Opinions on a proposed new cache please

[+The Hornet]

I am seeking your opinions on a new series of caches I had planned for London this week. They are based on the Nursery Rhyme "Oranges and Lemons" and feature the churches and places mentioned in the rhyme. I had planned to make it similar in approach to The Rainbow series by McDehack, The Sherlock series by Lunchbox and The Calamity series by Daoloth & Tuna i.e. it would consist of six separate virtual caches where you gather data leading to a final real cache of the usual tupperware variety.

 

I gathered all the necessary data on Wednesday and placed the cache in its hiding spot. I then spent Wednesday evening composing the cache pages.

 

Unfortunately, in my view, the administrators are refusing to allow them to be approved in their current form. They are insisting that I combine them all into a single "multi location" cache similar to The London Pilgrimage by Tuna & Daoloth and Safari by Lushington.

 

I have completed and enjoyed all of those other caches mentioned and I believe that both kinds have their merits. This has been discussed at length in the thread started by McDehack.

 

So my question to you all is: Should I be allowed to submit my series of 6 virtual / 1 real caches as they stand or should I have to combine them into a single "multi-cache"?

 

I am not asking which is best, that's impossible to answer. It's just a question of choice.

[el10t]

In my view these should definitely be allowed as a series of virtuals, and should not be combined into a single cache.

 

With all the London series you have mentioned the locations are a fair distance apart, and they have taken me more than one trip to complete so it is entirely appropriate that they are separate. I presume your series is the same so I see no problem.

 

-----------------

el10t

mobilis in mobili

[+Lost in Space]

Opinion only Peter, but seeing as all the "caches" would appear to be in Central London, and that not many cachers actually live in Central London,(OK, Kennamatic I did say "many"), then I would presume that your intention is that all the caches be done on one day.

In that case, I would have to say that it is really only one cache.

 

Neil

[evilrooster]

I checked on the online forums before I posted a series of seven virtuals, six with the coordinates online, the seventh derived from things you find at the first six. Admittedly, unlike your idea, it is designed to do in one day.

 

I was told unequivocally that it should be a single multi, and posted Up the Close and Down the Stair as such.

 

Now that there's no limit to the amount of text you can put in the cache description, I think they're trying to get people to stack these things into one cache rather than spreading them into many.

 

evilrooster

-the email of the species is deadlier than the mail-

[+jeremyp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Hornet:

I gathered all the necessary data on Wednesday and placed the cache in its hiding spot. I then spent Wednesday evening composing the cache pages.

 

Unfortunately, in my view, the administrators are refusing to allow them to be approved in their current form. They are insisting that I combine them all into a single "multi location" cache similar to The London Pilgrimage by Tuna & Daoloth and Safari by Lushington.

 

I have completed and enjoyed all of those other caches mentioned and I believe that both kinds have their merits. This has been discussed at length in the thread started by McDehack.

 

So my question to you all is: Should I be allowed to submit my series of 6 virtual / 1 real caches as they stand or should I have to combine them into a single "multi-cache"?

 

I am not asking which is best, that's impossible to answer. It's just a question of choice.

---

It's impossible to answer as you say. Therefore I think you should be allowed to post the cache(s) in any way you see fit. They're your caches, you are the one who did the groundwork for these. If the approvers are trying to stop you based on content, they are totally out order in my opinion (apologies to the approvers if I am wrong and they have a legit reason). There are plenty of precendents for multiple virtual caches leading to a single real cache many of which are extremely good e.g Sherlock and Rainbow.

 

If the approvers start censoring caches simply because they don't come up to some sort of (unpublished) ideal standard, then people will just stop placing caches and it will kill the sport.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[el10t]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lost in Space:

_Opinion_ only Peter, but seeing as all the "caches" would appear to be in Central London, and that not many cachers actually live in Central London,(OK, Kennamatic I did say "many"), then I would presume that your intention is that all the caches be done on one day.

In that case, I would have to say that it is really only one cache.

---

 

This is opinion only as well, but I'm not sure the argument is argument is that valid. For example, on the recent and highly succesful Great Yorkshire cache hunt each cache counted as an individual one and all were done on a single day.

 

-----------------

el10t

mobilis in mobili

[chuffer]

quote:

---

This is opinion only as well, but I'm not sure the argument is argument is that valid. For example, on the recent and highly succesful Great Yorkshire cache hunt each cache counted as an individual one and all were done on a single day.

 

-----------------

el10t

_mobilis in mobili_

---

 

To clarify...

 

The individual logging of caches at the GYCH was due, in part, to unclear wording within the original cache page which meant that cachers visiting the event could log their visit even if they did not take part in the actual competition.

