Jump to content

Cache Wars, Warm up.


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Cache 1. The approval process was started with the NPS for a virtual. The NPS ran the cache up the ladder and back down and with some suggestions for wording and such they approved the cache. Cache 1. is submitted and approved on this site as a virtual cache.

 

Cache 2. The cache is submitted without NPS approval and is also approved on this site as a virtual cache. This approval happened first, while Cache 1 was being worked out with the NPS

 

Alas you might think there could be peaceful coexistence under the grandfather rules. Both caches were approved after all. But it's not to be.

 

The owner of Cache 2. Recommends that Cache 1 be archived. "Duplicate" So it is.

 

This flat out pisses me off.

 

Now if you can’t have two approved caches close together and so ones has to go. Does the one that got approved on Geocaching.com first win? Sounds reasonable if you ignore the grandfather rules. Of course the one that the land stewards gave their blessing to also seems to have a good claim on being the survivor. There didn’t have to be a winner and loser on this but the second owner sent an email and viola Cache 1 dies. Cache Owner 2 COULD have emailed Cache owner 1 and said "hey lets work this out". Nope. Didn't happen.

 

The purpose of this post is to make admins think before they archive a cache on the advice of another. REGARDLESS of who that other person is. The "Archive this cache" function has a purpose, but it's execution should not be automatic.

 

More to come in Cache Wars, II.

 

P.S. per the revised guidelines Cache 2 would be a "Vacation Virtual" cache while Cache 1 has the owner in the area several times a year. Go Figure.

Link to comment

Someone creates a virtual that is not listed on GC.com. Many months (a year) later someone else creates the same virtual but lists it on GC.com.

 

The only change is that a number gets added to a find count that does not represent all finds.

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

I have a situation sorta like that...

 

I've been in contact with the land managers for a local park in order to place a cache. Admittedly, I don't yet have permission, but I've talked to a person on the phone and we're in the process of trying to meet out at the park--he wants to get an idea of what I want to do.

 

Meanwhile, someone else placed a cache in the park.

 

I don't mind that the other cache was placed there... but it puts me in an odd position.

 

Jamie

Link to comment

I understand where your coming from, and i know things like this will happen. But im not going to criticize the approvers for the simple reason that they have a hell of a lot of stuff to do/check/approve. I wouldnt expect hardly anyone to catch a situation like that. Let along people volunteering to sift through how many caches per day?

 

[Episkipos Enos Shenk, KSC]

[http://enos.deviantart.com]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Frolickin:

Someone creates a virtual that is not listed on GC.com. Many months (a year) later someone else creates the same virtual but lists it on GC.com.

 

The only _change_ is that a number gets added to a find count that does not represent all finds.

 

Fro.

 


 

That is all a virtual is in the first place. Some already existing place that we attach coordinate and an ID number to.

 

I don't think you are suggesting people check other geocaching sites before placing a cache are you?

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Link to comment

I have a feeling a vast majority of caches are placed without permission, so if anybody actually goes to the trouble to talk to somebody and get permission their cache should overrule any other one. After all, the person that placed one without permission went against geocaching.com guidelines.

 

smiles_63.gif ---Real men cache in shorts.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

Now if you can’t have two approved caches close together and so ones has to go. Does the one that got approved on Geocaching.com first win? Sounds reasonable if you ignore the grandfather rules.


 

icon_confused.gif Were both caches (1&2) submited, approved, and listed on gc.com before the current distance limits took effect??

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

Upon re-reading my post, I realize I had not illustrated my point well. Let me take another stab at this.

 

The issue is can two virtual caches point to the same location?

 

RK began this thread by pointing out an issue where two caches listed at GC.com pointed to the same location. One was archived. He wanted to discuss the merits of which cache should have been archived. That is a good discussion to have.

 

In presenting the issue, it appears that those who have responded thus far seem to think that no two virtual caches should point to the same location. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

I got to thinking why two virtual caches could not point ot the same location. To illustrate the issue, I offer you a slightly different scenario than what RK stated. Assume that I created a virtual cache for some location a year ago. For whatever reason, I posted that cache to some site other than GC.com (N.com, WWGC.com, a personal site, etc.).

