Is It OK to Immediately Disable an Approved New Cache to Set Up Hardware then enable.

[+Chipper3]

I have learned my lesson about laying out and populating a multi-cache and then submitting for review and then having rejected because of proximity  to the hidden stages of another cache.  I can check for the "red circles" when designing but only see the posted coords.

 

I do walk the grounds and grab accurate coords and fill out the New Cache "Application" but just do not want to install the hardware until approved.

 

My plan would be to get approval, immediately mark disabled, populate the hardware, mark back to enabled.

 

Thoughts and Advice welcomed!

Edited January 9, 2022 by Chipper3

[+Max and 99]

44 minutes ago, Chipper3 said:

I have learned my lesson about laying out and populating a multi-cache and then submitting for review and then having rejected because of proximity  to the hidden stages of another cache.  I can check for the "red circles" when designing but only see the posted coords.

 

I do walk the grounds and grab accurate coords and fill out the New Cache "Application" but just do not want to install the hardware until approved.

 

My plan would be to get approval, immediately mark disabled, populate the hardware, mark back to enabled.

 

Thoughts and Advice welcomed!

No. The cache needs to be in place when you submit it.

Were you planning to stay awake 24/7 watching for the cache to be published so you can disable it? I sure hope you'd be faster than someone who got the notification and ran out for first to find!

 

From The Help Center:

Place your geocache.

A geocache must be in place and ready to be found before you submit the cache page for review.

 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Max and 99

[+Bear and Ragged]

You can ask the reviewer for a proximity check, fill in the cache details and explain what you are doing. They can then tell you if any of your points are too close.

If the reviewer says all OK, set up the cache parts and submit!

[+GeoElmo6000]

I agree with the above.  What I have done is create the cache listing, including all my waypoints, and then send that link to my local reviewer BEFORE I submit it.  Your reviewer can tell you if there are any issues before you place any hardware. 

 

Once the reviewer says it's okay, place your cache and anything else and then submit the cache for review.

[+Viajero Perdido]

Good advice above.

 

Once you have your waypoints all entered, give the cache a title like COORD CHECK ONLY and/or mention in a reviewer note that this is a coord-check submission, then "Submit for Review".  The reviewer will tell you if the locations are okay, but won't publish the cache just yet.

 

It's all written up somewhere, but don't have the link handy.

[+Max and 99]

Ask a reviewer to check coordinates

If you’re still unsure if your location is available, ask a local reviewer to confirm.

 

Tip: It’s a good idea to do this before you place your geocache.

 

Create a cache page with a title like "Coordinate Check".

Add locations as waypoints if you'd like the reviewer to check more than one location. This is similar to adding stages for a Multi-Cache.

Add a Reviewer Note to make sure that the reviewer does not publish the cache page. For example, “Do not publish, this is a coordinate check."

Submit your cache page for review and wait for your reviewer to reply.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=22&pgid=199

Edited January 9, 2022 by Max and 99

[+Chipper3]

Thanks to all the responders with your good and helpful advice!  I have submitted with all the  recommendations suggested!

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

No. The cache needs to be in place when you submit it.

Were you planning to stay awake 24/7 watching for the cache to be published so you can disable it?

I sure hope you'd be faster than someone who got the notification and ran out for first to find!

 

Yep. The only reason we became premium members was for notifications.  The other 2/3rds was a FTF monster at the time.

Similar...  We were FTF in another state on an entire series.  All ammo cans, we were so tickled that we left some really decent swag.

Turned out it was set up for an event the next day, and the CO was mortified that they didn't mention it to the Reviewer.   

 

She finally lost interest between beta-testing for newbs (her last was 400' off - and found it...) and caches not placed at published...

[+instep_guy]

Speaking as someone who has rushed out to get a FTF on a new cache only to get the FTDNF due to the cache not having been placed yet... its not OK!

 

[+Max and 99]

2 hours ago, instep_guy said:

Speaking as someone who has rushed out to get a FTF on a new cache only to get the FTDNF due to the cache not having been placed yet... its not OK!

 

Yeah, and after dragging the kids there twice to get  FTF, the CO says: "I hope you'll come back after we place it."

Don't hold your breath.

