Any else getting of the stupid placement hoops

4.8k · January 1, 2003

I want to add more comments!

quote:
As far as the reply about preferring caches with a 10 mile hike included on each one, count me out, I've not the time nor the desire to hike 10 miles to every cache. What about those that are physically disabled and are not able to hike 10 miles? The drive to a wide spot in the road might be the only cache they are able to seek. Does this mean they should not be allowed to play?

The rules don't require a 10 mile (or even .1 mile) hike! caches with long hikes involved tend to say so or are reflected in the rating. Easy caches are also reflected in the rating. I don't think anyone is against accessible caches for the disabled (there is a recent thread on this). Sure, some people want a hike and seek out those caches. Others don't and seek out other caches. It is ok for someone to prefer one over the other and the approval process doesn't seem to limit either kind.

quote:
Based on the comments here, I must be in the minority, so I guess it's time to rethink my interest in geocaching and go elsewhere.

Well, you started the dialog and indicated in your post that you believed people would disagree with you. If you like caching, why quit just because some don't agree with you? You are not required to have a majority of people agree with you on a topic to be allowed to cache. If that were the case, half (or more, myself included) of the people posting here would quit caching!

If you can't live in the framework of the rules here, feel free to try one of the other sites or start your own. But if you quit altogether because people disagree with you, I question whether you were really that interested to begin with.

1.4k · January 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:
FireCacher,

You've done a lot of complaining, but you still haven't posted ANY evidence of the caches or the cachers you're talking about.

Please post them here so that we can all make a decision about them.

Posting a link to a cache that has not been approved won't do any good - Unapproved caches CANNOT be viewed. The entire cache page would have to be copied and pasted in the forums.

1.4k · January 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:

Secondly, the guidelines are posted on the "report a cache" page. These guidelines have been modified many times over the course of the past year, and I find them very fair.

The .1 mile rule is NOT listed. I do agree, they are fair. However, the way they are applied is apparently not always fair.

quote:
If you see where a particular cache meets the guidelines and is not approved, contact me about it.

Thank you.

quote:
For the most part, a seasoned approver comes to realize that a lot of *crap* comes through on the "report a cache" page, so after a while some cynism sinks in.

Perhaps we need additional approvers?

quote:
Frankly in the cases where there is a "suspect" listing, if you feel strongly about a particular cache you should jump through those hoops. Many approvers have come to the realization that after their cache is declined most people do not bother to defend it.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

I agree. I've had a few caches not approved initially. All were later approved after I defended them. In a couple cases, I had to modify the descriptions, but in a couple of other cases, I just had to address some concerns the approver had.

As I've stated before, ANY and ALL criteria used to determine the approval or disapproval of caches needs to be listed in the guidelines, and then the guidelines need to be applied fairly and consistently by all approvers.

I think that, in general, the approvers do a good job. I think the process could be improved, however.

4.5k · January 1, 2003

I have placed 5 caches since i started GeoCaching and had no problems at all until my last one. It wasnt the run of the mill type of cache but i really thought it should have been approved. With a couple of modifications we finally got it accepted. Rubbertoe provided the link to my frustration on the first page of this thread.

GeoCaching is constantly evolving and changing so there is no way to have a hardnosed set of rules, but as Toe stated above, it would be nice if there could be more of the basics put down in black and white. That being said, im sure glad that people ((approvers)) care enough to volunteer their time and effort to make our hobby better for all of us!

FireCacher: Dont give up GeoCaching just because you have a problem with the approval process. Work with the approver and listen to other GeoCacher's advice here. A simple modification to your cache is probably all that is needed to get it going. If you still think that your cache should be approved then post it in the cache approval part of the forum for a vote!

January 1, 2003

I've read this thread.

I've read all of your post(s).

Ive seen this quote:

quote:
If this is the direction of this site, then I'm be moving on to somewhere else.

I've made a Solomon-like decision.

Good-bye FireCacher, I hope your life gets better.

NEXT....

Unknown objects are operating under intelligent control... It is imperative that we learn where UFO's come from and what their purpose is... - -Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter Director, Central Intelligence Agency 1947-1950

January 1, 2003

Out of 20 hides, we have had 2 questioned. The first rejection, we were emailed about the problem the admin had and we were able to resolve it easily. The second was axed with no attempt at resolution, simply I've archived your cache....." It was a virtual by the way. We inquired (complained?)to the admin and with a little more input the issue was resolved in a correct manner.

I have a hard time giving any admin too much blame when they are by definition selfless and usually helpful people. By that I mean, work, approving caches for free, and working on other issues for our benifit.

There may be too few of them. Possibly that is due to the error factor. In other words, If you tell 2 guys to do 1000 cache approvals, you end up with 2 diffrent versions of your instructions. If you ask 10 guys......you get the point.

Most successful enterprises usually operate on the buisness model that has as a big part of it the motto, "the customer is ALWAYS right."

I am still resolving in my own mind how that comes into play at geocaching.com.

