"Other" size and it's relation to the Guidelines

[+173Carver]

Hey all, I couldn't find a previous or active thread that discussed this so I am bringing it up here. If someone is aware of a similar thread and can redirect me I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

 

Now I have recently placed a multi cache in my local downtown just a few blocks from where I work. My idea and intention for this area was to bring something a little different to my local caching landscape and to apply what is often accredited to E. A. Poe-namely, the best place to hide something is often right out in the open. Now I've found refrigerator sheet magnet caches and A/C Vent caches in urban areas seeming to replicate the same notion and purpose. I wanted to take it a step further and placed a strip of rite-in-rain with the Geocaching logo, url, and the GC code on a roofed PSA board/commons board on a street corner, right there hiding in plain sight. I submitted the multi cache to my volunteer community reviewer with the following included in the reviewer note, "The final is a small piece of rite-in-rain placed about 4-5 feet up on the west side...". I never mentioned a container, I never hid the fact that the final is simply the log. It was published a few hours later.

 

To spare this thread of unnecessary drama I'll simply share that a few cachers are calling for it to be archived. Their main and most fact based complaint is that it doesn't have a container (as the guidelines spell out) which I acknowledge. However, it had been approved by our local community volunteer reviewer who's been serving for over a decade, they've published hides that are the log bookless A/C vent covers I mentioned before (you just sign the vent itself, generally on the internal or concave side of it). I have just over a thousand finds which in comparison to most cachers isn't too much but I've found "virtually" and physically several types of caches that don't have strictly a log book and a container, kind of a combination of the two in most cases like sign a golf ball, a bus, the back of a magnet (various sizes from micro to an A4 sized piece of paper), an oven, a school bus, a cache in Muncie, IN is a laminated piece of paper nailed to a telephone pole, and probably the most famous of all (cause it was awarded Geocache of the Week in August 2014!) a Cadillac! I don't mean to include this list as precedent leverage, I just would like to see what the difference is. 

 

I think that's everything, I hope it all made sense. I come for advice and perspective, thank you all for your time.

 

Happy caching!

 

173Carver

 

 

[+Max and 99]

This feels relevant:

No precedents

There are no precedents for placing geocaches. Past publication of a similar geocache is not justification for publication of a new geocache. If a geocache was published that you feel violated the guidelines, you may report it. However, the existing geocache may have been placed prior to a guideline change, and may be a legacy cache type.

[+Mermaid.Man]

Yes it's a shame but that kind of a hide is no longer allowed.

I remember well one of the caches I found in the early days of my geocaching "career" was similar to what you describe.  It was a notice on a local notice board about a lost dog, and the logsheet was the back of the notice.

I thought it was terrific, but this was hidden in 2010 when the rules were different.

Probably the examples that you give were also published some time ago.

[+MNTA]

I previously had a flat magnet cache that during the initial review process was rejected but the reviewer encouraged me to appeal. He/she must have liked the idea and plus it wasn't personal they were just following the rules. The result was GS approved my container a flat magnet in the shape of a foot placed under a foot of a statue. Alas I moved out of town when Covid hit and unfortunately had to eventually archive as one flaw was that if replaced log side up it would eventually fall off and I had replace once before.

 

I know the situation is slightly different. There are exceptions. You could add a comment to you page that the cache type was approved for listing AS IS. If the complaints are on your listing page you could ask them to delete them or delete them yourselves if they do not change it. Or encrypt and post an OM that says the cache has been approved for listing.

 

There seems to be far bigger problems in geocaching at least you are actively supporting and maintaining your caches responsibly it apears.

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, 173Carver said:

Their main and most fact based complaint is that it doesn't have a container (as the guidelines spell out) which I acknowledge.

Sounds to me like you need to rework the cache so that it has a container.

 

From the guidelines (which you acknowledge):

"The container must hold the logbook."

"The logbook must be [...] Enclosed within a container"
 

And to reiterate what Max and 99 wrote:

"There are no precedents for placing geocaches. Past publication of a similar geocache is not justification for publication of a new geocache. If a geocache was published that you feel violated the guidelines, you may report it. However, the existing geocache may have been placed prior to a guideline change, and may be a legacy cache type."

[+JL_HSTRE]

9 hours ago, 173Carver said:

hides that are the log bookless A/C vent covers I mentioned before (you just sign the vent itself, generally on the internal or concave side of it).

 

Can someone post a photo of one of these? I've never heard of such a cache and I'm having difficulty imagining it.

[+173Carver]

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Can someone post a photo of one of these? I've never heard of such a cache and I'm having difficulty imagining it.