[+barefootjeff]

At the top of the cache page for an unsubmitted cache is this:

 

but there are two problems with it. Firstly, I don't think it's prominent enough, if it was up to me I'd have another dialog box pop up after clicking Submit that asks "Is your geocache in place and ready to be found?" with Yes/No answers. If you then click on No, it would explain why this is important and return you to the cache page.

 

The second problem I see is that this isn't the only place a new cache can be submitted. There's also a Submit for review button at the bottom of the Edit page:

 

Not only does this not have any mention of the cache being in place, it also allows someone to submit a new cache without ever looking at its cache page. At the time this new cache submission system was introduced, I remember our reviewer posting on FB that he'd seen a sudden drop in quality of cache pages, with lots of spelling mistakes and layout issues. And just to make matters worse, this Submit for review button in the editor is the default button. I've lost count of the number of times I've clicked on it by mistake when I meant to click Save & preview and have then had to backtrack out of it.

[+Chipper3]

12 hours ago, instep_guy said:

Speaking as someone who has rushed out to get a FTF on a new cache only to get the FTDNF due to the cache not having been placed yet... its not OK!

 

I understand completely.  I am glad I sought advice.  The correct path is to do the research on site and fill out the cache page for submission (without installing the hardware.) then submit for review and put Coord Check Only in the cache title and submit a Reviewer Note describing the intent.  This approach has worked out just fine.  Thanks to all who set me straight and pointed me to the right path!

[+MNTA]

 Like the OP I've found hiding caches difficult, despite GS declaring this the year of the hide. I'd really like to see some change, any change, in how the hiding process occurs. Like the OP I have hidden caches only to find that a hidden location is present. `GS could easily add a toggle button to indicate the cache is placed and ready. The reviewer could approve the placement but then the the CO can modify and publish the cache, or something like that. Other options could be architected to work without too much effort including allowing the potential CO to have a limited number of checks in the field.

 

I now do a coordinate check, but have had my cache published prior to the placed date I specified and had to disable that cache. 

[+GeocacheMonster]

On 1/9/2022 at 6:25 PM, Chipper3 said:

My plan would be to get approval, immediately mark disabled, populate the hardware, mark back to enabled.

 

Thoughts and Advice welcomed!

I did like that 2 times and after the second time reviewer contacted me and told me not to do that again  

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

The reviewer could approve the placement but then the the CO can modify and publish the cache, or something like that.

 

That would cause more work to reviewers, as many of these "caches" would never be published. Also it would render the reviewing useless, as the CO could make changes that are not reviewed.

Edited January 12, 2022 by arisoft

[+Chipper3]

7 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

That would cause more work to reviewers, as many of these "caches" would never be published. Also it would render the reviewing useless, as the CO could make changes that are not reviewed.

The reviewer in my area recommends the "Submitting for coord review"  approach and using that approach is the path I have followed and it has worked very well.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Chipper3

[+ChriBli]

Around half of my caches were submitted for review with a request for publication at a specific date and time. In that case, hiding the container after submitting is not an issue (as long as it is hidden before the requested date), but if it's a puzzle cache a lot of hard work may have gone into creating the puzzle for the requested coordinates. If the placement is denied due to proximity or otherwise, you may have to redo a lot of it. This has happened to me twice.

 

Submitting for coordinate review seems to be a good approach, but I feel that it is not very well documented or supported. I see things like creating a page with a certain name and posting a reviewer note with certain content above, but I'm not sure where this comes from. Wouldn't it be better with a separate "submit for coordinate check" button next to the "submit for review" one?

[+Ragnemalm]

IMHO the cache must be in place when it gets published. I have been hunting FTF on caches not in place at least twice. Published = available.

 

But this can be hard to do for a beginner. In both cases, this happened to beginner COs. A beginner simply can't predict how reviewers work. I fell in that trap myself on my second cache. I submitted it, got a no from the reviewer, it was too close to an ancient remain. So I went out to take it in, and asked the reviewer what to do, and that the remain was completely overgrown and not visible, expecting some kind of instruction about where to place it. Suddenly it was approved! Oops! I ran out and met the FTF hunters with the cache in my hand. (Don't look while I place it!)

 

What I am not so fond of is that the cache must be in place when I ask for a coordinate review. I can't see why it should sit there for weeks before publishing.