 

In retrospect this was perhaps the incorrect procedure and should not be used as a precedent for future events or multiple type caches.

[Ben Pid]

Hi Peter.

 

I believe that in London at the moment there are far too many cache pages with series' such as these...with Sherlock Rainbow and Monopoly etc, I can see the nearest caches page getting way too over crowded.

 

In my opinion...sorry guys....this goes for Sherlock and the rest....caches like these should all just be one Multi Cache....so as to leave room for other caches to come up.

 

I know if I had a cache in London I would want people to actually see the cache page instead of having to click the NEXT page 6 times to even see its existance. I wouldn't plant a cache in London for this reason.

 

Pid

 

Watch out its a Golfcourse... (Team Dan and Pid)

[Ben Pid]

.

[+Rocky Balboa]

I think this again comes down to why do people care so much how many caches other people find. It isnt a competition. If there is some other reason please let me know? otherwise i think everyone should just be happy for people whn thier numbers go up.

 

Dan Wilson (Team Dan and Pid)

[+The Hornet]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply, both here and in e-mails. As I expected there is a difference of opinion although there seems to be no clear cut conclusion.

 

I value the opinion of everyone who has replied.

 

Taking into consideration the comments received I have decided to re-post the cache as a single multi-cache as requested by admin. Although I am disappointed that my original plan was vetoed in what I consider an arbitrary way given that similar caches are already approved, I have no great problem in doing it this way either. The clues are exatly the same, the places to be visited are the same and the final cache is the same. As has been said, geocaching is not about racking up numbers, it is about the enjoyment of the hunt. Numbers are secondary.

 

I had fun setting it up, the diversity of the places visited, both buildings and neighbourhoods astonished me. I hope you enjoy going for it.

 

My advice would be to incorporate it with the Sherlock and Calamity series as they come together on several places.

 

Thanks again, Peter (Hornet)

 

_________________________________________________________

 

It is better to regret something you did, rather than to regret something you didn't do.

[+kennamatic]

quote:

---

So my question to you all is: Should I be allowed to submit my series of 6 virtual / 1 real caches as they stand or should I have to combine them into a single "multi-cache"?

---

 

There is a third option, which would be to incorporate and post the virtual caches as one cache and the physical cache as a second.

 

quote:

---

I would presume that your intention is that all the caches be done on one day.

In that case, I would have to say that it is really only one cache.

---

 

If someone places a series of physical caches in a relatively small geographical area and these can be done "together" should that only count as one? (Not that the count matters).

 

For me the rule of thumb would be, if you can walk round the series from first to last then it is one cache, if it requires you to use transport to get between each, (because of distance, not convenience), then they would be seperate.

 

But as already mentioned, there's never going to be a right or wrong answer to this question and perhaps shows one of the big differences between countryside and urban geocaching.

 

Finding your caches - Losing my marbles.

[+McDeHack]

I have only just noticed this thread as I have been away for the weekend.

Why the discrimination? What was OK for the Sherlock, Rainbow, and Catastrophe, Calamity, Cataclysm series of caches. Should be OK for the Hornet.

Again it raises the question that I asked in my thread.

Peter said that there were six virtual and one box to find. All the arguments so far are valid.

I will concede that no matter what this set is I will look forward to do them.

 

I will disagree with what Pid said.

What is wrong with swamping London with caches? It is a big city.

I can only get out into the countryside at weekends, so if I can go caching in London during the weekdays that’s fine by me. (I know I should be working but I also know my prioritys) I expect that there are others that would welcome the opportunity to hunt caches during their lunch breaks.

Also from the e-mails and log reports that I have got from the visitors from other lands to London. They praise those that have laid caches in London for them to find, and the offbeat places that they would not normally have visited.

[Ben Pid]

I meant it from the point of vew of a newcomer to London because they would get them all coem up at once...its ok for you because you can take them one at atime and keep going back...can a tourist do that?

 

Pid

 

Watch out its a Golfcourse... (Team Dan and Pid)

[el10t]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pid:

its ok for you because you can take them one at atime and keep going back...can a tourist do that?

---

 

I think a tourist can do that. The multi-caches are clearly labelled as being part of a series so no problem.

I look forward to the new Monopoly series all having to be merged together into one huge multi-cache! Not sure how many locations there are on a Monopoly board but it must be about 28 or more (counting stations).

 

-----------------

el10t

mobilis in mobili

[Ben Pid]

El10T I maent about there being so many caches in the cpital. I didnt mean about multi caches. I just meant they wont have time to do them all.

