviewer note: the type of cache container, how/where it is hidden, and compliance with any applicable land manager policies.

 

Except some reviewers do this and some don't. One of these days, this inconsistent is going to land GS in major legal trouble. Say if someone dies and the reviewer FAILED to ask those questions but approved the geocache anyways.

 

If GS really wants to make those questions standard, then include a form to fill in that information upon submittal. Solves 90% of the problem right there.

 

Even if a review has every reason to believe one can't survive finding a cache, and publishes it, it is neither the fault of the reviewer, or Groundspeak. They are only a listing service. They are as responsive as the map makers are if someone's driving somewhere and gets hit by a drunk driver. They are nearly providing information, what we do with that info is up to is.

[+ben31cache]

So, I bring up a subject and say my piece and then get told the problem is me.

 

It is getting harder and harder to place caches. The amount of hoops one now must jump through is making it very difficult for anyone to do anything out of the ordinary. It is almost like we can play, but only in the little sandbox, for which we're given.

 

Honestly, who the heck is going to sue the reviewers or GC in general? There are caches on the side of cliffs! If someone falls while trying to get it, whose fault is that?

 

It is exactly what I said up front, it sure seems like the reviewers are more and more like over-eager Home Owner Association board members. They want everything to be, look, and act the same. Some of the answers above seem to back this up.

 

The latest I got on a cache I just tried to publish is I now must go get the county's permission to place a cache on a county right of way. Like the county gives a hoot what is there. All this craziness is for, is to make it so difficult to do something out of the ordinary, that one simply says screw it and drops it all together. How is that good for the community?? What about the old phone booth caches? Would those now need the permission of the phone company to place them? Yes it is equivalent to this. I don't get it, obviously.

[+narcissa]

So, I bring up a subject and say my piece and then get told the problem is me.

 

It is getting harder and harder to place caches. The amount of hoops one now must jump through is making it very difficult for anyone to do anything out of the ordinary. It is almost like we can play, but only in the little sandbox, for which we're given.

 

Honestly, who the heck is going to sue the reviewers or GC in general? There are caches on the side of cliffs! If someone falls while trying to get it, whose fault is that?

 

It is exactly what I said up front, it sure seems like the reviewers are more and more like over-eager Home Owner Association board members. They want everything to be, look, and act the same. Some of the answers above seem to back this up.

 

The latest I got on a cache I just tried to publish is I now must go get the county's permission to place a cache on a county right of way. Like the county gives a hoot what is there. All this craziness is for, is to make it so difficult to do something out of the ordinary, that one simply says screw it and drops it all together. How is that good for the community?? What about the old phone booth caches? Would those now need the permission of the phone company to place them? Yes it is equivalent to this. I don't get it, obviously.

 

How hard is it to phone the county and ask?

[+niraD]

It is getting harder and harder to place caches.

Actually, in some places, it's much easier. A number of parks and open spaces around here now have official geocaching policies. As long as your cache meets their requirements, it has permission. You don't need to contact anyone.

 

Honestly, who the heck is going to sue the reviewers or GC in general? There are caches on the side of cliffs! If someone falls while trying to get it, whose fault is that?

It isn't about safety. It's about adequate permission. And it's about not having geocaching banned in more places than it is already banned.

 

Unfortunately, there have been incidents where adequate permission was not obtained. New listing guidelines and policies don't appear out of nowhere.

[Keystone]

Some context: the OP is trying to expand upon a growing "power trail" along a rural road. (All of the threads complaining about reviewers who publish power trails are hereby incorporated by reference.) So, here we have a reviewer who's trying to do the right thing. He explains that an isolated cache along a rural road is unlikely to attract attention, and can thus be published -- but if it grows into a power trail of similar caches, it's appropriate for the reviewer to ask more questions. (Similar questions were asked of the OP four years ago.) The question asked here: did the government agency responsible for the road and right-of-way grant permission? The response: insults to the reviewers and off-topic speculation about lawsuits against reviewers and Geocaching HQ. (The OP is advised to brush up on the forum guidelines to ensure a longer thread life.)

 

Ironically, I asked similar questions for a fellow who hid around 20 caches in close succession along a rural road in Ohio. I questioned the placements that were in view of private homes. That owner thanked me for being so careful! He said that he'd discussed the placements with the neighbors in most cases, but some of them weren't home. He voluntarily archived each cache in the power trail where he didn't have the permission conversation.

 

Two reviewers, same week, same application of the guidelines. But two VERY different cache hider reactions.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Keystone

[+cerberus1]

Thanks !

[knowschad]

So, I bring up a subject and say my piece and then get told the problem is me.