[+niraD]

13 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

Submitting for coordinate review seems to be a good approach, but I feel that it is not very well documented or supported. I see things like creating a page with a certain name and posting a reviewer note with certain content above, but I'm not sure where this comes from.

See the Help Center article Check for minimum distance.

 

13 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

Wouldn't it be better with a separate "submit for coordinate check" button next to the "submit for review" one?

As long as it still goes to the volunteer reviewer (and not to an automated system that can be battleshipped), sure. But the volunteer reviewers are the ones who could best say whether this would be more useful than the current system.

[+arisoft]

17 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

What I am not so fond of is that the cache must be in place when I ask for a coordinate review. I can't see why it should sit there for weeks before publishing.

 

That would be very impractical. Fortunately, placing a cache before coordinate check is not required.

 

30 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

Wouldn't it be better with a separate "submit for coordinate check" button next to the "submit for review" one?

 

Indeed. That would save CO from unnecessary editing and a reviewer from publishing the cache accidentally .

[+ChriBli]

15 minutes ago, niraD said:

See the Help Center article Check for minimum distance.

Thanks, I had missed that. I guess the thing to do if/when the coordinates are approved then is to rename the page to the proper name, remove any extra waypoints and write a description before submitting it for review. Or does one create a new page for this?

[+Max and 99]

9 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

Thanks, I had missed that. I guess the thing to do if/when the coordinates are approved then is to rename the page to the proper name, remove any extra waypoints and write a description before submitting it for review. Or does one create a new page for this?

Same page.

[+Ragnemalm]

34 minutes ago, arisoft said:

That would be very impractical. Fortunately, placing a cache before coordinate check is not required.

Sorry, I mean when having a pre-defined publication time. What is that called in english?

 

I could get a coordinate check, but if I wanted the cache to be published, say, a month from now, it had to be in place the whole time. So in practice I had to delay the review to as little time as possible (one week) to avoid having it exposed for too long.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

I could get a coordinate check, but if I wanted the cache to be published, say, a month from now, it had to be in place the whole time. So in practice I had to delay the review to as little time as possible (one week) to avoid having it exposed for too long.

 

This is what you can do but frankly, the cache must stay at least three months and preferably many years. Few weeks should not be a problem.

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

I could get a coordinate check, but if I wanted the cache to be published, say, a month from now, it had to be in place the whole time. So in practice I had to delay the review to as little time as possible (one week) to avoid having it exposed for too long.

Some here on the forums have even suggested leaving a cache in place for several weeks to make sure it doesn't get muggled. What do you mean you don't want it exposed for too long? Won't it be there for much longer after publication?

[+ChriBli]

8 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Some here on the forums have even suggested leaving a cache in place for several weeks to make sure it doesn't get muggled. What do you mean you don't want it exposed for too long? Won't it be there for much longer after publication?

It is not only exposed to muggling, it is also exposed to FTF before publication. I have found geocaches myself before publication on a few occasions. As a CO, I wouldn't want that. But as is pointed out above, it is very important that the container is in place on publication, so minimizing the exposure before publication would be good no matter how small the risk is. At the very least, one would need to go out to check on the cache close to the publication date to make sure it is still there.

 

No matter what the rules are, I'm sure that many geocaches get placed just before publication when that is requested on or after a certain date. I see no problem with that.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, ChriBli said:

It is not only exposed to muggling, it is also exposed to FTF before publication.

 

FTF is planned for someone else?

 

In Finland we have solved this by differenting finds before and after the publishing moment. For example, finds logged during a CITO event into the event cache, that will be published later, are not FTF finds.

Edited January 13, 2022 by arisoft

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, ChriBli said:

But as is pointed out above, it is very important that the container is in place on publication, so minimizing the exposure before publication would be good no matter how small the risk is. At the very least, one would need to go out to check on the cache close to the publication date to make sure it is still there.

 

Back in mid November, I placed a 2/2.5 puzzle cache in bushland at Cowan on the northern fringe of Sydney (GC9JDPF). It had two finds (a joint FTF) on the day of publication, one find three weeks later and a fourth a month after that on New Year's Day. Its hiding place is not somewhere I'd expect to be accidentally stumbled across even though it's close to the Great North Walk. It's a rock scramble down a level from the track then around through a bit of scrub to a small cave, but you have to then go to the far side of the cave and look back to spot the cache. I reckon I could have put that cache there a year before publication and no-one would have found it. Had I done that, yes I'd have gone to check on it before submitting it but I'm sure that would have just been a formality.

 

There's another cache not far from there that I did recently. It's a hundred metres or so of pretty serious bush-bashing from the track, with a couple of cliff lines to zig-zag around, before the final steep descent to a cave where the cache is extraordinarily well concealed, so much so that it took me over half an hour of searching every nook and cranny of that cave at least three times before I finally spotted it. There's no way on Earth (or any other planet for that matter) for that cache to be accidentally found. I reckon there's a good chance the CO was the first human to ever set foot in that cave.

[+ChriBli]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

 

FTF is planned for someone else?

 

In Finland we have solved this by differenting finds before and after the publishing moment. For example, finds logged during a CITO event into the event cache, that will be published later, are not FTF finds.

If I were to plan an FTF for someone specific, which I would of course never do, I would tell them the coordinates in advance so they could find the cache before publication.

 

But I think most would agree that we don't want our caches to be found before publication? From what you write this seems to happen a lot in Finland. I don't understand what you mean about finds during a CITO event, I usually find mostly garbage during those. I have been to events where details about caches to be published during the event have been shared in advance, but then it is a big no-no to run off and start searching before they are published online.

[+ChriBli]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Back in mid November, I placed a 2/2.5 puzzle cache in bushland at Cowan on the northern fringe of Sydney (GC9JDPF). It had two finds (a joint FTF) on the day of publication, one find three weeks later and a fourth a month after that on New Year's Day. Its hiding place is not somewhere I'd expect to be accidentally stumbled across even though it's close to the Great North Walk. It's a rock scramble down a level from the track then around through a bit of scrub to a small cave, but you have to then go to the far side of the cave and look back to spot the cache. I reckon I could have put that cache there a year before publication and no-one would have found it. Had I done that, yes I'd have gone to check on it before submitting it but I'm sure that would have just been a formality.

 

There's another cache not far from there that I did recently. It's a hundred metres or so of pretty serious bush-bashing from the track, with a couple of cliff lines to zig-zag around, before the final steep descent to a cave where the cache is extraordinarily well concealed, so much so that it took me over half an hour of searching every nook and cranny of that cave at least three times before I finally spotted it. There's no way on Earth (or any other planet for that matter) for that cache to be accidentally found. I reckon there's a good chance the CO was the first human to ever set foot in that cave.

I agree that there are cache placements where the risk of someone finding it before publication is very close to zero. But then there are placements like this one , easily spotted by experienced geocachers (although I DNF:ed it) and frequently muggled. That's OK, you can just keep maintaing it, but you do want it to be in place and unfound when the FTF hunters arrive.

[+niraD]

4 hours ago, ChriBli said:

But I think most would agree that we don't want our caches to be found before publication?

Why not? I think it's cool when geocachers find caches accidentally, even before they're published.

 

If it bothers you, then you could acknowledge both FTF and FTFAP (First To Find After Publication) on your cache description page. That way it would be clear who found it when.

Edited January 13, 2022 by niraD

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, ChriBli said:

But I think most would agree that we don't want our caches to be found before publication?

 

If I place a traditional cache, I would say that it does not matter. But it would be disappointment if a new D5 mystery cache were found before publishing.

4 hours ago, ChriBli said:

I don't understand what you mean about finds during a CITO event

 

"Cache In Trash Out®"? Have you participated only TO-events without the CI-part?

Traditionally a new cache may be placed during or after the CITO-event and the logbook may be available for the participants.

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, ChriBli said:

If I were to plan an FTF for someone specific, which I would of course never do, I would tell them the coordinates in advance so they could find the cache before publication.

 

But I think most would agree that we don't want our caches to be found before publication? From what you write this seems to happen a lot in Finland.

 

I have been to events where details about caches to be published during the event have been shared in advance, but then it is a big no-no to run off and start searching before they are published online.

 

I get the thinking, but here and most areas we go, "tribute" caches are often written in description for the "honoree" to find first.

More than one had numerous people there first, so hopefully nothing special was placed inside as a "gift"...

So I agree, the few times the other 2/3rds did that, the person was notified ahead of time.  I had a pic of a Harley w/ keys in one of mine...