 

Pid

 

Watch out its a Golfcourse... (Team Dan and Pid)

[+Chris n Maria]

Personally I would much rather the series as individual caches rather than 1 multi. Caching in my lunchbreaks it's nice to do 1 a day - IMHO.

 

Of course you could havelooged all the caches as physicals then changed them to virtuals once they have been approved. No I didn't say that - what can I have been thinking.

 

Chris

"We're not lost - we just don't know where we are"

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

[Runemaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris n Maria:

 

Of course you could havelooged all the caches as physicals then changed them to virtuals once they have been approved. No I didn't say that - what can I have been thinking.

---

 

[Runemaster]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris n Maria:

 

Of course you could havelooged all the caches as physicals then changed them to virtuals once they have been approved. No I didn't say that - what can I have been thinking.

---

 

[+Icenians]

I have to say that I don't quite see what this has to do with admin. I can understand the need to check for bad language etc but how the cahce is set up? The site may be theirs but the caches are ours. I really enjoy this game but I do get really annoyed with the high handedness of the site sometimes. This game belongs to the players and not the admin of this site. There are others!

[+McDeHack]

Quote

_____________________

There are others!

____________________-

 

Now there is a point. There are other geocache sites but what are their rules?

 

A little while ago someone suggested a UK only page. I objected. But now I can see a reason for this.

[el10t]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pid:

El10T I maent about there being so many caches in the cpital. I didnt mean about multi caches. I just meant they wont have time to do them all.

---

Fair point Pid But then I suppose the same applies to any part of the country. For example living on the South coast I am unable to go back time-after-time to complete all the caches in Scotland. All the more reason to make them individual rather than single multicaches.

 

-----------------

el10t

mobilis in mobili

[el10t]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pid:

El10T I maent about there being so many caches in the cpital. I didnt mean about multi caches. I just meant they wont have time to do them all.

---

Fair point Pid But then I suppose the same applies to any part of the country. For example living on the South coast I am unable to go back time-after-time to complete all the caches in Scotland. All the more reason to make them individual rather than single multicaches.

 

-----------------

el10t

mobilis in mobili

[+tophat]

When I posted my first cache (Fruits of the Forest), I submitted it as seven separate ones. I got a swift response from the-powers-that-vet saying that it should be one multi-cache. The reason they gave was that there was only one physical cache, with one logbook. I replied citing Sherlock & Rainbow as precedent, but they came back saying that those must have been posted under more lax conditions. They also archived the first 6, and combined them all into the seventh. I let it drop.

Regarding Monopoly, when finished it will cover 30 locations, with well over 60 questions, and 11 physical caches - more than enough for an afternoon!

[+The Hornet]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tophat:

When I posted my first cache (Fruits of the Forest), I submitted it as seven separate ones. I got a swift response from the-powers-that-vet saying that it should be one multi-cache. The reason they gave was that there was only one physical cache, with one logbook. I replied citing Sherlock & Rainbow as precedent, but they came back saying that those must have been posted under more lax conditions. They also archived the first 6, and combined them all into the seventh. I let it drop.

Regarding Monopoly, when finished it will cover 30 locations, with well over 60 questions, and 11 physical caches - more than enough for an afternoon!

---

 

Sounds awfully familiar! I have to agree wholeheartedly with Icenians. The beauty of this game/sport/pastime/wasteoftime is that it is essentially free of rules, conditions, governing bodies, fees etc. It relies on committed participants working for each other. As long as certain sensible guidelines are followed (i.e. nothing dangerous, objectionable, even commercial) anything goes. This has led to the marvellous diversity of caches that have sprung up over the last year. Or rather it was.

 

This is not the first time that what still seems to me to be an unreasonable objection by someone I don't know and am never likely to meet has prevented me from setting a cache in the way I wanted to.

 

Perhaps I'm peeved at not getting my way, but I'm concerned that "abitrary standards" are being set without reference to those that matter, the guys and gals on the ground placing and hunting caches. It's the inconsistency and unaccountability that bugs me. I enjoyed Sherlock and Rainbow in their current form. I enjoyed Pilgrim and Safari in their form. Who is to say one is right and one is wrong? As far as I'm concerned there's room for both.

 

Perhaps someone in "admin" could explain to us all how administrators are elected (I've never been asked to vote for anyone), how the rules are set, where we can find them and to whom we can appeal if we believe we have a complaint.

 

Gets off soap box now

Looking forward to going for the Cluedo series and others in the neighbourhood in the next few days so must crank up the printer now. I think I need to get back in the fresh air among the nettles again!

