New cache breaches proximity rules

[+gasbottle]

This new cache was published recently. The second log suggests that it's only about 100 metres from this cache, published by the same CO a few days earlier. A measurement on Google Earth gives a distance of about 114m between the two working from the posted coordinates, so this isn't just a matter of GPS errors.

This led me to wondering:

• What flexibility do reviewers have when applying the proximity rules?
• What reasons might there be for agreeing this sort of proximity?

 

[+arisoft]

I have seen a new traditional cache only few meters from an another traditional cache. The obvious reason is that reviewers occasionally forget to check the proximity.

[+noncentric]

To the OP, the Reviewer for that cache seems to be relatively new - with Reviewer account opened in Jan-2017.  Perhaps they just made a mistake, which could be rectified by posting an NA on one/both of the caches detailing the proximity issue.  Or, by contacting the Reviewer directly.

Without knowing for a fact that the Reviewer agreed to bend the proximity guideline in this case, then I wouldn't make any assumptions about the reasons.  I think that if caches are a few meters (~10 feet) from another cache, then an argument could be made that their proximity is okay because of the variation in GPSr readings - but the caches in your OP are not within that small range.

[+The Jester]

If you look you can see that a straight line approach from one to the other is not possible.  So the "access" distance may be enough for a reviewer to OK the second cache.  I once had a cache only 202 feet from another, but to get from one to the other was a 1/4 mile.

[+noncentric]

2 hours ago, The Jester said:

If you look you can see that a straight line approach from one to the other is not possible.  So the "access" distance may be enough for a reviewer to OK the second cache.  I once had a cache only 202 feet from another, but to get from one to the other was a 1/4 mile.

That was my thought as well, although I thought that proximity rules were always based on straight line distance.

In any case, the caches noted in the OP are ~120 meters straight-line and ~140 meters by paved roadway.  Either way, they are still short the 161 meter minimum.

[+paconlacellars]

I always thought the cache separation distance must be at least 161 metres from another cache or stage containing placed info, regardless of terrain.  Another thing to remember is that the accuracy of cache placements on Google Earth varies considerably.  I have had cachers complain that one of my cache hides was out by over 60 metres based on their 'found it' location and the GE visual.

[+Team Hugs]

5 hours ago, paconlacellars said:

I always thought the cache separation distance must be at least 161 metres from another cache or stage containing placed info, regardless of terrain.  

Exceptions to rules can be granted.   Without knowing the specifics of this situation, I doubt we'll ever know why this particular cache received an exception (other than the obvious possibility of a reviewer oversight). 

To the original question: what reasons might there be for granting exceptions to the proximity rule?   I know of a couple of examples that have been discussed in the forums over the years.   Keep in mind that the spirit of the rule is to prevent "bad caches" being placed by folks who are just looking to place caches every couple of meters simply because they can.

1) Obvious physical barriers.   The example I recall was caches placed on opposite sides of an impassably-deep river valley.   The straight-line distance was clearly less than 161m, but proceeding directly from one cache to the other would've been impossible without cliff-scaling equipment.   For two caches with 1.5 terrain ratings along the paths of the two parks, there was clearly no harm in allowing both caches within such physical proximity to each other.

2) Attempts to solve puzzles cache via "Battleship"-style cache placements.   There was a notoriously difficult puzzle cache (in Florida?  Again, I don't recall the cache) that was frustrating all the local folks in their attempts to solve the puzzle and find the cache location.   One person decided to start placing a bunch of power-trail-esque caches in the area, in a grid-like pattern, with each cache exactly 161m meters from the next cache.   Since reviewers normally won't allow a cache to be placed within 161m of a puzzle cache, the grid-filler figured that the caches closest to the puzzle cache final would be rejected, and that would allow folks locally to execute a brute-force search of a small area to make the final find.   The local reviewer figured out what was going on and went ahead and approved all the caches, including the ones within 161m of the puzzle final, in order not to reveal the puzzle cache location.

[Keystone]

58 minutes ago, Team Hugs said:

1) Obvious physical barriers.   The example I recall was caches placed on opposite sides of an impassably-deep river valley.   The straight-line distance was clearly less than 161m, but proceeding directly from one cache to the other would've been impossible without cliff-scaling equipment.   For two caches with 1.5 terrain ratings along the paths of the two parks, there was clearly no harm in allowing both caches within such physical proximity to each other.

That may have been true in the past.  Personally, I no longer grant exceptions on this basis.  I stopped doing that after the restriction on "power trails" was written out of the guidelines.  I figure that, if I must say yes to a cache that's 529 feet from its neighbor, I should be able to say no to a cache that's 527 feet from its neighbor.  (But I do give one-time only exceptions if it's a few feet shy, as a means of educating the cache owner about the distance limitation.)

Quote

2) Attempts to solve puzzles cache via "Battleship"-style cache placements.   There was a notoriously difficult puzzle cache (in Florida?  Again, I don't recall the cache) that was frustrating all the local folks in their attempts to solve the puzzle and find the cache location.   One person decided to start placing a bunch of power-trail-esque caches in the area, in a grid-like pattern, with each cache exactly 161m meters from the next cache.   Since reviewers normally won't allow a cache to be placed within 161m of a puzzle cache, the grid-filler figured that the caches closest to the puzzle cache final would be rejected, and that would allow folks locally to execute a brute-force search of a small area to make the final find.   The local reviewer figured out what was going on and went ahead and approved all the caches, including the ones within 161m of the puzzle final, in order not to reveal the puzzle cache location.

It was in Pennsylvania, and that Reviewer was me.  Still a good example of why humans* should be involved in reviewing caches, rather than robots.

*Many Reviewers are dogs.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Team Hugs said:

Keep in mind that the spirit of the rule is to prevent "bad caches" being placed by folks who are just looking to place caches every couple of meters simply because they can.

For the record, older versions of the guidelines used to say: "The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

[+TheCur8or]

OMG ... EPIC FACEPALM!

Reviewers are human, Not sure how on earth I missed this.
He had another cache that was way too close that wasn't going to be published and I mistook it for that.
I will be in contact with the owner about rectifying this situation.
The later one is being disabled as it was published after the other.

@gasbottle contacting me directly would had sufficed to rectify the situation like you do for many other things.

Thank you all for your patience. My life has been a bit all over the place recently.

 

 

[+J Grouchy]

Hang on...when you are submitting a new cache, the system automatically tells you it's not available.  At least, it does when I just now attempted it (as a test).  

[Keystone]

30 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Hang on...when you are submitting a new cache, the system automatically tells you it's not available. 

So, you're saying that this stops people from submitting such caches?    (Common reviewer note:  "the map is wrong, it's broken.")

Also, as happened with this hider, often there are questions about the accuracy of the coordinates and they are adjusted during the review process.  The map only comes up on the initial preparation of the cache page.

[+Team Hugs]

19 hours ago, Keystone said:

It was in Pennsylvania, and that Reviewer was me.  Still a good example of why humans* should be involved in reviewing caches, rather than robots.

*Many Reviewers are dogs.

My apologies for mis-remembering you and your fine state.

(And I do mean that.   I married a woman from western PA.)

[+hzoi]

2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Hang on...when you are submitting a new cache, the system automatically tells you it's not available.  At least, it does when I just now attempted it (as a test).  

That only tells you about published caches -- if one submits multiple caches for review that are too close to each other, those won't show up as red circles of death on that map.

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

That only tells you about published caches -- if one submits multiple caches for review that are too close to each other, those won't show up as red circles of death on that map.

Good point.  That's when the reviewer has to notice the proximity.  (If the reviewer is a dog, he can probably sniff it out.)

[+gasbottle]

@Team Hugs and @Keystone - thanks for your insights . It seems from the TheCur8or's post it was just a cock-up. It happens!

 

@TheCur8or - please see your messages.

Edited October 16, 2017 by gasbottle