 

Further assume that today, user jdoe (forgive me if there is such a user) creates a virtual cache for the same location as the one I created a year ago. He posts his cache to GC.com. One can also assume that jdoe had learned of this location from having sought and logged my virtual cache posted elsewhere.

 

So, now we have two virtual caches point to the same location. Can this be? Is it any different than the case for which RK presented initially in this thread?

 

Physical Caches

The discussion of physical caches recently has focused upon the .1 mile rule/guideline/policy/term du jour.

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.

Cache Listing Requirements

That guideline is in the interest of the game. Too many caches in a small area spoils the game (generally). But the guideline is hollow for it only applies to caches listed at GC.com. As long as each cache listed here is .1 miles from each other, the guideline is satisfied. Each listed GC.com cache, however, could be within inches of another cache not listed at GC.com, and the guideline would still be satisfied. The guideline, therefore, is not in the interest of the game, but in the interest of GC.com.

 

So, when we try to determine whether or not two virtual caches can point to the same location, it would be helpful to have a guideline, rule, policy, term du jour that would hold up for the game at large and not just for those caches listed at GC.com.

 

Inevitably, someone will tell me that if I do not like the way GC.com does things, I should take my caches elsewhere. This would not be the first time I have been told that.

 

But there's the rub. In a case like this, I have. Then that cache has been duplicated. So what? one may ask. If I am to maintain the the area of the cache and I have obtained permission previously that jdoe did not, the location can easily be compromised through no action of mine whatsoever. That affects the cache I posted elsewhere. It affects me personally. And germain to the discussion, it affects the reputation of the game.

 

So, can two virtual caches point to the same location?

 

Fro.

 

________________________________________

Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose

Link to comment

The games "geocaching", and the game "geocaching by the rules of Geocaching.com" seem to be two different things. I happen to be fine with the .com game. If a virt exists in the same place as one listed here, I would never know, nor would I care. I don't think that a virt listed somewhere else should have any bearing on a cache listed here. If you were playing "orange hunt", and you place an orange on top of someones apple, how does that affect the "orange hunt" game? If it's a virtual apple, you wouldn't even know it exists unless you looked elsewhere for coordinates. If the other cache wasn't submitted for approval here, it doesn't exist here, and it shouldn't affect caches here.

 

The only thing I hate more than going to sleep is waking up.

Link to comment

This further illustrates the need for cache pre-approval processes.

 

Recently, I submitted a cache, but was not yet through with the clues. (It was getting late, I was punchy, and I knew they weren't right.) I knew as soon as I pressed SUBMIT it would go up for approval. What I did was put "HOLD: OWNER" in front of the cache name. The cache was actually approved, but put in DISABLED mode. This was cool as the next day I finished the clues and put it up.

 

With the rise in popularity of geocaching, we will have more and more of these collisions. There needs to a be a mechanism to show one's intent.

 

I propose going ahead taking prelimiatry readings and posting a page with rough discriptions, but putting "HOLD: OWNER SEEKING LM APPROVAL" before the real cache title. This will alert approvers that you are in the process of putting in a cache. If it's up too long without being finalized, then it can simply be archived.

 

An approver might want to respond to this to let us know if this is a good idea as I have no idea how the behind the scenes work.

 

Just a thought

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

This is stupid. The caches in quesion are my virtual cache, which was posted on JULY 1, 2002 and an identical one posted on SEPTEMBER 19, 2002.

 

Now, why would anyone ask for permission to post a VIRTUAL cache for something in a National Historic site where people are allowed to visit? Ask permission for people to read a sign? Gimme a break.

 

Second of all, if I posted mine in JULY, how can someone claim that one posted TWO & A HALF MONTHS later was in process at the same time?

 

Spare me.

 

- !

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

cache1 should not have been archived by the admins until first contacting the cache1 owner and discussing the issue first.

 

if i recommend a cache be archived, does the admin automatically archive it, even if there is a good reason? that should not occur until the issue has been discussed with the cache owner.

 

why is there confusion about caches listed on DIFFERENT websites. what happens on one website is totally independant from what happens on another website.

 

if two physical caches are placed side by side and both listed on different websites, what's the problem? i'm not going to check many, many unknown websites before posting a cache on geocache.com in the fear that there MIGHT be another cache within .1mile listed on some other archaic heretofore unknown website. geocaching.com is the GOD of all geocaching websites and supercedes all other websites. if there is any question, then the other websites have a problem they themselves must resolve, it's not geocaching.com's problem.

