my first cache was not approved...please comment

[+Zartimus]

I like the concept. I don't think it is too close to the other caches due to it being a multi. I think multi's deserve a bit of slack on that rule. To me, the first stage seems far enough away from other posted caches and the finders will have no idea the end-point is within 380 odd feet of the other until they actually do it.

 

The train tracks don't sound too dangerous from what was described.

 

And Team Purdy offering to move your cache? YOU ROCK!

[+Team Purdy]

I received permission to move "Middlefork". I don't know where to move it so as to be farther away. I know of the bridge, but I don't know where it is relation to "Middlefork".

 

I moved "Red Raspberry" to a point some 160 feet from the nearest rail of the RR in question. This will take Admin off the case regarding Red Raspberry. Co-Ords have changed by just a bit.

 

Team Purdy

[+xafwodahs]

Hi Team Purdy-

 

Thanks very much for looking into this. 'Middlefork' is about 380 feet north (and slightly east) of the bridge. [i don't have my GPS with me, otherwise I'd give you exact bearing]. So if you move it, the safest bet would be to move it a couple hundred feet north.

 

However, I received an email from the Groundspeak personnel that sounded like the only real sticking point was going to be the proximity to the tracks. I've emailed back and I'm waiting on more details.

 

So, you could move it now, or you could wait to see what answer I get from the Groundspeak personnel. Again, I really don't like the idea of asking someone to move a cache, and if my cache wasn't on an immovable object, I would simply move mine elsewhere.

 

Either way, I appreciate your participation in this matter.

[+Team Purdy]

We will wait for the OK from Admin. If it hinges on the closeness to Middlefork, we will move it for you.

 

Using a different aerial photo, the bridge is quite aparent. There is(was) a road from the NE that sweeps into the bridge and then turns north on the west side of the RR.

 

This can be seen in both the aerial photo as well as the topo maps.

 

That is quite a nice bit of history you found there.

 

Team Purdy

[+xafwodahs]

Thanks, and thanks for your willingness to move Middlefork. I'll let you know what they say.

 

Ya, I think it is very interesting historically. I found the bridge the same way GyozaKing recently did while looking for Middlefork (see log on Middlefork).

 

The road you see, if I'm not mistaken, was part of John Ogden Armour's 2 mile driveway to his house (which is now the Lake Forest Academy).

 

This multicache is designed to walk you along the driveway from the gates off of highway 43, past the restored bridge, to the ruined bridge.

 

It is only because of the unique historical aspect that I'm being such a pain-in-the-butt regarding this cache. I think other people would enjoy it.

 

Anyway, thanks again for your assistance. I'll let you know what they say.

[+Bilder]

Now this is way cool.

 

One cacher helping another in getting a cache approved. If only all cachers could be as helpful and willing to assist with a cache movement.

 

Way to go!!

 

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

I have never been lost. Been awful confused for a few days, but never lost!

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

[+Team GPSaxophone]

See what communication can do?

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

[+Genius Loci]

I really think that the questions regarding the approval of xafwodahs cache would never have come up if any of the Admins were personally familiar with, or had actually visited, the area (and the existing caches) in question. Of course, that's undoubtedly not possible here. However, I grew up and currently live very close to this spot, have been in this area many, many times in the past, have found the existing Team Purdy caches, and am personally familiar with the features mentioned in the proposed cache. I'm certainly no Approver, but I do have an intimate relationship with the site in question, and in my opinion, the xafwodahs cache should absolutely be approved!

 

RR TRACK CONCERNS

I believe that the proximity of the proposed final cache to the railroad tracks is NOT a problem at this location; it is isolated quite well enough from the railroad tracks by a difference in elevation, fences, and dense tree cover. There is no reason to cross, approach, or even view the RR tracks to get to the cache. Although it has little bearing on the matter, it's ironic that this cache would be safer than the existing 'Red Rasberry' cache on the other side of the same tracks which encourages (practically requires) visitors to actually cross the tracks without using a crossing!

 

CACHE SATURATION:

As far as 'Cache Saturation' is concerned; there is no RULE that speaks to this - ONLY A 'POLICY'! Over and over again in the forum posts I see both Approvers and cachers referring to a .1 mile 'rule'. Yet, when you read the actual 'Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines' on this website, it clearly states:

 

quote:

---

The approvers use a policy that caches placed within .10 miles of another cache will not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area.

---

 

That is clearly not a rule, which MUST be followed, but rather 'just a guideline'.

