+lostinjersey Posted September 30, 2002 Share Posted September 30, 2002 I recently submitted a locationless cache which was denied and I really just felt the need to question something. When the locationless cache was created as a catagory, a lot of caches were approved of questionable nature. Most were not unique enough of a hunt, and so a backlash began. Eventually Jeremy created rules. One thing that was stressed was that you shouldn't use previously established caches as a reason why yours should be approved. Initially I felt all of these new rules & guidlines were good, but I'm having trouble with this one. Here's why. Let's say I submit a locationless cache where the subject matter is not stationary. It gets rejected. I point to "yellow jeep" or any of the other vehicle-based locationless caches and say,"But you approved THEM. why not mine?" Well that was them, this is now and the rules have changed, which is the point. under the new rules those wouldn't have been approved but they're grandfathered, so you can't use them as a basis to approve yours. Fine, but.... I recently submitted a cache that was limited almost entirely to NJ. I won't bother explaining the what & why because they're irelevant to my point. Initially it was denied because it was deemed too commerical (something I knew might be an issue going in but I hoped perhaps a compromise might be worked out) As the discussion went back and forth over fixes to this problem, an amazing thing occured. I conceeded that this really was too commercial while the person I was communicating with was actually willing to conceed that it wasn't so commercial as to be a valid reason for denial. What a role-reversal! Because of my own feelings now, I'm not bothering to discuss the specifics... I'm not looking for public support to approve it. I was told if I made a forum discussion and got support it'd be approved. I just am not all that concerned to make it a public discussion... The reason now for denying it was that it was too limited geographically. ?????? There are a number of caches approved POST RULES CHANGES which are limited to a narrow area, including a few that are limited to a specific state. What annoys me is that I'm not supposed to point to other caches and say "but why not mine", but I really have to say to myself that if two weeks before you approve a cache that is identical in nature (in terms of being geographically limiting) but then deny mine, where is the fairness? What is the reasoning? What guidlines did I violate if you approved these others one quite recently? I can only think of two possible reasons for this denial. A) that this was just a line & they really felt it was too commercial. (Doubtful) or the guidelines are really in a constant state of flux due to the whims of those in charge. And if that's true then I think that really does put a crimp in people's abilities to create good Locationless caches. What do you all think? NO LC bashing please. Those opinions are valid, but they're off-topic here. I just want to know what people think about the approval process. on a somewhat related note, I'd like to know what's teh deal with approving locationless caches that have identical topics as previously approved ones, i.e. it's a cache but not as we know it & Cache bay, or ghostbusters & haunted caches. Then there's fast lane which is for winston cup race tracks, and the newly approved NASCAR cache which is for winston cup, busch of craftsman series. wayyyy too similar! After thinking about these gaffs, I actually suspect something far simplier: your odds of approval is to a very large degree dependant on who is examing your cache for approval. Some are rules lawyers, some not. Some know whats out there, and some clearly don't. What annoys me is when there's such an obvious divergence of opinions among the approvers.... [This message was edited by Gwho on September 30, 2002 at 08:52 PM.] Quote Link to comment
+erik88l-r Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 Starting from the bottom: I posted the NASCAR locationless cache. I thought the theme looked familiar but I laboriously went thru 200+ locationless caches by title and did not see one like it. I did another search of "Fast Lane" by keywords today and again came up empty. Maybe it's been archived? Regarding a non-approval of an LC similar to one that's been approved: One criteria is that the location be unique. If the first cache is unique, the copycat one by definition would no longer be. That's why "Yellow Jeep" was posted, "Purple Jeep", "Land Cruiser", and others were not. (By the way, YJ was posted prior to the stipulation that caches could not be mobile.) Regarding the question of different approvers having different criteria: This has been discussed before, see the threads on the polling forum. We have challenged complainers to draft guidelines that are less subjective but nothing bullet-proof has been received yet. Many locationless caches are discussed among the approvers to reach a concensus on whether or not to post it - to help remove the concern you expressed. What else? Oh, you referenced a specific cache of yours. Don't remember it, but it sounds like some give-and-take was in process on it. That isn't uncommon - changes will be requested and made prior to the posting of a cache. Thanks for your feedback. erik - geocaching.com admin lackey Quote Link to comment