We do have evidence that the attitude, "Hey, whatever you want!" is not the model.

I dont think it ever should be.

However, I still fail to understand how the fact that LC's and VC'c exist, bothers some people, (and admins).

The freedoms in this sport allow and encourage one to seek the caches that interest him and pass by those that dont.

Cachin's a bit sweeter when you've got an Isha!

1.1k · January 1, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by FireCacher:
Exactly... I love all the excuses made for not posting the rules.

What rules aren't posted? I'm trying to figure out where all the angst is coming from. I still haven't seen a description of the cache that was turned down. Before I feel obligated to respond to scrutiny, I'd like to hear some specific beefs.

If you're expecting some kind of utopia to exist somewhere in the world (or in cyberspace), good luck.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

January 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

quote:
Originally posted by geospotter:
FireCacher,

You've done a lot of complaining, but you still haven't posted ANY evidence of the caches or the cachers you're talking about.

Please post them here so that we can all make a decision about them.

Posting a link to a cache that has not been approved won't do any good - Unapproved caches CANNOT be viewed. The entire cache page would have to be copied and pasted in the forums.

http://www.ntga.nethttp://www.web-ling.com

I know, but it's a simple procedure.

geospotter

1.4k · January 2, 2003

I have placed 5 caches. Just one was questioned. Once I explained that it was an event cache, it was quickly approved. Maybe I am not creative enoough, but I have had no trouble getting caches approved.

Mike. Desert_Warrior (aka KD9KC).

El Paso, Texas.

Citizens of this land may own guns. Not to threaten their neighbors, but to ensure themselves of liberty and freedom.

They are not assault weapons anymore... they are HOMELAND DEFENSE WEAPONS!

January 2, 2003

doa!!!

[This message was edited by GeoVamp on January 02, 2003 at 09:43 PM.]

6.4k · January 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
What rules aren't posted? I'm trying to figure out where all the angst is coming from. I still haven't seen a description of the cache that was turned down. Before I feel obligated to respond to scrutiny, I'd like to hear some specific beefs.

If you're expecting some kind of utopia to exist somewhere in the world (or in cyberspace), good luck.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

First, I haven't had any problems posting my caches, and I also don't mind the "hoops" that are in place. As with any rule, there have to be exceptions, but in general the rules here are for the benefit of the caches and the sport.

Having said that, I see no reason NOT to post the rules that have been discussed in the forums, emails, and chats with the cache approvers. A quick search turns up this post, and I'm sure there are others. Alot of the things mentioned by Erik in that post ARE in the guidelines, but only mentioned as applying to virtual/locationless caches. I see no mention that temporary/limited time caches are not allowed. No mention that pysical caches closer then .1 mile are not allowed. No mention that a cache without a log book is not allowed. I understand that there are exceptions to these rules, but at least let cachers know that things like these will raise a red flag with the approvers. We know the majority of cachers do NOT read the forums, so most cache hiders know nothing of these rules, since they are not posted.

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

January 2, 2003

doah

[This message was edited by GeoVamp on January 02, 2003 at 09:16 PM.]

1.4k · January 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

What rules aren't posted?

Is there, or is there not, a "rule" that caches are not to be placed within .1 miles of each other? If this is a "rule," it's not posted.

3.5k · January 2, 2003

9

[This message was edited by 9Key on January 02, 2003 at 10:15 PM.]

3.5k · January 2, 2003

Hi!

As a newbie admin, I can see both sides of the fence.

I HAD NO IDEA how many caches are submitted to the site every day. Its amazing!!

You HAVE to have some guidelines in place or the site would go to heck in a handbasket.

To quote Moosiegirl from earlier in this thread:

"when I report a cache, I put an extra paragraph addressed to the approver, maybe bolded or in a different color, that talks about the issues you have discussed. One of the things that keeps that rule from being so "hard and fast" is terrain ... two caches 450 apart across a gorge could be 10 miles apart, travel-wise."

Messages like that would help us (especially me!) immensely!

Post a note on your cache just after you submit it. Address it to "Attention Admin" and spell out your intentions for the cache.

If this is a traveling cache - tell us.

If its a bonus cache - tell us.

Etc, Etc, Etc.

We're cachers just like you folks, and we're just trying to separate the wheat from the chaff using the info we have at hand.

9Key

I doubt sometimes whether a quiet and unagited life would have suited me - yet I sometimes long for it.

Byron

January 2, 2003

I take back all the dumb things I wrote-the notice was in my e-mail sorry for wasting your time

"Everything's Eventual"-Stephen King

"Maybe isn't a answer"

2.7k · January 2, 2003

Personally, I've have had no problems in getting my caches approved. I did have one rejected, but I emailed the approver and he promptly got back to me the reason why. It made a lot of sense based on guidelines they were given by powers to be.

Regarding 0.1 rule, I did a couple caches that were practically next to each other! It's probably not a hard fast rule, but is a case by case situation. In general, I agree caches should be spaced out a bit, but in mountainous terrain or ravines or similar, 500 feet is a lot since travel isn't direct.