 

Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cholo:

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

 

This flat out pisses me off.

 

sent an email and viola Cache 1 dies.


 

Yes, it is difficult to maintain the proper humidity in an outdoor cache.


 

Very true.

 

Since Seth! chose to move this from two caches with just the facts, I'll take some time tonight and flesh out this debate.

 

Remember the outcome I'd like is to have both caches around. Seth! should modify his to highligh as aspect of the park not covered on the NPS approved cache. It may be that way already. In which case there was no issue until Seth! made it one by reccomending that tho other cache be archived.

 

Still If there can be only one, it should be the one that got permission, not the one that got there first.

 

More later.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cholo:

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

 

This flat out pisses me off.

 

sent an email and viola Cache 1 dies.


 

Yes, it is difficult to maintain the proper humidity in an outdoor cache.


 

Very true.

 

Since Seth! chose to move this from two caches with just the facts, I'll take some time tonight and flesh out this debate.

 

Remember the outcome I'd like is to have both caches around. Seth! should modify his to highligh as aspect of the park not covered on the NPS approved cache. It may be that way already. In which case there was no issue until Seth! made it one by reccomending that tho other cache be archived.

 

Still If there can be only one, it should be the one that got permission, not the one that got there first.

 

I've had time to consider. This case doesn't belong in the forums except as a general discusion which is where it started. It began with Seth! it ends with Jeremy since that is where the appeal will end up.

 

Thanks for reading. Hopefully something constructive came out of this.

 

[This message was edited by Renegade Knight on March 24, 2003 at 02:08 PM.]

Link to comment

Im not sure what the debate is here. Do the 2 caches take you to the same exact monument, sign, statue??? If so, then only one should be allowed. That of course would be the first cache that was submitted and approved. If this is indeed a public place allowing visitors to come in freely, and a physical cache isnt being hid on the property, then why would you need to ask for permission. As far as the "Vacation Virtual" remark goes, i dont see that there would be any cache maintenance that would have to be done here, so that probably shouldnt be a concern!

 

If these were physical caches, then i would lean the other way and say that the one with the obtained permission be the one to remain!!!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

As far as the "Vacation Virtual" remark goes, i dont see that there would be any cache maintenance that would have to be done here, so that probably shouldnt be a concern!


 

Here is a virtual cache that was placed by a vacationer. The coordinates are now in an off-limits area. (I assume that this was not the case when the cache was placed.) You'll notice that several folks have resorted to various techniques to successfully log a find.

 

I e-mail the owner and suggested a slight change in the coordinates that would take the searcher to essentially the same area, but where anyone can legally access them. I received no response.

 

Ron/yumitori

Link to comment

Ron!

I've also contacted the owner, he did write me back, but I can't remember his reason for not changing it to coords that don't take you over the cliff.

*irony*

Vacation cache upkeep and response seems to be a recurring problem in the Great Falls area. icon_wink.gif I keep an eye on Rainbow Kisser so I can move the correct fomula up higher in the logs whenever it passes to the next page... it would be SO much easier if that owner would just update his page... Just waiting for that cache to float away, like Missouri River Breaks did!

-Jennifer

 

Where am I going? I ain't certain.

When will I get there? I don't know.

All as I know is I am on my way!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

Im not sure what the debate is here. Do the 2 caches take you to the same exact monument, sign, statue??? If so, then only one should be allowed. That of course would be the first cache that was submitted and approved. If this is indeed a public place allowing visitors to come in freely, and a physical cache isnt being hid on the property, then why would you need to ask for permission. As far as the "Vacation Virtual" remark goes, i dont see that there would be any cache maintenance that would have to be done here, so that probably shouldnt be a concern!

 

If these were physical caches, then i would lean the other way and say that the one with the obtained permission be the one to remain!!!


 

Virtual caches, same park, different means of verifying.

 

I agree that permission is not normal here, but if someone spends the time to get it and gets aced that's different. Further the one wiht permission didn't jump on the other cache and demand it be archied. But the one who thought permissio was stupid sure as heck got bent over it.

 

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...