 

Guess I don't understand, because you'd be surprised by how many caches and letterboxes we've found just hiking and not caching.

Unless we're caching, I don't bother to write location to do a search but do sign that log.  Hundreds...

This happens in a few states here, and we've heard of others elsewhere in these forums, so not restricted to Finland.  

 

Many events in two states we've seen printouts for new caches in a park.  Why is it a "big no-no" to find them?   Thanks.

We used to have an event game where one cache's coordinates on a jigsaw puzzle piece led to the next.

The next day it'd be published to those who didn't attend...

[+cerberus1]

17 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Some here on the forums have even suggested leaving a cache in place for several weeks to make sure it doesn't get muggled. What do you mean you don't want it exposed for too long? Won't it be there for much longer after publication?

 

Yep.  Our favorite hider leaves caches out usually while hunting in the Winter.  He might get them published in Spring or Summer.
We've done the same, out a long time before published, especially when we did product testing on containers years ago.  

[+ChriBli]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Why not? I think it's cool when geocachers find caches accidentally, even before they're published.

 

If it bothers you, then you could acknowledge both FTF and FTFAP (First To Find After Publication) on your cache description page. That way it would be clear who found it when.

I also think it is cool to find a cache before publication. Especially if I put a lot of effort into it instead of just stumbling over it. As an example I once noticed a gap in a newly published trail, assumed the missing cache didn't get published due to proximity to a mystery cache that I had solved but maybe not the CO, and was able to find a likely spot on the map. Sure enough there was a cache there (diligently placed before request for review), and I signed the log. Weeks later the cache was published in another location, but with the same log that I had already signed.

 

But when I place a cache, I try to make sure it is not found in advance. I just assumed that most of us would agree.

[+kunarion]

6 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

But when I place a cache, I try to make sure it is not found in advance. I just assumed that most of us would agree.

 

I do that, too.  My potential cache may be in place for months, and I set it up so I know if it's found by Muggles, cachers or animals.  If so, I won't publish it there. I try a different spot.

 

But I also like to find caches that are waiting to be activated.  Or Finals in those "empty" saturation circles.  Or that were archived a while ago and lost. 

[+ChriBli]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

"Cache In Trash Out®"? Have you participated only TO-events without the CI-part?

Traditionally a new cache may be placed during or after the CITO-event and the logbook may be available for the participants.

Then this is definitely a cultural thing, even though culture should not be that different between Sweden and Finland. I' ve only attended 12 CITOs so far, but no new caches were placed in connection with any of them. I think the CI part is considered to possibly happen at some other time, even before the TO, and the CITO event is just meant to make the area a nicer place to geocache in in general.

 

But that's not the point. I have certainly been to events where geocaches were placed for the actual occasion, but without exception these caches have also been published online at the same date, and in fact before any of the event attendees were allowed to go after them. In many cases the attendees did not get any advance information at all, and the only advantage they had over non-attending FTF hunters were their proximity to GZ. Finding a cache before online publication I would say is very rare in Sweden.

[+ChriBli]

57 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Many events in two states we've seen printouts for new caches in a park.  Why is it a "big no-no" to find them?   Thanks.

We used to have an event game where one cache's coordinates on a jigsaw puzzle piece led to the next.

The next day it'd be published to those who didn't attend...

It is not me that decided it's a no-no. It's the event hosts, probably influenced by the fact that that's how it's done around here. In general, new caches should not be available to anyone until they are available to everyone, event caches included. Although event attendees sometimes have the advantage of getting to preload coordinates, solve mysteries and so on before publication. Again, this is not my opinion but the local culture.

[+kunarion]

11 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

It is not me that decided it's a no-no. It's the event hosts, probably influenced by the fact that that's how it's done around here. In general, new caches should not be available to anyone until they are available to everyone, event caches included. Although event attendees sometimes have the advantage of getting to preload coordinates, solve mysteries and so on before publication. Again, this is not my opinion but the local culture.

 

A printed list may also be due to what happened at previous Events.  I've been at an opening of a new park, and "The Caches Will Be Activated At Noon!", gonna be sooo cool...  And we're still standing around at 1:30pm, because Reviewers Actually Do Have Lives.  So next time, the Event Hosts hand out a printed list instead.

[+SeekTheCache]

Asking the same question, but with some different terms.

Is it ok to design a generic listing and place a simple container just for publication purposes, then deactivate while you finish building your final container and then reactivate, say within a maximum two-week period?

It would allow for certainty that those spots will be there when you finish your work.

I'm asking this because I had a bit of a disappointment recently.

I was preparing 13 caches to be placed on the fields that surround the area where I live. These are the spots I walk every day. Some of my caches are quite elaborated and my work was halfway done when another PT was launched on the same area, causing half of "my spots" to be compromised. I had to give up on 2 of the caches I had planned and change locations for 4 other ones. I almost gave up. I only didn't because everything was almost done, and it felt like such a waste. But it was still hugely frustrating because the trail was basically ruined.

I have another area that might be cool for another project like this, and it would be nice to have a way to secure the spots I find good for hiding and still have some time to work on the containers, without risking losing them just days before they are ready.

Edited January 17, 2022 by SeekTheCache
wrong choice of words not deception - I meant disappointment

[+barefootjeff]

22 minutes ago, SeekTheCache said:

Asking the same question, but with some different terms.

Is it ok to design a generic listing and place a simple container just for publication purposes, then deactivate while you finish building your final container and then reactivate, say within a maximum two-week period?

It would allow for certainty that those spots will be there when you finish your work.

I'm asking this because I had a bit of a disappointment recently.

I was preparing 13 caches to be placed on the fields that surround the area where I live. These are the spots I walk every day. Some of my caches are quite elaborated and my work was halfway done when another PT was launched on the same area, causing half of "my spots" to be compromised. I had to give up on 2 of the caches I had planned and change locations for 4 other ones. I almost gave up. I only didn't because everything was almost done, and it felt like such a waste. But it was still hugely frustrating because the trail was basically ruined.

I have another area that might be cool for another project like this, and it would be nice to have a way to secure the spots I find good for hiding and still have some time to work on the containers, without risking losing them just days before they are ready.

 

From what I understand, the moment you create a cache page, the reviewers will see its locations when doing proximity checks on other submissions, so if someone creates a cache page after you did, you should be offered first dibs. Of course if they created their page before you did, first dibs goes to them, but maybe they put just as much effort into theirs as you've put into yours so there's really no easy solution, other than to email your reviewer outlining what you're doing and see what advice they can give.

 

I've spent the best part of a month putting together a new multi at a site that was recently vacated by an archived traditional, with four physical waypoint objects and a themed container woven around a story that fits the location like a glove. There's a chance, admittedly a slim one, that someone else might have seen that archival log and decided to put something on the headland too, and if they got in ahead of me, well, that's just the way it goes sometimes, at least I'll have a new local cache in a great spot that I can try to find. But I did post about my intentions on our local FB group so most of the active cachers around here will know that I'm working on something for that location.

[+TriciaG]

43 minutes ago, SeekTheCache said:

Is it ok to design a generic listing and place a simple container just for publication purposes, then deactivate while you finish building your final container and then reactivate, say within a maximum two-week period?

Just do a generic listing, submit it for a coordinate check as discussed above, and then once it clears the coord check, make your elaborate cache, place it, and do the final listing submission.

Edit to add: it would suck to be the first to find on a generic container, only to lose out on the full experience of the well-built cache container.

Edited January 17, 2022 by TriciaG

[Keystone]

The cache design that the Reviewer looks at should be the version that's published.  If I publish a Lock and Lock at the base of a tree, but I later learn that the cache is a fake birdhouse bolted into that tree, that's a swift trip to the archives.

 

Just set up a "work in progress" cache page to reserve your spot for a reasonable period of time until your more elaborate cache is ready.  Then, submit for review, and tell your Reviewer what you've hidden and how it's placed in the environment.

[+SeekTheCache]

7 hours ago, TriciaG said:

Just do a generic listing, submit it for a coordinate check as discussed above, and then once it clears the coord check, make your elaborate cache, place it, and do the final listing submission.

Edit to add: it would suck to be the first to find on a generic container, only to lose out on the full experience of the well-built cache container.

 

6 hours ago, Keystone said:

The cache design that the Reviewer looks at should be the version that's published.  If I publish a Lock and Lock at the base of a tree, but I later learn that the cache is a fake birdhouse bolted into that tree, that's a swift trip to the archives.