January 3, 2003

I've placed over 30 caches & so far I've only had 2 that were not approved in a smooth and timely matter.

Both of them were locationless. In retrospect, one was really stupid and deserved to be rejected. The other one, I had a thoughtful discussion on the matter with the admin and although I disagreed with the reasons for rejection I ultimately just archived the cache rather than continue to try to get it approved.

Overall, I think the staff does a great job. I know that I would probably get really cynical in that position and start rejecting all the park-n-grabs, locationless, and really stupid Disney World virtual caches that came my way. I don't know how they do it.

9.4k · January 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by FireCacher:
Making decisions based on what is best for the cacher (ie: pvc pipe that looks like a missle launger, 150ft from rr tracks, etc...) works both ways.

Well, the 150 feet from a railroad track comes in response to the GEO-COURT virtual cache that resulted from the Tunnel Vision "1909" cache being placed on railroad property.

It seems that there are several laws in this country that exist for the safety of the general public. Silly of the Admins to respect things like laws, isn't it?

As for the 0.1 mile rule, well for the most part I agree with it. Some rules are negotiable. If you have justification to place a cache closer than that to another one, mention that when you submit your cache approval request.

I usually take my 3 children (ages 6 and under) with me when I go caching. I like the round trip hike to be less than 1/2 mile- especially when there is snow on the ground. There's a cache in my area that existed for a year before a road was built less than 500 feet from it. It is still a good cache. Many caches have taken me to places I would have never seen otherwise (Even though they are close to a road).

I have yet to place a cache. Partly because I've only lived in this area for 2 years and have found all the neat spots by searching for someone else's cache. I've got one planned, but have procrastinated in making/buying an appropriate container (I need something that looks like a tree branch that isn't too big).

Just put some thought into each cache and you should be fine. If you still have problems, that's why the forums are here

6.5k · January 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:
Is there, or is there not, a "rule" that caches are not to be placed within .1 miles of each other? If this is a "rule," it's not posted.

I think maybe the .1 thing is more of a guideline, not a rule rule.(Which means?)

It bends easier?

1.4k · January 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:
Is there, or is there not, a "rule" that caches are not to be placed within .1 miles of each other? If this is a "rule," it's not posted.

I think maybe the .1 thing is more of a guideline, not a rule _rule_.(Which means?)

It bends easier?

If it is a guideline, it needs to be listed on the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines page...

I personally have no problems with the approvers. They've always been willing to work with me. for instance, there is a "guideline" on the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines page regarding virtuals that states:

quote:
There have been virtual caches approved in the past on the basis that "a physical cache could not be appropriately maintained" at the location, often by a user who is traveling through the area. This essentially "blocks" the area for later placement of a physical cache. Physical caches have priority, so virtual caches of this nature will usually not be approved.

I have had several "vacation virtuals" approved by erik88l-r by placing the following disclaimer on the cache page:

quote:
Note: If there is a local cacher who wishes to place and maintain a traditional physical cache at this location, contact me. I made this a virtual because I live far enough away that I would be unable to properly maintain a physical cache.

In other words, if a local cacher wants to place and maintain a physical cache, I'll either archive mine, or change mine to a physical cache to be maintained by the other cacher. No problems, each of these caches was approved.

Work with the approvers. Ther're usually quite reasonable and responsive to attempts to meet the guidelines.

[This message was edited by Web-ling on January 03, 2003 at 11:41 AM.]

6.5k · January 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:
Is there, or is there not, a "rule" that caches are not to be placed within .1 miles of each other? If this is a "rule," it's not posted.

I think maybe the .1 thing is more of a guideline, not a rule _rule_.(Which means?)

It bends easier?

If it is a _guideline_, it needs to be listed on the Cache Listing Requirements/_Guidelines_ page...

Seems I didn't explain this enough. I was thinking maybe this is more of an unlisted (hence the problem I know) thing. Its listed on the approvers "crib notes", but no where else because it would be common sense. (Do not put a cache within 500ft. of another cache unless theres a 'good' reason, No caches close to active railroad tracks, No caches inside buildings, etc.)

January 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:
Is there, or is there not, a "rule" that caches are not to be placed within .1 miles of each other? If this is a "rule," it's not posted.

http://www.ntga.nethttp://www.web-ling.com

I see it in the Virtual section which I feel would also apply to the Physical caches.

quote:
New postings which are within 0.1 mile of an existing cache will generally not be approved, unless the poster provides a compelling rationale.

I also feel it's a good rule.

====================================

"Boredom is the state of one's mind"

====================================

1.4k · January 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by HackAttack:

I see it in the Virtual section which I feel would also apply to the Physical caches.

quote:
New postings which are within 0.1 mile of an existing cache will generally not be approved, unless the poster provides a compelling rationale.

I also feel it's a good rule.

Thanks for pointing this out. Either it was recently added, or else I'm blind. Could be either one. I agree it should apply to physical caches, also.

Any else getting of the stupid placement hoops

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation