Reviewer won't publish cache

[+WK2Trailhawk]

I recently hid a cache while in Arizona that was refused by the reviewer due to the distance to where I currently reside. I was not on holiday or traveling through the area. I explained to the reviewer that I have friends and family throughout the state as well as a house less than 50 miles from my hiding spot. I am very familiar with the area and do a lot of caching in the state while I am there. Due to my connections and property, I frequent the area quite often.

 

I spent a lot of time, effort, money, research and thought into this cache and was very excited to get it published. A quick look at my caches will show that I do not build crappy caches that seemed to be littered everywhere. I have good reviews and Fav percentages on my caches and I don't expect this to be any different. Though this particular cache is nothing new, it is a very rugged watertight ammo can with a sealed log book in a beautiful location. Unlike tins and film canisters which seem to be everywhere and are constantly not maintained this cache is meant to go the distance with minimal maintenance.

 

I don't understand why a cache builder like myself should be discouraged from building good quality caches. In a world full of pill bottles filled with wet logs I would think that quality caches would be encouraged. So many caches are placed and then never taken care of which is unfortunate. For those cachers that are strictly out for the numbers then may I suggest the "Heart of the Mohave" series. There is literally a pill bottle under a rock every hundred yards for a hundred miles. Not my style.

 

Anyway, here is my conversation.

 

Reviewers notes:

 

I'm just reviewing your cache and noticed that it is 325 miles from your home coordinates. Placing caches while on holiday or outside of your normal caching area may result in your cache not being approved unless can show you have a maintenance plan in place. This is the relevant part of the cache maintenance guidelines: Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, we ask that you place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while on a vacation or business trip. It is best when you live within a manageable distance from the cache placements to allow for return visits. Geocaches placed during travel may not be published unless you are able to demonstrate an acceptable maintenance plan, which must allow for a quick response to reported problems. An acceptable maintenance plan might include the username of a local geocacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache page. You may view the full guideline here http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=307#maint

 

Before I can finish reviewing your cache, I need to know how it will be properly maintained.

 

I am temporarily disabling your cache so you can provide the information requested. When you're ready for me to review the cache again either enable it from the cache page (Navigation box on the top right) and add any information or questions in the comments box or if you are editing the cache tick the box 'Yes this listing is active' and add any information in the 'Note to reviewer' box at the bottom. This will bring it back to the top of the queue for review.

 

My reply:

 

If you check the caches that I own you find that I get favorable comments and good Fav percentages. I don't just throw a pill container under a rock or lamp post and call it good. I spend a lot of time, effort and money building and placing quality caches. which the hobby could use more of.

 

I don't feel it necessary to explain my circumstances, but here goes. I am a graduate of Northern Arizona University. I have friends and family throughout the state. As well, I have property in Prescott and plan on making this my home in the future. As such, I frequent the area several times a year. When I do make Arizona my home again, I intend to place more quality caches in the state. I am not just "passing through"

 

I ask that you please reconsider.

 

Reviewers reply:

 

Pleas see previous reviewer note requesting you plan for how you will care for this cache as it is over 300 miles from your listed home location.

[+narcissa]

So... your point is that you don't have a maintenance plan?

[Cascade Reviewer]

Hi!

 

I know that visiting an area several times a year feels like a lot, but if a cache needs maintenance, it's not fair to the community to wait several months until you can get back to take care of it.

 

I think that you will find that if you give your reviewer a specific maintenance plan and a local geocacher's information, you should be just fine.

 

Here's the info from the Groundspeak's help center about maintenance:

 

 

Geocache owners must visit their caches to maintain them. Log books fill up, cache contents get wet, or the cache can disappear. If you live far away from your cache, timely maintenance is impossible. It’s best to place physical caches in your usual caching area.

 

Maintenance plan

 

If you do place a geocache while traveling, you must have a maintenance plan. For example, a local geocacher agrees to maintain the cache in your absence. When you submit your cache, document your plan in a Reviewer Note. Include the local geocacher’s username, contact information, and written consent. Information in Reviewer Notes will auto-archive on publication and will not be available to other players.

[+lee737]

The first cache you hid was archived by a reviewer..... not completely inspiring from a cache maintenance point of view......

[+J Grouchy]

I think all the reviewer is looking for is assurance that someone can maintain the cache in a timely manner - be it you or someone you know that is closer to the cache. If you have family close by, maybe one of them can help you out on occasion.

[+cerberus1]

So, rather than kinda give the volunteer Reviewer a hard time, did you include a usename of a local geocacher (or train one of your friends/family), who'll handle maintenance in your absence?