 

It is getting harder and harder to place caches. The amount of hoops one now must jump through is making it very difficult for anyone to do anything out of the ordinary. It is almost like we can play, but only in the little sandbox, for which we're given.

 

Honestly, who the heck is going to sue the reviewers or GC in general? There are caches on the side of cliffs! If someone falls while trying to get it, whose fault is that?

 

It is exactly what I said up front, it sure seems like the reviewers are more and more like over-eager Home Owner Association board members. They want everything to be, look, and act the same. Some of the answers above seem to back this up.

 

The latest I got on a cache I just tried to publish is I now must go get the county's permission to place a cache on a county right of way. Like the county gives a hoot what is there. All this craziness is for, is to make it so difficult to do something out of the ordinary, that one simply says screw it and drops it all together. How is that good for the community?? What about the old phone booth caches? Would those now need the permission of the phone company to place them? Yes it is equivalent to this. I don't get it, obviously.

 

How hard is it to phone the county and ask?

 

Who at the county are you going to ask for permission to hide a geocache on a right-of-way? Who has the authority to give that permission?

[knowschad]

I questioned the placements that were in view of private homes.

Man, I wish all reviewers would do that!

 

When you say that you "'questioned" it, though... does that mean that you would refuse to publish them, or simply that you wanted the hider to think about the appropriateness?

[Pup Patrol]

The question asked here: did the government agency responsible for the road and right-of-way grant permission?

 

Who at the county are you going to ask for permission to hide a geocache on a right-of-way? Who has the authority to give that permission?

 

B.

[Keystone]

I left the following note on all the caches where I had a concern about proximity to residences:

 

Hello, I am a volunteer for Geocaching.com, and I reviewed your cache submission. I see that the cache location is within view of a private residence. Over the years, "power trails" with stops near residences have led to angry confrontations between landowners and geocachers. Entire series of caches have been archived for this reason, including one in Ohio.

 

I'd like to know what permissions you've received for a cache placement at this location. This could include, for example, informing the nearby residents of the cache placement across the road from their property.

 

[standard instructions on how to respond]

 

CO responded by describing each permission conversation, in custom response notes that included names and phone numbers, and archiving a few where he wasn't quite sure. When published, this will be the friendliest stretch of caches on a back road within three counties, thanks to the owner's efforts. Makes me want to do the series by bike, as the CO recommends, and say hello to the friendly neighbors.

[+WarNinjas]

My only suggestion to you would be to try and work with your reviewer. If he/she says it is to close to a railroad track then move it further away. If they say you need to check on it once a week...well that is crazy and I in no way believe they said that, but say you will check on it and if you have not done that in the past make sure you are ready to check on it when needed.

I have tried to become friends with the reviewers as they are a important part of the game and most likely geocachers themselves. Do they still reject our cache hides from time to time? Yes for sure they do. I remember one time I finally met one of our reviewers in person and made a hide from the event we were at. Really nice guy and yes he didn't publish our cache that next day. A few quick changes and he did.

Coming here to complain about them I can't see making things better. Just listen to what they have to say and fix it. If the problem can't be fixed move on to your next idea.

[+Team Microdot]

Thanks for the perspective from the reviewer's point of view. From your point of view, I don't blame you one bit. But from my POV and apparently the OP's, we would expect a certain amount of recognition after years of hiding good caches. To be treated as an unknown quantity after having proven ourselves is a bit disconcerting. Yeah, of course I can understand the concept of treating everybody equally, but I can also understand the concept of respecting somebody who has proven that they are worthy of your trust. Tough call, I'm sure. But I think that is where the OP is coming from, and certainly where I am coming from.

 

It is perhaps worth remembering that there has been hue and cry in these forums and probably elsewhere about inconsistencies in reviewer practices between individual reviewers.

 

Can we have it both ways? Personal leeway and standard practices? Probably not.

 

While it is nice to have a good working relationship with your local reviewer, we do need to remember that for various reasons the caches we place won't always be published by our local reviewer, so standard practices need to be followed to ensure that any individual review process can be picked up by any individual reviewer, should that need arise for some reason i.e. sickness or vacation cover.

 

It's equally or possibly even more important that should any individual cache placement end up going to appeals and thus further scrutiny that it received treatment which is of equal standard to every other placement of its type.

[+L0ne.R]

1435025335[/url]' post='5516322']

So, I bring up a subject and say my piece and then get told the problem is me.

 

If we look at your hiding history are we going to see a record of quick attention to your caches when problems arise, including visiting each problem cache then archiving when you decide you no longer want to maintain it?

[+Dame Deco]

Power trail! Knew there had to be more to the story!

