Beyond Frustrated! 3 Time in a row Cache not approved!

[MustachioGeo]

I love this hobby and am trying so hard to be apart of it by giving back. But the utter insanity and strictness of placing caches is driving me up the wall! I'm about ready to give up.

 

Groundspeak! Make it possible to place or check locations while out in the field before placing rather than me coming all the way back home to find out on your website it's not.

 

But here's the kicker and denials!

 

1) Placed one to close, o.k that's fair, it was on the cusp but o.k.

 

2) Placed again in a area where none are found. Denied cause there was a PREMIUM close. O.k Sighs!

 

3) Placed again, PREMIUM now, nothing in the area, sweet! DENIED. A HIDDEN WAY POINT is part of the area you are in so it's to close.

 

I don't swear to often especially because this is a family friendly hobby. But seriously What the fudge!?

 

Add a quick check app that the area I am in is free to place a cache, is that so hard? Seriously? Just a little button (Current Location Free to Place) Comes back (Yes or No)

 

Sighs. Other than that, I appreciate and love the community, it has nothing to do with you wonderful people. Just wondering if anyone has been dealing with the same frustrations.

 

Seriously a simple little check on the app, thats all I want. Make it easier for others to contribute.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Sapience Trek
[ removal of potty language ]

[+fizzymagic]

Seriously a simple little check on the app, thats all I want. Make it easier for others to contribute.

 

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but your suggestion would reveal the locations of mystery caches without solving the puzzles, so it does not work. The solutions can be found with a surprisingly small number of queries.

 

My recommendation is to try to hide a cache in a less cache-dense area.

Edited February 26, 2016 by fizzymagic

[+Sapience Trek]

Please note that leaving out a few letters in a cuss word and replacing them with "*" is still not appropriate. I edited your original post.

 

Putting in a check to verify a location for proximity against premium and multi/puzzle caches is something that is unlikely to ever be implemented. It would be easily abused as one could determine the hidden final location of a puzzle or multi cache.

 

Before going out it makes sense to do research in an area, find all the puzzles and multis that you can. Yes, you might have to relocate, it happens. And it becomes harder when there are premium caches around.

 

I've hidden over 150 caches, and this still happens to me when I return and type it up. No biggie - an excuse to get outside again and move the cache further down the trail.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Add a quick check app that the area I am in is free to place a cache, is that so hard?

 

The reason it hasn't happened (and won't happen) isn't the doing it would be "hard" - it's that a "clear" "not clear" check would be quickly be used to "battleship" the locations of Mystery and Multi finals. would not take much sophistication at all to abuse such a tool.

 

You do have my sympathies on the difficulty of placing. At one time, the world was wide opened for new caches, and now it's not.

There are now so many caches with so many hidden stages, that the idea finding them all in any region of any size is laughable.

[+Touchstone]

The frustration you feel is quite common. The best way to alleviate the symptoms is to go out caching. After that, it might be wise (and helpful in retaining your sanity), to try the following:

 

1. Find a neat spot that you'd like to share with others and jot down the coordinates, but don't hide the container just yet.

 

2. Go home and write up a brief Listing page with the proposed coordinates and submit it for a Coordinate Check.

 

3. If all goes well, and the Local Reviewer gives you the green light, make up an amazing cache and return to the spot and place it (wouldn't hurt to double check the coordinates as well).

 

4. Go back home, make the finishing touches on your new Listing page, and submit it for Review.

 

The following scenario is brought to you by the the following Help Center article:

 

Checking for Geocache Saturation

[+TriciaG]

I've got nothing to add, but just thought I'd give you a wave from a little further down the 401.

[MustachioGeo]

I still think a simple (yes or no) to an area would suffice. Obviously not to reveal why or why not, just that it's not allowed or is. Considering the 521 feet of which I guess would narrow it down for someone, well frankly doesn't really in my opinion.

 

Sorry it's just if your on the website you can check this, and I'd like to skip a step rather than waste time, energy and hiding.

[MustachioGeo]

I've got nothing to add, but just thought I'd give you a wave from a little further down the 401.

 

Waving back

[+Touchstone]

I still think a simple (yes or no) to an area would suffice. Obviously not to reveal why or why not, just that it's not allowed or is. Considering the 521 feet of which I guess would narrow it down for someone, well frankly doesn't really in my opinion.