 

Sorry, but that seems pretty simple (to me).

[+Mudfrog]

Hi!

 

I know that visiting an area several times a year feels like a lot, but if a cache needs maintenance, it's not fair to the community to wait several months until you can get back to take care of it.

 

I think that you will find that if you give your reviewer a specific maintenance plan and a local geocacher's information, you should be just fine.

 

Here's the info from the Groundspeak's help center about maintenance:

 

 

Geocache owners must visit their caches to maintain them. Log books fill up, cache contents get wet, or the cache can disappear. If you live far away from your cache, timely maintenance is impossible. It’s best to place physical caches in your usual caching area.

 

Maintenance plan

 

If you do place a geocache while traveling, you must have a maintenance plan. For example, a local geocacher agrees to maintain the cache in your absence. When you submit your cache, document your plan in a Reviewer Note. Include the local geocacher’s username, contact information, and written consent. Information in Reviewer Notes will auto-archive on publication and will not be available to other players.

 

The OP needed to be more to the point. Giving the reviewer details about friends, family, and schooling doesn't really help anything. The reviewer is asking for a maintenance plan so the OP needs to give him or her one. Doesn't have to be elaborate, just that a cache problem can be dealt with in a timely manner. Visiting "several times" a year is too broad,, this number needs to be more specific.

[+hzoi]

If a cache is outside of your local area, you have to have a maintenance plan. And it can't be a secret, you have to let the reviewer know what it is.

 

If you have a maintenance plan for the times between your visits, share it with the reviewer. Actually providing this information and demonstrating that this is not just a vacation cache may he;lp your cause. Being defensive and withholding information, not so much. (Bringing your case to the forums when you appear to be on the wrong side pof the hiding guidelines, also not helpful.)

[Cascade Reviewer]

Hi!

 

I know that visiting an area several times a year feels like a lot, but if a cache needs maintenance, it's not fair to the community to wait several months until you can get back to take care of it.

 

I think that you will find that if you give your reviewer a specific maintenance plan and a local geocacher's information, you should be just fine.

 

Here's the info from the Groundspeak's help center about maintenance:

 

 

Geocache owners must visit their caches to maintain them. Log books fill up, cache contents get wet, or the cache can disappear. If you live far away from your cache, timely maintenance is impossible. It’s best to place physical caches in your usual caching area.

 

Maintenance plan

 

If you do place a geocache while traveling, you must have a maintenance plan. For example, a local geocacher agrees to maintain the cache in your absence. When you submit your cache, document your plan in a Reviewer Note. Include the local geocacher’s username, contact information, and written consent. Information in Reviewer Notes will auto-archive on publication and will not be available to other players.

 

The OP needed to be more to the point. Giving the reviewer details about friends, family, and schooling doesn't really help anything. The reviewer is asking for a maintenance plan so the OP needs to give him or her one. Doesn't have to be elaborate, just that a cache problem can be dealt with in a timely manner. Visiting "several times" a year is too broad,, this number needs to be more specific.

 

I can't tell if you're agreeing with my post, or disagreeing with it.

[+Manville Possum]

So the OP lives in California and wants to place a cache in Arizona without a maintenance plan so they make a thread calling out their reviewer?

 

I agree with the reviewer.

[+Sapience Trek]

All caches should have a maintenance plan. Your reviewer doesn't know your visitation plans, so the more details you can leave about who will be maintaining the cache while you are gone the better.

 

Also - it appears your cache is just a few feet from the RR track. That in itself might be a bigger problem.

[+Team DEMP]

Make something up! Would have been less effort than posting here and still not having your cache approved.

[+Mudfrog]

Hi!

 

I know that visiting an area several times a year feels like a lot, but if a cache needs maintenance, it's not fair to the community to wait several months until you can get back to take care of it.

 

I think that you will find that if you give your reviewer a specific maintenance plan and a local geocacher's information, you should be just fine.

 

Here's the info from the Groundspeak's help center about maintenance:

 

 

Geocache owners must visit their caches to maintain them. Log books fill up, cache contents get wet, or the cache can disappear. If you live far away from your cache, timely maintenance is impossible. It’s best to place physical caches in your usual caching area.

 

Maintenance plan

 

If you do place a geocache while traveling, you must have a maintenance plan. For example, a local geocacher agrees to maintain the cache in your absence. When you submit your cache, document your plan in a Reviewer Note. Include the local geocacher’s username, contact information, and written consent. Information in Reviewer Notes will auto-archive on publication and will not be available to other players.