[+narcissa]

If the review process keeps careless hiders like this out of the game, then I'd say it's working effectively.

[+Walts Hunting]

No doubt there is a raised awareness of this issue after a huge geo Art of several hundred caches was recently totally archived as a result of problems with the locals when hordes of us suddenly showed up on their roads. The hobby keeps evolving and I hope never stops but there will be lessons learned that change the reviewers guidelines at times.

[+bflentje]

So, I bring up a subject and say my piece and then get told the problem is me.

 

It is getting harder and harder to place caches. The amount of hoops one now must jump through is making it very difficult for anyone to do anything out of the ordinary. It is almost like we can play, but only in the little sandbox, for which we're given.

 

Honestly, who the heck is going to sue the reviewers or GC in general? There are caches on the side of cliffs! If someone falls while trying to get it, whose fault is that?

 

It is exactly what I said up front, it sure seems like the reviewers are more and more like over-eager Home Owner Association board members. They want everything to be, look, and act the same. Some of the answers above seem to back this up.

 

The latest I got on a cache I just tried to publish is I now must go get the county's permission to place a cache on a county right of way. Like the county gives a hoot what is there. All this craziness is for, is to make it so difficult to do something out of the ordinary, that one simply says screw it and drops it all together. How is that good for the community?? What about the old phone booth caches? Would those now need the permission of the phone company to place them? Yes it is equivalent to this. I don't get it, obviously.

 

How hard is it to phone the county and ask?

 

Who at the county are you going to ask for permission to hide a geocache on a right-of-way? Who has the authority to give that permission?

 

Most rural roads in MN, at least the gravel roads, are owned by the township and not the county.

[+bflentje]

I questioned the placements that were in view of private homes.

Man, I wish all reviewers would do that!

 

When you say that you "'questioned" it, though... does that mean that you would refuse to publish them, or simply that you wanted the hider to think about the appropriateness?

 

On my unpure and imperfect trail of Wherigos, I went out of my way to make sure they weren't in line of sight of any residence or homestead.

[+GeoTrekker26]

1435025335[/url]' post='5516322']

So, I bring up a subject and say my piece and then get told the problem is me.

 

If we look at your hiding history are we going to see a record of quick attention to your caches when problems arise, including visiting each problem cache then archiving when you decide you no longer want to maintain it?

 

You mean like those on his power trail that sat unattended 6 to 8 months after maintenance was needed and were finally archived by a reviewer.

[+MountainWoods]

As I read this I'm a bit amused.

 

On one hand folks are complaining about the attention to detail that the reviewers are giving to new caches.

 

Other forum threads complain that the hobby is going to pot because of poor hides; and why do reviewers allow such things?

 

Sounds like you can't win as a reviewer. You're either not ensuring the quality of the hobby, or you're trying to over-ensure the quality.

 

Bah! Humbug!

[+AustinMN]

As I read this I'm a bit amused.

 

On one hand folks are complaining about the attention to detail that the reviewers are giving to new caches.

 

Other forum threads complain that the hobby is going to pot because of poor hides; and why do reviewers allow such things?

 

Sounds like you can't win as a reviewer. You're either not ensuring the quality of the hobby, or you're trying to over-ensure the quality.

 

Bah! Humbug!

 

It has been said, no matter how you cache, it is wrong.

[knowschad]

As I read this I'm a bit amused.

 

On one hand folks are complaining about the attention to detail that the reviewers are giving to new caches.

 

Other forum threads complain that the hobby is going to pot because of poor hides; and why do reviewers allow such things?

 

Sounds like you can't win as a reviewer. You're either not ensuring the quality of the hobby, or you're trying to over-ensure the quality.

 

Bah! Humbug!

 

I want reviewers to question everybody but me. What's so wrong with that?

[+Mn-treker]

So, I bring up a subject and say my piece and then get told the problem is me.

 

It is getting harder and harder to place caches. The amount of hoops one now must jump through is making it very difficult for anyone to do anything out of the ordinary. It is almost like we can play, but only in the little sandbox, for which we're given.

 

Honestly, who the heck is going to sue the reviewers or GC in general? There are caches on the side of cliffs! If someone falls while trying to get it, whose fault is that?

 

It is exactly what I said up front, it sure seems like the reviewers are more and more like over-eager Home Owner Association board members. They want everything to be, look, and act the same. Some of the answers above seem to back this up.

 

The latest I got on a cache I just tried to publish is I now must go get the county's permission to place a cache on a county right of way. Like the county gives a hoot what is there. All this craziness is for, is to make it so difficult to do something out of the ordinary, that one simply says screw it and drops it all together. How is that good for the community?? What about the old phone booth caches? Would those now need the permission of the phone company to place them? Yes it is equivalent to this. I don't get it, obviously.

