Can I put a cache 161m up a building if there's a cache below it?

[+JoeyGE0]

Do you think they will let me put a cache up a big building that would be just over 161m tall. for example the sky tower in NZ even if a end cache was below it?

 

[+GerandKat]

Simple answer:

No

Long answer:

 

At geocaching.com distance between to caches is calculated via 2 sets of coordinates:

e.g S 36 50.907 E 174 45.735 as the cache at the towers base

and S 36 50.908 E 174 45.731 as the cache on top of the tower

 

Difference would be 7m hence 154m short of the required 161m

[+Isonzo Karst]

The cache report will reject this, but allow you to continue.

 

It's something I'd ask the local NZ reviewer about before going forward. 

 

In your example of the Auckland Sky Tower, the answer may well be no, because the entry fee for the Sky Tower is above cost limits permitted by Geocaching.com even for non-profit or government run areas.  It's a near enough thing that it might be worth asking. EXPLICIT permission for the cache from the city Sky Tower manager, and the cache  in open sky, so there's gps use, and maybe... I wouldn't count on that though.   

 

South of me there are a few caches in non-profit tower garden, including some placed by management.  Because fees have risen steadily and dramatically no new caches are being published.  Those remaining are grandfathered.

[+Hügh]

There are a couple (old) threads discussing this already.

tl;dr: The idea seems to be that elevation is disregarded. Assume the earth is (locally) flat.

Edited September 30, 2022 by Hügh

[+Isonzo Karst]

In general, I agree with the premise the elevation is disregarded. However, this is a rather cool idea.  It's the sort of thing that might fly. It would require explicit permission from the tower management, cache in open sky.  And it would require cost  to be considered okay. With all that, the cache owner might still end up working with both reviewer and HQ to make this fly.

 

I suspect the combo of explicit permission and cost is probably The End.

 

I see the price of adult admission as NZ dollar 25, which is US Dollar 14, and Euro 14.4   This is a tad high, typically adult entry fees are capped at ~USD 10.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, Isonzo Karst said:

However, this is a rather cool idea.  It's the sort of thing that might fly.

It is a cool idea: Ulmer Münster Ground-Level (1), Ulmer Münster Mid.Level (2), Ulmer Münster Top Level (3).

 

This is beyond doubt a special case, and I wouldn't expect it to be approved today, although I'd like to think I'd be wrong if the idea were as cool as caches up a historic church tower.

[+Numanoid]

3 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

This is a tad high, typically adult entry fees are capped at ~USD 10.

Where do you get this from? I´ve never heard anything about a capping on entrance fees for geocaches.

[+Hügh]

10 hours ago, Numanoid said:

I´ve never heard anything about a capping on entrance fees for geocaches.

“This cache is in my front lawn. But being my property I will charge a $1000 fee for access.”

 

Hence only “small” fees to government or non-profits are permitted. 

 

10 hours ago, Numanoid said:

Where do you get this from?

It’s a ballpark figure that Reviewers have agreed upon. I cite: 

 

Edited October 1, 2022 by Hügh

[+JL_HSTRE]

Even if allowed I think it's a bad idea. The two cache icons will pretty much overlap on the map. Lots of people will log the wrong cache because of the proximity.

[+vw_k]

30 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

The two cache icons will pretty much overlap on the map. Lots of people will log the wrong cache because of the proximity.

 

Especially considering how many cachers seem to fail to read the cache description!

[+Isonzo Karst]

Inside a building might need to be staged anyway.  Creating the opportunity to have Multi with a Virtual first stage, placed such that it has some clearance from other geocaching map icons.

 

5.7 Indoor geocaches