 

The OP needed to be more to the point. Giving the reviewer details about friends, family, and schooling doesn't really help anything. The reviewer is asking for a maintenance plan so the OP needs to give him or her one. Doesn't have to be elaborate, just that a cache problem can be dealt with in a timely manner. Visiting "several times" a year is too broad,, this number needs to be more specific.

 

I can't tell if you're agreeing with my post, or disagreeing with it.

I'm agreeing that the reviewer needs something more substantial to go on. The word "several" is a bit broad and needs to be replaced with an actual number. Being a reviewer, and if everything else looked good, would the cache pass publishing muster if the OP had stated that he would be visiting the area monthly and could check on the cache at those times if necessary?

[+Manville Possum]

Make something up! Would have been less effort than posting here and still not having your cache approved.

 

Are you suggesting lying just to get it approved?

[+Team Microdot]

Make something up! Would have been less effort than posting here and still not having your cache approved.

 

Are you suggesting lying just to get it approved?

 

It does seem so

[+Hynz]

If you have a maintenance plan for the times between your visits, share it with the reviewer.

I've not investigated into the OPs situation and I don't want to advocate lightly for placing caches in far away areas.

 

BUT

 

If a well prepared cache at a rarely visited and well chosen spot is placed (and I admit it is not easy for a reviewer to know if this is the case) then I would prefer that such caches are published even when in case of maintenance issues the cache might be disabled for a couple of months.

So I would hope that after a communication with my reviewer I would be allowed to place such a cache even without maintenance plan between my regular but not too often visits.

[+Team Microdot]

If you have a maintenance plan for the times between your visits, share it with the reviewer.

I've not investigated into the OPs situation and I don't want to advocate lightly for placing caches in far away areas.

 

BUT

 

If a well prepared cache at a rarely visited and well chosen spot is placed (and I admit it is not easy for a reviewer to know if this is the case) then I would prefer that such caches are published even when in case of maintenance issues the cache might be disabled for a couple of months.

So I would hope that after a communication with my reviewer I would be allowed to place such a cache even without maintenance plan between my regular but not too often visits.

 

That's quite a lot of ifs and, as you've correctly identified, it is not easy for the reviewer to know if this is the case. In fact it's almost a given that the reviewer lacks the means to know one way or the other which is probably why the sensible decision has been taken to ask for a solid maintenance plan.

[+Hynz]

That's quite a lot of ifs and, as you've correctly identified, it is not easy for the reviewer to know if this is the case. In fact it's almost a given that the reviewer lacks the means to know one way or the other which is probably why the sensible decision has been taken to ask for a solid maintenance plan.

Agreed, but I think the "maintenance plan" can also be an honest description of the hiding and why there might be less need for *regular* maintenance.

In such cases - and also considering the hiding history of the owner - I think a reviewer should be generous in publishing.

[+narcissa]

I've not investigated into the OPs situation and I don't want to advocate lightly for placing caches in far away areas.

 

BUT

 

If a well prepared cache at a rarely visited and well chosen spot is placed (and I admit it is not easy for a reviewer to know if this is the case) then I would prefer that such caches are published even when in case of maintenance issues the cache might be disabled for a couple of months.

So I would hope that after a communication with my reviewer I would be allowed to place such a cache even without maintenance plan between my regular but not too often visits.

 

I would hope that by "well prepared" cache, you mean that the cache owner has read and understood the guidelines, which clearly articulate the need for a maintenance plan.

[+Team DEMP]

Are all the unmaintained local caches out there and complained about constantly in the forums submitted with a maint plan or is it ok to have a local cache that is unmaintained but not one far away?

 

The problem isn't a maintenance plan and a maintenance plan won't solve anything beyond ticking off a check box.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Team DEMP

[+Team Microdot]

That's quite a lot of ifs and, as you've correctly identified, it is not easy for the reviewer to know if this is the case. In fact it's almost a given that the reviewer lacks the means to know one way or the other which is probably why the sensible decision has been taken to ask for a solid maintenance plan.

Agreed, but I think the "maintenance plan" can also be an honest description of the hiding and why there might be less need for *regular* maintenance.

In such cases - and also considering the hiding history of the owner - I think a reviewer should be generous in publishing.

 

And then the cry of special treatment would surely follow, along with this cache was published so mine should be published

[+J Grouchy]

That's quite a lot of ifs and, as you've correctly identified, it is not easy for the reviewer to know if this is the case. In fact it's almost a given that the reviewer lacks the means to know one way or the other which is probably why the sensible decision has been taken to ask for a solid maintenance plan.