 

All valid points, and I get it! I don´t like it any more than you do, but I also didn't enjoy almost seeing so much work going to waste.

 

 

6 hours ago, Keystone said:

 

Just set up a "work in progress" cache page to reserve your spot for a reasonable period of time until your more elaborate cache is ready.  Then, submit for review, and tell your Reviewer what you've hidden and how it's placed in the environment.

 

That doesn't really work.

Originally, I buit and placed two caches on those fields. When I submitted them, I was told they could not be published because they were strapped to a species of tree that is protected, which I didn't know at the time. So I had to rethink them. That's when I came up with the idea of setting up a PT and then opened the remaining cache pages. So, by now I had two older cache pages and 11 newer ones, right?

By the time I opened the 11 newer ones, the owner of the other PT was probably already working on his. But neither one of us was made aware of that conflict until caches were submitted for publication.

As a result: a) I lost two caches and had to reorganize the rest. (bummer, but I still got it done) / b) He has two caches of his PT that will not be published because of my two older ones, which is also not cool. One of them I might be able to liberate, but the remaining one will not be possible.

 

Having a way of knowing that the place you are considering is in conflict with someone else's work would be ideal, as it would save everybody a lot of wasted work.

[Keystone]

7 hours ago, SeekTheCache said:

That doesn't really work.

 

Oh.  Thanks for letting me know.  I've only been a Reviewer since 2003.

[+SeekTheCache]

21 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

Oh.  Thanks for letting me know.  I've only been a Reviewer since 2003.

Sarcasm is funny, but not helpful though.

 

Your previous suggestion

7 hours ago, SeekTheCache said:

Just set up a "work in progress" cache page to reserve your spot for a reasonable period of time

seems to be what I did, and we still had the problems I mentioned. Or am I missing something here? What could I have done differently?

Thank you

[+Ragnemalm]

On 1/12/2022 at 11:45 PM, arisoft said:

This is what you can do but frankly, the cache must stay at least three months and preferably many years. Few weeks should not be a problem.

It is meant to be, but caches published after a big event where it is supposed to be an important asset are very sensitive. I made such an event recently, with a number of caches. They are custom built. Having them muggled before the event would be a disaster and the risk goes up a lot if it has to sit there for weeks.

 

Everything worked, they are still in place and in good shape, and maintained, but now the critical time has passed. When you have 100 people looking for the cache at a given time, you want it to be fresh. You want to place it the day before or even the same day.

[+TriciaG]

3 hours ago, SeekTheCache said:

Sarcasm is funny, but not helpful though.

 

Your previous suggestion

seems to be what I did, and we still had the problems I mentioned. Or am I missing something here? What could I have done differently?

Thank you

I'm not a reviewer, but it sounds like you had no good options. I mean, if you had dropped a generic container and THEN had strapped caches to the protected trees, you still would have had problems. I don't think your issue is the coordinate check / setting up a listing before setting out the container; your issue in this case is that you put the container on a protected tree.

[+SeekTheCache]

1 hour ago, TriciaG said:

your issue in this case is that you put the container on a protected tree.

 

Hi Tricia, thank you for trying to help.
But no, that is not my issue at all because that issue was delt with immediately. The caches were removed and put on standby, while I considered a different project for them.
Sometime later, when I came up with the thought of creating a PT, those same cache pages were reutilized to become a part of it. They were placed elsewhere and with a different setup, nothing to do with the original listing.

To try to explain my issue a little better and in a "cliffs notes" version:
Two PTs from different owners are being developed at approximately the same time for the same area. The cache pages have been created, there is work being done building the containers, work that depending on the complexity and free time available may take weeks, and, for either one of the owners, there seems to be no way of knowing that there is going to be a conflict due to proximity until caches are being submitted for publication. By that time a lot of work may have gone to waste if there is no way to overcome that conflict.

So, my question is: how can we avoid this?

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

25 minutes ago, SeekTheCache said:

So, my question is: how can we avoid this?

 

How about, before you start, create a dummy cache page, probably a multi, with physical waypoints at all the locations you want to use in your PT, and submit that to your reviewer for a coordinates check. If the reviewer says all clear, the existence of that dummy page should give you precedence over anyone else who might be eyeing the trail.