GC7CFX4 and GC6K3C9 are the two I'm aware of, both in Columbus, NE. A few cachers have posted spoilers of varying degrees, a found them 1-2 years ago and can't find my personal photos of them.

[+kunarion]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Can someone post a photo of one of these? I've never heard of such a cache and I'm having difficulty imagining it.

 

The ones I've found are sheet magnets, material used in magnetic signs and these vent covers.

 

 

I've made Geocaching things with sheet magnets.  Mostly for my own car TBs and bumper stickers.  As a cache, it's something that works best if it's rare, so that it's a surprise. 

 

I never attempted to make a cache out of that.  The ones I've found are wet, dirty and full of signatures, with messy, faded logs.  I don't make caches like that.  But they were cool to find because they are unusual.

 

 

Edited March 17 by kunarion

[Keystone]

The final stage of this multi-cache doesn't meet the Geocache Hiding Guidelines, and should be modified.  The concept that the logbook must be enclosed within a separate container has been a requirement that Community Volunteer Reviewers have been directed by Geocaching HQ to enforce since July 10, 2007.  (I'm staring at that directive in another browser tab, and it's crystal-clear.)

 

Reviewers do not "approve" geocaches or their designs.  We publish caches that appear to meet all of the Geocache Hiding Guidelines, and based on what's told (and not told) to us during the review process.  In the first instance, it's up to the cache owner to be familiar with those guidelines and submit caches that comply with them.  Publication by the Reviewer is not a guarantee that all Guidelines have been met.  Reviewers don't delay publication to play "Twenty Questions" and obtain explicit answers for any possible Guideline issue --

• "Prove to me that no digging is required, either to hide or find the container."
• "Prove to me that the original cache contents do not include any prohibited items."
• "Prove to me that the cache includes both a container and a log."
• Etc. etc. etc.

[+kunarion]

15 hours ago, 173Carver said:

I never mentioned a container, I never hid the fact that the final is simply the log.

 

Did you include a photo for the reviewer, and did you state that it is in fact a magnet that people sign on the back?  If not, then the reason other similar caches are published may be the same reason yours did... The notes for the reviewer were kinda vague about what it was.

 

If it gets archived, you may use parts of existing stages as a new cache, and place a container as a Final.  Even the busiest urban places can have a container, I've seen them.

[+cerberus1]

IIRC, simply having a ziplock bag with the log inside and behind the magnet constitutes a "container". 

 - We rarely see them last long, lots of maintenance, but if you don't mind that, there you go...

Years ago we found magnetic labels all over.  Sharpies, magic markers, Staonal crayons, or grease pencils were the writing instruments of choice.

We found most never got permission, and pad mount transformers and utility pole hides finally died out around here.  

[+wimseyguy]

On 3/16/2024 at 11:57 PM, 173Carver said:

Their main and most fact based complaint is that it doesn't have a container (as the guidelines spell out) which I acknowledge. However, it had been approved by our local community volunteer reviewer who's been serving for over a decade, they've published hides that are the log bookless A/C vent covers I mentioned before (you just sign the vent itself, generally on the internal or concave side of it).

 

 

The volunteer reviewers do not visit the hides as part of the review process. Your reviewer bases their evaluation on the information you provided in your reviewer notes. If you weren't forthcoming about the lack of a container, they don't know you are missing one. With 200+ hides under your belt, I am surprised you did not know that one is necessary.

Those two older caches (from 2016/17) that you cited were probably published for the same reason. Your reviewer simply did not know about the lack of a container. Someone has already linked to the No Precedent guideline so I won't double down on that.

Finally, it might just seem like semantics, but there are legal reasons why HQ changed the terminology from approved to published. Some volunteers modified their names to remove approver from them.

 

My advice is to stop looking for community support to disregard the guidelines and update yours as requested by your reviewer.

[+x7Kevin]

On 3/16/2024 at 11:57 PM, 173Carver said:

...and probably the most famous of all (cause it was awarded Geocache of the Week in August 2014!) a Cadillac!

 

I looked up GC4K7Y3 and it actually does have a traditional container, it's a tiny plastic tube with a paper logsheet. I saw it in a log picture from 2015 on the cache page. It does seem like it's been missing for a long time, but I don't think it would have been published if the CO said there's no physical log and just to spray paint the cars. It's actually a fun idea, hide a geocache and then have an optional additional way for cachers to sign their name on another type of "log". 

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 3/17/2024 at 4:44 PM, cerberus1 said:

simply having a ziplock bag with the log inside and behind the magnet constitutes a "container". 

 

It shouldn't, at least not for geocaching purposes.