Agreed, but I think the "maintenance plan" can also be an honest description of the hiding and why there might be less need for *regular* maintenance.

In such cases - and also considering the hiding history of the owner - I think a reviewer should be generous in publishing.

 

I do have to wonder how, if maintenance is such a hold-up on many caches, so many are published that require travel to remote locations, far from civilization. Even if you live 50 miles from a mountaintop cache, it might still be months before you can even get there because of the preparation involved. Proximity doesn't always equate to a reasonable maintenance plan.

[+L0ne.R]

That's quite a lot of ifs and, as you've correctly identified, it is not easy for the reviewer to know if this is the case. In fact it's almost a given that the reviewer lacks the means to know one way or the other which is probably why the sensible decision has been taken to ask for a solid maintenance plan.

Agreed, but I think the "maintenance plan" can also be an honest description of the hiding and why there might be less need for *regular* maintenance.

In such cases - and also considering the hiding history of the owner - I think a reviewer should be generous in publishing.

 

I do have to wonder how, if maintenance is such a hold-up on many caches, so many are published that require travel to remote locations, far from civilization. Even if you live 50 miles from a mountaintop cache, it might still be months before you can even get there because of the preparation involved. Proximity doesn't always equate to a reasonable maintenance plan.

 

Probably a good idea to demonstrate, on earlier cache hides, that as a CO one values maintenance. As lee737 noted: "The first cache you hid was archived by a reviewer..... not completely inspiring from a cache maintenance point of view......"

[+KBLAST]

Are all the unmaintained local caches out there and complained about constantly in the forums submitted with a maint plan or is it ok to have a local cache that is unmaintained but not one far away?

 

The problem isn't a maintenance plan and a maintenance plan won't solve anything beyond ticking off a check box.

 

The problem is either a lack of concern for maintenance, or a lack of education about what is expected when someone hides a cache (ignorance or apathy). In either case, "ticking of the check box" prevents the cache from being published without the CO being able to claim they didn't know... which at least helps the ignorance issue.

 

The OP clearly (based on his hides - particularly the one that was archived for him) doesn't understand his responsibility as a cache owner. Hopefully this will help.

[+Manville Possum]

The OP clearly (based on his hides - particularly the one that was archived for him) doesn't understand his responsibility as a cache owner.

 

They lost my support when they trash talked everyone else's caches being tossed out pill bottles and theirs is a plastic ammo box where the owner lives more than 300 miles away.

[+WK2Trailhawk]

Are all the unmaintained local caches out there and complained about constantly in the forums submitted with a maint plan or is it ok to have a local cache that is unmaintained but not one far away?

 

The problem isn't a maintenance plan and a maintenance plan won't solve anything beyond ticking off a check box.

 

Agreed,

 

How many times have we found or read in the comments the following.

 

Log missing or full.

Container found on ground.

log wet or unable to sign.

Cache needs maintenance.

Replaced log (not by CO)

 

Having a one size fits all guideline such as radius from home location isn't going to solve the problem. Not all caches are the same and not all caches require the same maintenance plan. One of the caches that I own I purposely kept close to home because it may at any moment require maintenance. If I were to move I would adopt it out as I know I would not be able to maintain it. I recently built a cache that I placed in Big Bear which I also visit throughout the year. This cache was built to handle snow and wet conditions as well as require less maintenance. When I was building this cache for Arizona, I also took into consideration the distance and maintenance availability. This is why I hid a water tight metal ammo can with a sealed log book (not sheet). This cache will outlast any film canister or tin that seem to litter the countryside. If I didn't think that this was a robust quality cache then I wouldn't have placed it in the first place.

 

I believe the the "guidelines" are just that. A "guideline". Reviewers should have and use their ability to use more judgement and flexability when reviewing caches. I also believe Reviewers should also look at the "whole picture" such as CO history as well as cache construction. Let's remind ourselves that this is a Hobby after all and not some government contract where every detail has to be met accordingly.

 

I am not one of those builders that wants to look at my caches owned and see a list of a hundred caches with a bunch of 1's and zero's in the Fav column. So far I have built 4 caches totaling 40 favs and counting. We all cache and build for different reasons. Mine is racking up fav points.

 

For those who comment on the fact that a reviewer archived one of my caches and thus reflects my respect and commitment to the hobby let me say this in my defense. This was my very first build and I was still new to the hobby. I thought disabling did the same thing as archiving. If this were a pattern than I could see your point, otherwise I will take a mulligan on that.

Edited April 27, 2017 by WK2Trailhawk

[+JL_HSTRE]

If you check the caches that I own you find that I get favorable comments and good Fav percentages. I don't just throw a pill container under a rock or lamp post and call it good. I spend a lot of time, effort and money building and placing quality caches. which the hobby could use more of.

 

I don't feel it necessary to explain my circumstances, but here goes. I am a graduate of Northern Arizona University. I have friends and family throughout the state. As well, I have property in Prescott and plan on making this my home in the future. As such, I frequent the area several times a year. When I do make Arizona my home again, I intend to place more quality caches in the state. I am not just "passing through"

 

I think if the OP had sent only the bolded part and added "I have time on those visits to deal with any cache maintenance needed" then that should be sufficient.

 

However, the rest of the message to the Reviewer is needlessly confrontational and defensive. Telling a Reviewer "I don't need to explain myself" is just wrong. If the Reviewer is asking something about your cache submission you do need to explain yourself. A good attitude will get you much farther with authority figures.

[+Sherminator18]

If you check the caches that I own you find that I get favorable comments and good Fav percentages. I don't just throw a pill container under a rock or lamp post and call it good. I spend a lot of time, effort and money building and placing quality caches. which the hobby could use more of.

 

I don't feel it necessary to explain my circumstances, but here goes. I am a graduate of Northern Arizona University. I have friends and family throughout the state. As well, I have property in Prescott and plan on making this my home in the future. As such, I frequent the area several times a year. When I do make Arizona my home again, I intend to place more quality caches in the state. I am not just "passing through"

 

I think if the OP had sent only the bolded part and added "I have time on those visits to deal with any cache maintenance needed" then that should be sufficient.

 

However, the rest of the message to the Reviewer is needlessly confrontational and defensive. Telling a Reviewer "I don't need to explain myself" is just wrong. If the Reviewer is asking something about your cache submission you do need to explain yourself. A good attitude will get you much farther with authority figures.

+1

[+Manville Possum]

This cache will outlast any film canister or tin that seem to litter the countryside.

 

Yes, right up until someone steals it and then it is just as bad as any other missing geocache that the owner can't maintain.

[+WK2Trailhawk]

If you check the caches that I own you find that I get favorable comments and good Fav percentages. I don't just throw a pill container under a rock or lamp post and call it good. I spend a lot of time, effort and money building and placing quality caches. which the hobby could use more of.

 

I don't feel it necessary to explain my circumstances, but here goes. I am a graduate of Northern Arizona University. I have friends and family throughout the state. As well, I have property in Prescott and plan on making this my home in the future. As such, I frequent the area several times a year. When I do make Arizona my home again, I intend to place more quality caches in the state. I am not just "passing through"

 

I think if the OP had sent only the bolded part and added "I have time on those visits to deal with any cache maintenance needed" then that should be sufficient.

 

However, the rest of the message to the Reviewer is needlessly confrontational and defensive. Telling a Reviewer "I don't need to explain myself" is just wrong. If the Reviewer is asking something about your cache submission you do need to explain yourself. A good attitude will get you much farther with authority figures.

 

OK, looking back I do agree that I came across somewhat snarky.

[+WK2Trailhawk]

This cache will outlast any film canister or tin that seem to litter the countryside.

 

Yes, right up until someone steals it and then it is just as bad as any other missing geocache that the owner can't maintain.

 

Agreed, no cache lasts forever, as I'm sure you are well aware of. All we can do is build and hide caches to the best of our abilities and hope for the best.

[+narcissa]

All we can do is build and hide caches to the best of our abilities and hope for the best.

 

... in accordance with the cache placement guidelines, which clearly stipulate the need for a maintenance plan in situations where a cache is placed during travel away from home.

 

If you feel that the guidelines could use an update in this regard, a better post would describe the issue you have with the guideline itself and how it could be improved.

 

There's never going to be a whole lot of sympathy for a post complaining that a reviewer wouldn't publish a cache because you didn't adhere to the guidelines.

[+Manville Possum]

This cache will outlast any film canister or tin that seem to litter the countryside.

 

Yes, right up until someone steals it and then it is just as bad as any other missing geocache that the owner can't maintain.

 

Agreed, no cache lasts forever, as I'm sure you are well aware of. All we can do is build and hide caches to the best of our abilities and hope for the best.

 

Are you saying that you did your best pacing this cache? You don't want to work with your reviewer to provide information that you can and will maintain this cache, and sounds like you placed it too close the Choo Choo tracks.

[+Sapience Trek]

A word of advice ... you might explain in a reviewer note why your new cache is just a foot or so away from what appears to be active RR tracks. Otherwise you'll go through all this effort to explain why this cache isn't a maintenance problem for you, only to have it denied because of RR track proximity. Perhaps the tracks are no longer in place, I'm going by satellite photos.

[+cerberus1]

I am not one of those builders that wants to look at my caches owned and see a list of a hundred caches with a bunch of 1's and zero's in the Fav column. So far I have built 4 caches totaling 40 favs and counting. We all cache and build for different reasons. Mine is racking up fav points.

Hopefully you do realize that some have little (or no) "favorites" simply because most who'd do those caches found them well before 2010.

 

The first thing we did when we received our favorites in bulk was issue them to long-archived distance hike caches with awesome views that few would even go for today, simply because it's a walk.

On most, we were the only ones to backlog FPs.

[+cerberus1]

I believe the the "guidelines" are just that. A "guideline". Reviewers should have and use their ability to use more judgement and flexability when reviewing caches. I also believe Reviewers should also look at the "whole picture" such as CO history as well as cache construction. Let's remind ourselves that this is a Hobby after all and not some government contract where every detail has to be met accordingly.

We've yet to see many issues with a Reviewer's "judgement".

They have some flexibility, but they have guidelines too.

 

Since you mention "CO history" and the "whole picture", I believe the Reviewer's judgement would also have to take into account a cache that had to be archived by a Reviewer, "rookie" or not.

 

A Reviewer simply asked for a maintenance plan. The basics.

- Instead, you tell him what school you went to, some marketing fail on future caches, and favorite percentages.

 

With posts that continue to circumvent the only real issue (at the time...), curious if this thread was started just because someone said NO.

[+The A-Team]

Having a one size fits all guideline such as radius from home location isn't going to solve the problem.

...

I believe the the "guidelines" are just that. A "guideline". Reviewers should have and use their ability to use more judgement and flexability when reviewing caches.

There isn't a one size fits all guideline. There's a guideline that indicates when further information/planning may be required, but if you can convince the reviewer that you can meet those requirements, then the cache can be published. This is where the reviewer's judgement comes into play.

 

I also believe Reviewers should also look at the "whole picture" such as CO history as well as cache construction.

You seem to have fallen into the trap of thinking the reviewers go out and visit caches in person before they publish them. They do not, so they have no awareness of the robustness/quality of your caches.

 

There are two pieces of advice that we can give you:

• Don't assume you're better than everyone else. Your caches are going to be reviewed in the same way as everyone else's. The reviewer is applying the "no vacation caches" guideline to you in the same way they'd apply it to anyone else.
  
• Work with your reviewer. They want to publish your cache and will work with you to make that happen, but it's a two-way street. If you work with your reviewer to assure them that you can adequately address their concerns, there's no reason why your cache can't be published. However, giving them vague/incomplete answers because you don't think the rules should apply to you won't get your cache closer to being published.
  

[+Manville Possum]

With posts that continue to circumvent the only real issue (at the time...), curious if this thread was started just because someone said NO.

 

Exactly what it is. At first read, I thought it was another crying thread from a Waymarker that had a WM rejected so they go and post a thread calling out another member there, which will not work here because volunteer geocache reviewers are appointed by the company.

[+Team Microdot]

I believe the the "guidelines" are just that. A "guideline". Reviewers should have and use their ability to use more judgement and flexability when reviewing caches.

 

Absolutely. Reviewers have and exercise a degree of lattitude in their implementation of the guidelines. Groundspeak usually updates the amount of lattitude considered acceptable from time to time. If something about your cache is outside that lattitude then I expect you'll be expected to bring it back inside.

 

I also believe Reviewers should also look at the "whole picture" such as CO history as well as cache construction.

 

I don't believe they are allowed to take CO history into account. If they did, those CO's who have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they have no intention of maintaining the caches they alreay own wouldn't be allowed to throw out even more caches they'll never maintain - but the reviewers hands, sadly, seem to be tied in this regard.

 

Let's remind ourselves that this is a Hobby after all and not some government contract where every detail has to be met accordingly.

 

We don't need reminding. This bears no resemblance to an apples-for-apples comparison and so is moot.

 

I am not one of those builders that wants to look at my caches owned and see a list of a hundred caches with a bunch of 1's and zero's in the Fav column. So far I have built 4 caches totaling 40 favs and counting. We all cache and build for different reasons. Mine is racking up fav points.

 

Which is a good thing but it doesn't mean the rules guidelines can be automatically bent for you, if for no other reason than, within the previously described latitude, reviewers must be seen to have implemented the guidelines consistently and thus treated everyone fairly and impartially.

 

For those who comment on the fact that a reviewer archived one of my caches and thus reflects my respect and commitment to the hobby let me say this in my defense. This was my very first build and I was still new to the hobby. I thought disabling did the same thing as archiving. If this were a pattern than I could see your point, otherwise I will take a mulligan on that.

 

Did the note from the reviewer not serve as a clue that something else needed to happen? I don't see a response between that and the archive so I assume not.

[+WK2Trailhawk]

I am not one of those builders that wants to look at my caches owned and see a list of a hundred caches with a bunch of 1's and zero's in the Fav column. So far I have built 4 caches totaling 40 favs and counting. We all cache and build for different reasons. Mine is racking up fav points.

Hopefully you do realize that some have little (or no) "favorites" simply because most who'd do those caches found them well before 2010.

 

The first thing we did when we received our favorites in bulk was issue them to long-archived distance hike caches with awesome views that few would even go for today, simply because it's a walk.

On most, we were the only ones to backlog FPs.

 

Let me start off by saying that I completely understand and agree with the point you are making here.

 

Part of my beef is with all unmaintained caches that are scattered everywhere only to be published simply because they fit nicely into some criteria or guideline. Having a guideline is a good start but does not guarantee a responsible cache owner. I believe cache construction, CO history and the builders dedication to his or her own cache should also be considered.

 

I also understand that CO fav rating is not a deciding factor but is certainly a tool that a reviewer could use in their decision process. As I mentioned earlier was the "Heart of the Mojave" series (eg GC457ZKH). There is literally a cache every hundred yards (approximately) for a hundred miles. This isn't my style of caching but I can tell from his history and my own first hand experience that he takes excellent care of his series of caches. Therefore I support and encourage this CO.

 

A different example I would like to share would be one of the best caches I have encountered (GC3RYV5). When talking to the Motel managers they said he was not a local and it appears that he now lives about 150 miles away. Considering the quality of his build and history this CO is obviously dedicated to the hobby. If I were a reviewer and this CO wanted place a cache in Paso Robles as an example, I would publish it in a heartbeat.

 

All caches are not the same and thus require widely different maintenance plans. Having all caches adhere to the same exacting criteria does not guarantee outcome.

[Keystone]

Some random thoughts from another Reviewer following the thread:

 

1. I tend to give the benefit of a doubt to those hiders who read the guidelines in advance, anticipate the issues, and address them in the initial reviewer note. If I read a note the first time I opened the page that spelled out a plausible maintenance plan, I'm likely to buy into the plan. If I have to ask the CO for a maintenance plan, then in my experience, lots of people magically acquire an Aunt Betty who lives just down the road and will check the cache weekly on her way to her garden club meeting.

 

2. I look at the CO's finds in the area where they've hidden a distant cache. The OP has 68 finds in Arizona which supports their claim of regular visits - even more so if those 68 finds were accumulated on 12 different trips rather than two.

 

3. Keep in mind that reviewers have some degree of discretion on "vacation caches" in an effort to best serve their local community. A reviewer in Florida, Arizona, Alaska or Hawaii may rightly be stricter on enforcing this guideline than a reviewer for an area not known as a big tourist destination. I live in Pittsburgh.

 

4. Similarly, cache maintenance/ vacation cache considerations can be varied based on cache density and the need for more caches to "seed" an area. Some reviewers are a bit more liberal with maintenance plans for backcountry caches as opposed to urban caches, which tend to get muggled more frequently. A reviewer in South Africa may be a bit more strict about vacation caches, as that country has a well-developed caching community, and a bit more liberal in allowing hides in other African countries, where geocaching is still just beginning to develop as a hobby.

 

5. The only reviewer opinion that really matters is the opinion of the OP's reviewer.

 

6. I agree with Sapience Trek - the maintenance plan is just part of what would hold up publication; the bigger issue is the cache location:

 

 

I would not publish a cache at this location, regardless of whether the owner lived 3 miles away or 300 miles away.

[+HHL]

[...] I would not publish a cache at this location, regardless of whether the owner lived 3 miles away or 300 miles away.

 

Do you see the shadows on the top left of the image? It' a bridge.