 

Sorry it's just if your on the website you can check this, and I'd like to skip a step rather than waste time, energy and hiding.

It's not clear that you appreciate the "battleship" aspects of the problem clearly. I've had this demonstrated to me (and I've actually seen a few Puzzles based on the same concept), and it is very trivial to hack. I think I'm pretty safe in saying, it ain't going to happen.

[MustachioGeo]

I still think a simple (yes or no) to an area would suffice. Obviously not to reveal why or why not, just that it's not allowed or is. Considering the 521 feet of which I guess would narrow it down for someone, well frankly doesn't really in my opinion.

 

Sorry it's just if your on the website you can check this, and I'd like to skip a step rather than waste time, energy and hiding.

It's not clear that you appreciate the "battleship" aspects of the problem clearly. I've had this demonstrated to me (and I've actually seen a few Puzzles based on the same concept), and it is very trivial to hack. I think I'm pretty safe in saying, it ain't going to happen.

 

I'd imagine if someone who is into this hobby would do that they don't really appreciate it very much and only cheat themselves. But on the whole what do you think the likely hood of that being a high percentage of people? Really.

[+Manville Possum]

Try this.

 

Coordinate check with local reviewer:

 

If you are still concerned about encountering the hidden parts of other geocaches, you may contact a community volunteer reviewer for a saturation check with your proposed coordinates. This should be done before placing the geocache container.

 

Create a geocache listing, with a title like "Coordinate Check". You can add additional waypoints if you'd like more than one spot checked (such as by using stages of a multi-cache).

Add a Reviewer Note explaining that the geocache is not in place and you would like a saturation check.

Either enable the geocache, or email your reviewer with the GC Code.

To find your local reviewer, check for a recent published log on a nearby geocache.

[+Touchstone]

I still think a simple (yes or no) to an area would suffice. Obviously not to reveal why or why not, just that it's not allowed or is. Considering the 521 feet of which I guess would narrow it down for someone, well frankly doesn't really in my opinion.

 

Sorry it's just if your on the website you can check this, and I'd like to skip a step rather than waste time, energy and hiding.

It's not clear that you appreciate the "battleship" aspects of the problem clearly. I've had this demonstrated to me (and I've actually seen a few Puzzles based on the same concept), and it is very trivial to hack. I think I'm pretty safe in saying, it ain't going to happen.

 

I'd imagine if someone who is into this hobby would do that they don't really appreciate it very much and only cheat themselves. But on the whole what do you think the likely hood of that being a high percentage of people? Really.

Not only would a fair number of people do it, but I predict that there would be tutorials on social media on how to do it. Don't underestimate the attraction of "gaming the system".

[+cerberus1]

I still think a simple (yes or no) to an area would suffice. Obviously not to reveal why or why not, just that it's not allowed or is. Considering the 521 feet of which I guess would narrow it down for someone, well frankly doesn't really in my opinion.

 

Sorry it's just if your on the website you can check this, and I'd like to skip a step rather than waste time, energy and hiding.

It's not clear that you appreciate the "battleship" aspects of the problem clearly. I've had this demonstrated to me (and I've actually seen a few Puzzles based on the same concept), and it is very trivial to hack. I think I'm pretty safe in saying, it ain't going to happen.

 

I'd imagine if someone who is into this hobby would do that they don't really appreciate it very much and only cheat themselves. But on the whole what do you think the likely hood of that being a high percentage of people? Really.

Not only would a fair number of people do it, but I predict that there would be tutorials on social media on how to do it. Don't underestimate the attraction of "gaming the system".

+1

Just a fluke that my other 2/3rds was at an event were a couple folks were explaining how a new powertrail on a bike run made a mystery/puzzle series we had easy.

She wasn't too happy.

Only empty spaces on the map, as accurate as our coords to 'em.

- Archived 'em the next day, as they sure weren't a "mystery" anymore...

[Keystone]

I still think a simple (yes or no) to an area would suffice. Obviously not to reveal why or why not, just that it's not allowed or is. Considering the 521 feet of which I guess would narrow it down for someone, well frankly doesn't really in my opinion.

 

Sorry it's just if your on the website you can check this, and I'd like to skip a step rather than waste time, energy and hiding.

It's not clear that you appreciate the "battleship" aspects of the problem clearly. I've had this demonstrated to me (and I've actually seen a few Puzzles based on the same concept), and it is very trivial to hack. I think I'm pretty safe in saying, it ain't going to happen.