 

Xafwodahs is proposing a cache that is very different from all of the ones already installed in the area. As such, it would clearly provide a very different sort of geocaching experience; one that emphases the history and unique features of the location. No offense to the exisiting caches, but they don't do that at all! As such, the proposed new cache will certainly compliment, not detract from, the existing nearby caches.

 

I believe this cache would not only be legal and safe, but also that it would actually enhance the quality of geocaching in the area. I urge the Approvers to reconsider these factors carefully. I'm sure a visit to the site would clear up any concerns which appear to have arisen at least partly from the use of remote sensing techniques, rather than personal examination, to evaluate the situation here.

[+ILReviewer]

I congratulate both Team Purdy and Xafwodahs in their willingness to work together to create better caches in the area. From the onset, I've wanted to find a way to get this approved because it looks like a great piece of history.

 

I'll work with Team Purdy on a possible (minimal) relocation of Middlefork. If there are fences providing a barrier to the tracks (as posted in the initial post of this thread), I would not have a problem.

 

I'll also bring the Groundspeak team up to speed with this information and my recommendation.

 

Thanks to all who participated in the discussion with constructive comments.

[Team Kender]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtn-man:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ILAdmin:

Stage four is the bigger problem: Yes, stage four is close to the tracks and there needs to be some compelling information given that there is NO chance for someone to get arrested for problems (see http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=4597382d-8fb1-4211-b7ab-42a1f12066bf ).

---

Did anyone read that log???

Here is the cache page as well:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=21328&log=y

 

Read it.

 

mtn-man... admin brick mason http://img.Groundspeak.com/cache/19490_2600.gif

---

 

Holy crap!

 

Team Kender - "The Sun is coming up!" "No, the horizon is going down."

[+xafwodahs]

Hi Team Kender -

 

Yes, I did read that log. That's quite an amazing series of events for Hillwilly.

 

I'm not worried about such event related to this cache, however.

 

First, (and probably least important) my container is a green tupperware container - probably less intimidating to the casual observer than an ammo box.

 

Second, because the bridge is elevated and in dense trees, the cacher would not be visible to anyone on/near the train.

 

Third, I think by now, 9/11 based fears are at least a little bit diminished, and hopefully someone looking around on an already destroyed bridge will not cause an over-reaction.

 

Fourth, (and probably most important) there is a fence which defines the separation of properties, and the cache is definitely on the 'away' side of the fence.

[+Juggling Kenai]

One of our caches is relatively near the tracks and though you can get there otherwise, just about everyone has gotten to it by way of tracks.

 

I am a bit skeptical of the 150' rule, or rather that it is a nationwide concept. The tracks run right through our town, and the old railway stration -- you got it -- next to the tracks.. so let's say, 5 feet, is a restaurant. Not to mention a load of other businesses within 100 feet of the tracks on all sides.

 

More than that Patapsco Valley State Park in Md. (which is where our tracks are) basically runs down the tracks/river. An official trail map from the park service will show miles of trails which literally follow the tracks/river. So, at least in Maryland, the State of Maryland isn't doing much to keep people 150' from the tracks.

 

In Sykesville, the river trail (the non-track way to get to our cache) will run down to the river and along the tracks, all paved, and back into town again -- when it is complete.

 

Sorry to hear that people in California are more unreasonable, though they do have a big deficit to take care of... every $2030 counts.

[+Team Purdy]

Team Purdy Here

 

We will be away until Monday. Any changes will be then.

[+GyozaKing]

Having been there a few days ago I can affirm most of what's been said about the location. The only view we got was from the tracks, and we couldn't see much because it's set back, it's elevated, and the foliage is very dense. We didn't investigate the ruins of the bridge, but we cut in about 350 ft NW of it and I can attest to the fact that at ground level there's a fence that includes a strand or two of barbed wire.

 

I agree that this cache should be allowed and predict that it will generate some excitement and good word of mouth if it is approved.

[+Team Purdy]

We are still uncertain if it will be necessary to move "Middlefork". Am willing to do so if necessary, but don't want to if not needed.

[+xafwodahs]

Hi Team Purdy-

 

I just emailed the ILAdmin for a status update. I'll let you know as soon as I know anything.

 

Thanks again.

[+Team Purdy]

We will move "Middlefork" Tue or Wed depending on the timing of far too many things. We wanna try to find the Road to Ruin ASAP

 

Team Purdy

[+Team Purdy]

Middlefork has been moved by some 240 feet.

Road to Ruin should be approved soon.

[+xafwodahs]

'Road to Ruin' was finally approved. I want to say thank you to anyone and everyone who helped - especially Team Purdy for moving their cache.

[+Team Purdy]

Bye!