 

Peter (Hornet)

 

_________________________________________________________

 

It is better to regret something you did, rather than to regret something you didn't do.

[+The Hornet]

quote:

---

Originally posted by tophat:

When I posted my first cache (Fruits of the Forest), I submitted it as seven separate ones. I got a swift response from the-powers-that-vet saying that it should be one multi-cache. The reason they gave was that there was only one physical cache, with one logbook. I replied citing Sherlock & Rainbow as precedent, but they came back saying that those must have been posted under more lax conditions. They also archived the first 6, and combined them all into the seventh. I let it drop.

Regarding Monopoly, when finished it will cover 30 locations, with well over 60 questions, and 11 physical caches - more than enough for an afternoon!

---

 

Sounds awfully familiar! I have to agree wholeheartedly with Icenians. The beauty of this game/sport/pastime/wasteoftime is that it is essentially free of rules, conditions, governing bodies, fees etc. It relies on committed participants working for each other. As long as certain sensible guidelines are followed (i.e. nothing dangerous, objectionable, even commercial) anything goes. This has led to the marvellous diversity of caches that have sprung up over the last year. Or rather it was.

 

This is not the first time that what still seems to me to be an unreasonable objection by someone I don't know and am never likely to meet has prevented me from setting a cache in the way I wanted to.

 

Perhaps I'm peeved at not getting my way, but I'm concerned that "abitrary standards" are being set without reference to those that matter, the guys and gals on the ground placing and hunting caches. It's the inconsistency and unaccountability that bugs me. I enjoyed Sherlock and Rainbow in their current form. I enjoyed Pilgrim and Safari in their form. Who is to say one is right and one is wrong? As far as I'm concerned there's room for both.

 

Perhaps someone in "admin" could explain to us all how administrators are elected (I've never been asked to vote for anyone), how the rules are set, where we can find them and to whom we can appeal if we believe we have a complaint.

 

Gets off soap box now

Looking forward to going for the Cluedo series and others in the neighbourhood in the next few days so must crank up the printer now. I think I need to get back in the fresh air among the nettles again!

 

Peter (Hornet)

 

_________________________________________________________

 

It is better to regret something you did, rather than to regret something you didn't do.

[el10t]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Hornet:

Perhaps someone in "admin" could explain to us all how administrators are elected (I've never been asked to vote for anyone), how the rules are set, where we can find them and to whom we can appeal if we believe we have a complaint.

---

 

Peter,

I agree entirely with everything you (and Icenians) have said, and I put this exact question to Groundspeak not so long ago over a slightly different issue. Jeremy wrote back saying that he picks the approvers himself and if we don't agree with a decision they have made then we should discuss it on the forums. However, I get the impression that there is little scope for appeal in cases like this.

 

-----------------

el10t

mobilis in mobili

 

[This message was edited by el10t on August 12, 2002 at 02:20 AM.]

[el10t]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Hornet:

Perhaps someone in "admin" could explain to us all how administrators are elected (I've never been asked to vote for anyone), how the rules are set, where we can find them and to whom we can appeal if we believe we have a complaint.

---

 

Peter,

I agree entirely with everything you (and Icenians) have said, and I put this exact question to Groundspeak not so long ago over a slightly different issue. Jeremy wrote back saying that he picks the approvers himself and if we don't agree with a decision they have made then we should discuss it on the forums. However, I get the impression that there is little scope for appeal in cases like this.

 

-----------------

el10t

mobilis in mobili

 

[This message was edited by el10t on August 12, 2002 at 02:20 AM.]

[+jeremyp]

Who are the approvers? They have been strangely silent on this issue. I completely disagree with their decision with respect to these caches as do some other people apparently so I'd like to see them try and justify it.

 

I for one see absolutely no reason why there shouldn't be a number of separate virtual caches contributing clues to a final normal cache. Apart from the fact that imposing rules against this sort of thing is just the thin end of a nasty beurocratic officious wedge, there is the practical consideration that each clue gets its own separate downloadable waypoint on geocaching.com.

 

The argument about the number of caches in London is a totally separate issue. Personally I think it is an interesting enough place to be able to handle many more caches than are there already.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[chuffer]

It would seem to me that these type of multipart caches are a considerable variation from the the standard style of normal (or virtual) caches and as such would perhaps benefit from being listed seperately from the 'standards'.

 

Most of these multipart caches require the cacher to spend considerable time and effort completing them and are verging on being a permanent 'event'.

 

Maybe they need their own slightly different form of listing and logging procedure ?