 

I'd imagine if someone who is into this hobby would do that they don't really appreciate it very much and only cheat themselves. But on the whole what do you think the likely hood of that being a high percentage of people? Really.

Let me retell my favorite "battleshipping the puzzle cache" story to rebut your speculation.

 

Many years ago, a really, really hard puzzle cache was hidden, and I was the publishing reviewer. A year or more passed, and nobody could crack it. The LEADING geocachers in that region -- people who appreciate the hobby "very much" -- knew that that the actual cache had to be within two miles of the posted "bogus" coordinates, and set about placing caches in each 528 foot circle within that two-mile range that could support a cache. After a dozen or so caches, I figured out what they were up to. When one "battleship" cache was placed less than 200 feet of the actual puzzle cache location, I published that cache without comment. The puzzle location remained a mystery, and it was never solved (though it was quite solvable). Winners: Keystone and the owner of the puzzle cache.

 

That's the benefit of having a human involved in the process instead of the automated "yes/no" system you're requesting.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I still think a simple (yes or no) to an area would suffice. Obviously not to reveal why or why not, just that it's not allowed or is. Considering the 521 feet of which I guess would narrow it down for someone, well frankly doesn't really in my opinion.

 

Sorry it's just if your on the website you can check this, and I'd like to skip a step rather than waste time, energy and hiding.

It's not clear that you appreciate the "battleship" aspects of the problem clearly. I've had this demonstrated to me (and I've actually seen a few Puzzles based on the same concept), and it is very trivial to hack. I think I'm pretty safe in saying, it ain't going to happen.

 

I'd imagine if someone who is into this hobby would do that they don't really appreciate it very much and only cheat themselves. But on the whole what do you think the likely hood of that being a high percentage of people? Really.

Let me retell my favorite "battleshipping the puzzle cache" story to rebut your speculation.

 

Many years ago, a really, really hard puzzle cache was hidden, and I was the publishing reviewer. A year or more passed, and nobody could crack it. The LEADING geocachers in that region -- people who appreciate the hobby "very much" -- knew that that the actual cache had to be within two miles of the posted "bogus" coordinates, and set about placing caches in each 528 foot circle within that two-mile range that could support a cache. After a dozen or so caches, I figured out what they were up to. When one "battleship" cache was placed less than 200 feet of the actual puzzle cache location, I published that cache without comment. The puzzle location remained a mystery, and it was never solved (though it was quite solvable). Winners: Keystone and the owner of the puzzle cache.

 

That's the benefit of having a human involved in the process instead of the automated "yes/no" system you're requesting.

This is the old school method of battleshipping the location of mystery caches. The reviewers have gotten pretty good at catching it when it (still) happens, so it isn't done very often anymore (err, I presume). If a simple Yes/No button were introduced by Groundspeak, just about every mystery/multi cache would be open to being battleshipped to death. And that is by people who LOVE geocaching. They just don't really want to solve puzzles or find multicaches.

[+Viajero Perdido]

At one time, the world was wide opened for new caches, and now it's not.

I would say, at one time, the cities were wide open for new caches, and now they're not.

 

There's still plenty of space in the woods.

And if not, I want to come visit your woods!

[+niraD]

This seems to have been overlooked the first time around, and it really deserves to be read...

 

The frustration you feel is quite common. The best way to alleviate the symptoms is to go out caching. After that, it might be wise (and helpful in retaining your sanity), to try the following:

 

1. Find a neat spot that you'd like to share with others and jot down the coordinates, but don't hide the container just yet.

 

2. Go home and write up a brief Listing page with the proposed coordinates and submit it for a Coordinate Check.

 

3. If all goes well, and the Local Reviewer gives you the green light, make up an amazing cache and return to the spot and place it (wouldn't hurt to double check the coordinates as well).

 

4. Go back home, make the finishing touches on your new Listing page, and submit it for Review.

 

The following scenario is brought to you by the the following Help Center article:

 

Checking for Geocache Saturation

[+MartyBartfast]

When one "battleship" cache was placed less than 200 feet of the actual puzzle cache location, I published that cache without comment.

 

I just love that :lol: :lol: :lol:

[+J Grouchy]

A couple years ago, a particularly difficult puzzle was published in our area which was essentially there to taunt another local puzzler who would try to battleship puzzle caches. How do I know? It was named "Battleship".