+david&diana Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 I believe the cache you're looking for is Front Door To The FASTLANE (GC50A4). Quote Link to comment
+worldtraveler Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Gwho:...NO LC bashing please... Oops! Never mind. I guess I don't have anything to say. EXCEPT... I'm sure glad there IS an approval process, even if it's not 100% consistent; just think of all the lame, pointless (isn't that a synonym for locationless?), reverse-engineered-no-GPSr-required caches we'd have WITHOUT it. Oops again! I wasn't supposed to say that, was I? (edited to correct typo) (and another) Worldtraveler [This message was edited by worldtraveler on October 01, 2002 at 11:18 AM [This message was edited by worldtraveler on October 01, 2002 at 11:20 AM.] Quote Link to comment
+erik88l-r Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 I archived the "Nascar" cache. It did overlap the earlier one. I guess the lesson here is that if you're going to submit an LC please make the title very descriptive, so it's theme will be obvious. That seems to be the case with most of them, thankfully. ~erik~ Quote Link to comment
+lostinjersey Posted October 1, 2002 Author Share Posted October 1, 2002 well, here's my cache, which was "too limiting" as it was a NJ only cache. 3 days ago we have this cache which is limited to just Idaho. How can mine be rejected when caches are being approved despite having the same limitations I'm being penalized for. Note: this is NOT about getting my cache approved. I'm only concerned with the approval process. as for similar caches, there's Front Door to the Fast Lane and Nascar Tracks. the only difference is the first is winston cup tracks only, the later one is any nascar track. as for It's a cache but not as we know it and Cache Bay, they're identical but its not as simple as that. the cache bay was an actual cache at first. then Its a cache was created. subsequent to that cache bay was plundered & the owner converted it to a locationless. I suggested to the owner that they cooperate to say that instead of one log per location, it applies to both caches so that no1 can log a find on a location if that location was used on either cache already. it's the only fair way to handle what is a really akward situation... www.gpswnj.com Quote Link to comment
+Web-ling Posted October 1, 2002 Share Posted October 1, 2002 I just read the guidelines for posting a locationless cache, and they don't mention ANYTHING about limiting the area. Either the approvers have additional rules the rest of us don't know about, or one approver is adding their own criteria. Either the rules need to be posted for all of us to read, or else the approvers need to stick to the posted rules. Quote Link to comment
+lostinjersey Posted October 2, 2002 Author Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by worldtraveler:I'm sure glad there IS an approval process, even if it's not 100% consistent; just think of all the lame, pointless (isn't that a synonym for locationless?), reverse-engineered-no-GPSr-required caches we'd have WITHOUT it. So how does one obtain the coordinates without a GPS so they can provide them in the log then? Kinda seems as if a GPS IS a required item... www.gpswnj.com Quote Link to comment
+lostinjersey Posted October 2, 2002 Author Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by worldtraveler:I'm sure glad there IS an approval process, even if it's not 100% consistent; just think of all the lame, pointless (isn't that a synonym for locationless?), reverse-engineered-no-GPSr-required caches we'd have WITHOUT it. So how does one obtain the coordinates without a GPS so they can provide them in the log then? Kinda seems as if a GPS IS a required item... www.gpswnj.com Quote Link to comment
+cachew nut Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Gwho:So how does one obtain the coordinates without a GPS so they can provide them in the log then? Kinda seems as if a GPS _IS_ a required item... maps Quote Link to comment
+worldtraveler Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 quote:...So how does one obtain the coordinates without a GPS so they can provide them in the log then? Kinda seems as if a GPS _IS_ a required item... Not required to find the cache, only to report where you found it. That is why I also wrote "reverse-engineered". Worldtraveler Quote Link to comment
+lostinjersey Posted October 2, 2002 Author Share Posted October 2, 2002 Um. I guess I get it now. the reverse engineered part was clear, and the no gps part is much clearer now. still off topic though. www.gpswnj.com Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.