[rthorne]

Thinking about this one, what about creating an individual cache for the collection, but having sub-caches beneath it. Each of these could then be treated as individual caches but as a subset of the collection?

 

Just a thought.

[+jeremyp]

quote:

---

Originally posted by chuffer:

It would seem to me that these type of multipart caches are a considerable variation from the the standard style of normal (or virtual) caches and as such would perhaps benefit from being listed seperately from the 'standards'.

---

 

When you create a cache you specify whether it is a multipart cache or a virtual cache. I think we need maybe a new category called 'sub-cache' which means that it is a cache that needs to be solved to find another cache.

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[+dylanhayes]

If each part of a multi cache is listed as a cache we run the risk of being swamped in caches when you look for local caches and download them to our GPSs.

 

IMHO, If the virtual caches are fairly close together, and linked by a theme and form the 'key' to a physical cache I think it makes good sense to list it all as one cache, as that way its obvious what is going on. Unless there is a really compelling reason that only a virtual cache would be possible at a location I'm generally not so keen stand alone virtual caches anyway. I know I had debated this myself, as wanted to 'reward' a seeker with the prospect of gaining several caches not just one for all the work of finding a geopuzzle I set once. But on the other hand if a cacher just wishes to rack up the numbers there are plenty of easy but less satifying ways to do, as we all know some caches are far harder than others, but the 'number found' doesn't reflect this. I guess it really depends on what motivates the individual.

 

*******************************************************

Don't mention the mushrooms

*******************************************************

[philgn]

I'm sure if I put myself out I would be able to do some of the London multi cache's in the comfort of my armchair, with the dates and so forth. Not the first clue to Oranges and Lemons, that was a good one. Incidently Oranges and Lemons is the third verse to that particular rhyme, there are in fact 14 verses, and so perhaps you could do another one.Just for interest, some think that St. Clement Danes, in the Strand (who's bells do, on occasions, strike the tune of Oranges and Lemons)is the church referred to, but I'm sure you have the right one, it makes more sense.

 

[This message was edited by philgn on August 13, 2002 at 08:37 AM.]

[+Jessex]

THe Sherlock and Rainbow caches were not very good at all. I think the approvers should reign in all these multi-caches in big cities. Why not do one good cache instead of many crappy ones?

[Lactodorum]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessex:

THe Sherlock and Rainbow caches were not very good at all. I think the approvers should reign in all these multi-caches in big cities. Why not do one good cache instead of many crappy ones?

---

 

As the newest approver perhaps I might be allowed to comment.

 

In my regular guise I have done many multi caches - some enjoyable, some (an distinct minority) not very enjoyable. I think it would be a dangerous thing if we approvers allow our personal prejudices as to what makes an interesting cache affect the approval process.

 

To my mind if a cache meets the GC.com guidelines (modified if appropriate by the GAGB variants) then I will approve it. Some people like virtuals, some don't. Some people like long walks, some prefer short ones. Some like micros, others don't. We're all different and the sport is big enough to accomodate most peoples likes.

 

The bottom line is - if you don't like a particular type of cache leave them for someone who does and attempt those you do like. Most importantly HAVE FUN!!!

[el10t]

Wow! Ancient thread revival!

 

Rich (Founder member of GAGB)

Can YOU handle the Donkey?

[StealthGoth]

Funny co-incidence. I am planning to do Oranges and Bells tomorrow!

 

Wish me luck!

[+Cushag]

Reading through these posts it 's making me scared to lay my own cache. If it is not apporoved but I circulate the details amongst my geocaching friends will it mean me being arrested on suspicion of underhand dealings?

Presumably only caches submitted to the website need appoval. Say no more!

[Lactodorum]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cushag:

Reading through these posts it 's making me scared to lay my own cache. If it is not apporoved but I circulate the details amongst my geocaching friends will it mean me being arrested on suspicion of underhand dealings?

Presumably only caches submitted to the website need appoval. Say no more!

---

 

Hi Cushag,

 

I'm sure your comment was 'tounge in cheek' but even so, there's certainly no need to be concerned about setting your first (and subsequent) caches.

 

Most caches that are submitted for approval, in the UK at least, get approved with no problems. Some might require a slight modification or two but nothing earth shattering. As long as it conforms to the listing guidelines here it will get approved.

 

Circulating details privately is entirely up to you. GC.COM certainly won't get involved, neither would I guess any of the other listing sites around.

 

So the bottom line - submit your cache and we'll try our damndest to approve it quickly

 

If you have any concerns about it, why not e-mail me or Eckington to discuss it first?

 

Welcome to the sport/game/pastime/madness

 

------------------------------

Chill out - I'm doing my best!