 

It's since been archived...no solves.

[Keystone]

Also, I don't get why a hider couldn't just open the Planning Map in the field, using the cellphone's web browser. It doesn't need to be an app to work outside.

[+ChileHead]

The game of "reviewer battleship" happens so much I even made a cache poking fun at it, where you have to play an actual game of battleship in order to find the cache:

 

http://coord.info/GC2XBTG

[+on4bam]

Also, I don't get why a hider couldn't just open the Planning Map in the field, using the cellphone's web browser. It doesn't need to be an app to work outside.

 

Maybe because his problem would still be the same. Not knowing if his chosen spot is not within 161m from a hidden WP.

[+Touchstone]

Also, I don't get why a hider couldn't just open the Planning Map in the field, using the cellphone's web browser. It doesn't need to be an app to work outside.

 

Maybe because his problem would still be the same. Not knowing if his chosen spot is not within 161m from a hidden WP.

I think that's pretty much a given for any urban hide. I'd be more surprised to find an open spot to place a cache.

[+narcissa]

If you want to place a cache in the city, the most efficient way to find a good spot is to set up notifications for cache archivals and then grab the spot before someone else does.

 

The problem here isn't that Groundspeak won't tell you where the caches are. The problem is that you are trying to hide caches in places that don't need new caches. If going further afield to place a cache isn't realistic for you, then don't worry about "giving back" right now. You're not obligated to place caches, particularly when your area is already well-served by other geocachers.

[+AustinMN]

If you want to place a cache in the city, the most efficient way to find a good spot is to set up notifications for cache archivals and then grab the spot before someone else does.

 

The problem here isn't that Groundspeak won't tell you where the caches are. The problem is that you are trying to hide caches in places that don't need new caches. If going further afield to place a cache isn't realistic for you, then don't worry about "giving back" right now. You're not obligated to place caches, particularly when your area is already well-served by other geocachers.

 

+1.

[+JL_HSTRE]

When you find a good spot check for any multis, mysteries, or Wherigos within 1 mile. If there are any then it is a good opportunity to do those caches and save the waypoints for your reference. That will eliminate most issues with hidden waypoints.

[Keystone]

Great advice, Joshism.

 

I usually say "two miles" for mystery caches since that is specified in the listing guidelines as the maximum distance between a mystery cache's published "bogus" coordinates and the actual cache location's coordinates. But the overwhelming majority of multicaches and Wherigo caches end within a mile of the starting point (like in the same park or forest or neighborhood). Of course, CMMV.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If you want to place a cache in the city, the most efficient way to find a good spot is to set up notifications for cache archivals and then grab the spot before someone else does.

 

The problem here isn't that Groundspeak won't tell you where the caches are. The problem is that you are trying to hide caches in places that don't need new caches. If going further afield to place a cache isn't realistic for you, then don't worry about "giving back" right now. You're not obligated to place caches, particularly when your area is already well-served by other geocachers.

 

+1 from me too. I've seen threads in the past with complaints about "all the good spots are taken" then looking at a local map I see pretty much all of the caches are with 100-200' from a road.

[knowschad]

If you want to place a cache in the city, the most efficient way to find a good spot is to set up notifications for cache archivals and then grab the spot before someone else does.

 

The problem here isn't that Groundspeak won't tell you where the caches are. The problem is that you are trying to hide caches in places that don't need new caches. If going further afield to place a cache isn't realistic for you, then don't worry about "giving back" right now. You're not obligated to place caches, particularly when your area is already well-served by other geocachers.

 

That is a very practical suggestion!

[+TofuKat]

You don't have to "give back" by placing a cache. Some areas that don't even have a high saturation on the map are still "saturated" in the sense that you might not be putting up quality/safe/fun caches. This is always up for debate of course.

 

Also, think about how much you can handle. Are you ok with driving around to replace logs, containers, etc. just because you can put a cache in a spot?

[+WarNinjas]

When one "battleship" cache was placed less than 200 feet of the actual puzzle cache location, I published that cache without comment.

That is very cool!

 

To the original poster. You need to just realize it is part of the game. Finding a spot is part of it. We have been playing for over 4 years and have out almost 200 hides. We still get ones blocked on the regular. I would guess about 100 or so have been blocked. I just keep it as part of the game and never let it bother me. Sometimes the cache blocking our hide is our own. I am always ashamed when that happens!