 

How hard is it to phone the county and ask?

 

Who at the county are you going to ask for permission to hide a geocache on a right-of-way? Who has the authority to give that permission?

 

Most rural roads in MN, at least the gravel roads, are owned by the township and not the county.

 

Those township roads also have different ROW rules. I currently own land with a township road.

I own the land the road is on as well as the ditch on both sides of the road.

The township owns the ROW for the road and utilities only. Also the distance for the ROW is not the same from the center line on township roads. I can prohibit trespass in the ditch.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Mn-treker

[+Mn-treker]

We all need to help the reviewers to keep up on changing rules also.

I went to make my first hide and found a city ordinance about it.

The reviewer did not know, but does now and uses it for that city.

[+Walts Hunting]

As I read this I'm a bit amused.

 

On one hand folks are complaining about the attention to detail that the reviewers are giving to new caches.

 

Other forum threads complain that the hobby is going to pot because of poor hides; and why do reviewers allow such things?

 

Sounds like you can't win as a reviewer. You're either not ensuring the quality of the hobby, or you're trying to over-ensure the quality.

 

Bah! Humbug!

 

I want reviewers to question everybody but me. What's so wrong with that?

I agree never question one of my hides or I will complain in the forums where most of the responders will roast me.

[+narcissa]

As I read this I'm a bit amused.

 

On one hand folks are complaining about the attention to detail that the reviewers are giving to new caches.

 

Other forum threads complain that the hobby is going to pot because of poor hides; and why do reviewers allow such things?

 

Sounds like you can't win as a reviewer. You're either not ensuring the quality of the hobby, or you're trying to over-ensure the quality.

 

Bah! Humbug!

 

It has been said, no matter how you cache, it is wrong.

 

+1

[+bflentje]

So, I bring up a subject and say my piece and then get told the problem is me.

 

It is getting harder and harder to place caches. The amount of hoops one now must jump through is making it very difficult for anyone to do anything out of the ordinary. It is almost like we can play, but only in the little sandbox, for which we're given.

 

Honestly, who the heck is going to sue the reviewers or GC in general? There are caches on the side of cliffs! If someone falls while trying to get it, whose fault is that?

 

It is exactly what I said up front, it sure seems like the reviewers are more and more like over-eager Home Owner Association board members. They want everything to be, look, and act the same. Some of the answers above seem to back this up.

 

The latest I got on a cache I just tried to publish is I now must go get the county's permission to place a cache on a county right of way. Like the county gives a hoot what is there. All this craziness is for, is to make it so difficult to do something out of the ordinary, that one simply says screw it and drops it all together. How is that good for the community?? What about the old phone booth caches? Would those now need the permission of the phone company to place them? Yes it is equivalent to this. I don't get it, obviously.

 

How hard is it to phone the county and ask?

 

Who at the county are you going to ask for permission to hide a geocache on a right-of-way? Who has the authority to give that permission?

 

Most rural roads in MN, at least the gravel roads, are owned by the township and not the county.

 

Those township roads also have different ROW rules. I currently own land with a township road.

I own the land the road is on as well as the ditch on both sides of the road.

The township owns the ROW for the road and utilities only. Also the distance for the ROW is not the same from the center line on township roads. I can prohibit trespass in the ditch.

 

That's great for you. I was merely pointing out that contacting the county on just some arbitrary rural road isn't going to cut it.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

So, I bring up a subject and say my piece and then get told the problem is me.

 

It is getting harder and harder to place caches. The amount of hoops one now must jump through is making it very difficult for anyone to do anything out of the ordinary. It is almost like we can play, but only in the little sandbox, for which we're given.

 

Honestly, who the heck is going to sue the reviewers or GC in general? There are caches on the side of cliffs! If someone falls while trying to get it, whose fault is that?

 

It is exactly what I said up front, it sure seems like the reviewers are more and more like over-eager Home Owner Association board members. They want everything to be, look, and act the same. Some of the answers above seem to back this up.

 

The latest I got on a cache I just tried to publish is I now must go get the county's permission to place a cache on a county right of way. Like the county gives a hoot what is there. All this craziness is for, is to make it so difficult to do something out of the ordinary, that one simply says screw it and drops it all together. How is that good for the community?? What about the old phone booth caches? Would those now need the permission of the phone company to place them? Yes it is equivalent to this. I don't get it, obviously.

 

How hard is it to phone the county and ask?

 

Who at the county are you going to ask for permission to hide a geocache on a right-of-way? Who has the authority to give that permission?

 

And that's why I won't hides on Rights of Way.