And the cache might be located at the basement of the bridge.

 

Hans

[Keystone]

[...] I would not publish a cache at this location, regardless of whether the owner lived 3 miles away or 300 miles away.

 

Do you see the shadows on the top left of the image? It' a bridge.

And the cache might be located at the basement of the bridge.

 

Hans

Exactly. I've seen one geocaching friend arrested and jailed for trespassing on railroad property. Reviewers do their part to minimize that risk by questioning locations like this one.

[+narcissa]

All caches are not the same and thus require widely different maintenance plans. Having all caches adhere to the same exacting criteria does not guarantee outcome.

 

This is all fine and dandy, but you didn't provide any maintenance plan at all, and instead scolded the reviewer for asking.

 

When you asked for the cache to be published, you ticked a box that says your cache is being placed in accordance with the guidelines.

[+Sapience Trek]

A reviewer in Florida, Arizona, Alaska or Hawaii may rightly be stricter on enforcing this guideline than a reviewer for an area not known as a big tourist destination. I live in Pittsburgh.

 

Dude, try living in Rochester. We are a heck of a lot less touristy than Pittsburgh. In fact, I'm traveling to Pittsburgh tomorrow.

 

 

I would not publish a cache at this location, regardless of whether the owner lived 3 miles away or 300 miles away.

 

Exactly. Even if under the bridge, the land and bridge is almost surely owned by the RR company, and they haven't been keen on caches that close to active lines in the past.

[+Manville Possum]

Exactly. Even if under the bridge, the land and bridge is almost surely owned by the RR company, and they haven't been keen on caches that close to active lines in the past.

 

Trespassing on railroad right-of-way is a Class 3 misdemeanor, and now the bomb scare people want to hide an ammo can under the bridge?

 

Sorry if it offends the OP, but it appears that they have much to learn about geocache ownership and where not to place them.

[Keystone]

A reviewer in Florida, Arizona, Alaska or Hawaii may rightly be stricter on enforcing this guideline than a reviewer for an area not known as a big tourist destination. I live in Pittsburgh.

 

Dude, try living in Rochester. We are a heck of a lot less touristy than Pittsburgh. In fact, I'm traveling to Pittsburgh tomorrow.

 

Dude, I did that for 18 years. Then I moved to Pittsburgh because of its tropical climate.

[+Team DEMP]

Cache owner committed a terrible crime and has placed a cache where the evidence is located. The FTF on this cache will need some special tools to extract the log from the cavity it is stored in. As the cache owner is an employee of a transportation entity that passes through the area, the evidence was disposed of along their daily route. Depending on how long it takes for the cache to be posted and the FTF to make the discovery, the host container might be a little moldy so don't use that word in your log or the cache might be archived.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Are all the unmaintained local caches out there and complained about constantly in the forums submitted with a maint plan or is it ok to have a local cache that is unmaintained but not one far away?

 

The problem isn't a maintenance plan and a maintenance plan won't solve anything beyond ticking off a check box.

 

For a cache near ones home location, ticking off a check box indicating that one has read and understands the guidelines is an implicit maintenance plan.

 

When the cache is farther from home, a reviewer will required an explicit maintenance plan as the distance generally requires someone close to the cache to perform some maintenance when needed or an assurance that the CO will visit the area often enough to perform maintenance when needed.

 

[+Team DEMP]

The problem isn't a maintenance plan and a maintenance plan won't solve anything beyond ticking off a check box.

 

For a cache near ones home location, ticking off a check box indicating that one has read and understands the guidelines is an implicit maintenance plan.

 

When the cache is farther from home, a reviewer will required an explicit maintenance plan as the distance generally requires someone close to the cache to perform some maintenance when needed or an assurance that the CO will visit the area often enough to perform maintenance when needed.

 

I'm glad you also agree that a maintenance plan, explicit or implied, has no bearing on the performance of a cache owner maintaining their cache. It's just ticking check boxes in either case.

 

Edit: watch this clip -

 

Though I don't have the tools to provide quantitative numbers, the sheer volume of unmaintained caches placed by locals might indicate an explicit maintenance plan should be considered. That's of course if any maintenance plan was worth the paper it was written on vs checking a box.

 

I'm not challenging that a process needs to exist and I'm more intrigued of the regular posters that regurgitate the same blind faith - follow the process and you will see the light. And then, they wait for the next nuance of every cache placement that isn't a LPC or MKH to critique the cache owner rv their house, while in other threads claiming how they don't care how others play the game.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Team DEMP