Cache approval

4.5k · December 1, 2002

Ok, im a bit frustrated. Im trying to get a cache approved and have run into a snag. I know that a couple of you have had dealings with a certain cache approver and now im in the same boat. We have found 4 of these types of caches in the area and they are very popular among cachers. Somehow or another they were all approved and listed on the GeoCaching website. Im sure there are many more like these all over the world. Not asking for approval here, just venting my frustrations!

Here is the cache description as it reads NOW, and you dont have to tell me that the poem is a bit corny. []

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ten critters we love have

been placed in a cache

We hope they're adopted to

loving homes in a flash

Each has a name that makes

them special allright

Please choose only one and

log its name on the site

This one is pretty easy. We rated the terrain difficulty a 2.5 only because of the fact that you have to cross a small ditch/gully, therefore making it hard for handicapped access. Please take only one of our critters then make sure to replace the others back under their shelter. Note that there is no physical logbook to sign at this time so be sure to make your log entry on the GeoCaching website. After all 10 critters find good homes, we'll set out a small micro cache with log book in their place so that others passing through the area may find. Hope that you enjoy!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We started out with the description stating that finders needed to list the name of the item they had found at the GeoCaching website. The approver emailed and said it wouldnt be approved, asked if we were going to archive it after all items were gone and where the physical logbook was. An oversight on my part, so i changed the description to read that we would archive this cache after all 10 items were taken and that there was no physical logbook to sign. Cachers could log their find on the website.

Another email from him saying that we still lacked a couple of essentials. Not permanent and no logbook. He suggested that we make the 10 items first finders prizes and to add a cache container and logbook. We are 50 miles from the cache and didnt want to put out a permanent cache container to maintain but we will comply, so now im changing the whole dang cache trying to get it approved. I told him that i could put a microcache and log scroll out for people that wanted to come after the 10 items were gone. Well of course his next email states that im still denied.

Im glad we have rules to follow but i sure didnt think i was too far off base with this one seeing how there are others like it approved at this time. Am i just looking at this all wrong or do i have a legitimate frustration going here?

I know this was long but i had to vent somewhere! ARRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

3k · December 1, 2002

I'm stumped by the whole log book thing. I don't see why you need a log book if you don't want one. I also feel that everyone should log online, IMHO its a better way of logging. I've thought about doing caches without log books and making it a website log only, I can't see why that would be a problem as long as its stated up front.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Not so sure, Somewhat new Owner Of a Garmin GPS V Received on 10-03-02

December 1, 2002

If I understand correctly, there are ten items to be taken (not traded) and the cache will be archived after the tenth item is "cached-out."

Why not just send an email to 20-30 local cachers telling them of the cache?? They have a chance to seek the cache and you don't have to bother with approval.

It'd also be a good way to meet folks in your caching community.

Just a thought...

3k · December 1, 2002

for them to log the cache and have everyone get credit for it, it needs to be approved and posted. Besides it almost sounds like the critters are travel bugs so you would want to be able to track their progress.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Not so sure, Somewhat new Owner Of a Garmin GPS V Received on 10-03-02

December 1, 2002

The Tyndale Elves (now archived) sounds like an example of what you're trying to do. It was quite successful.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=35462

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

I can't lie around and be lazy. I am a Thing-Finder, and when you're a Thing-Finder you don't have a minute to spare...The whole world is full of things, and somebody has to look for them.

-Pippi Longstocking

2.6k · December 1, 2002

The most fundamental element of a cache is the log book.

Without a log it's a virtual. A cache can be found by accident. The log gives someone the ability to participate even if they never heard of GeoCaching.

It sounds like this cache has been mutated from a virtual/event cache with prizes.

Just because a few caches got in under the radar does not mean that yours should be approved.

It's a cute idea, however it just doesn't comply with a couple of elements.

I'm sure the approver isn't messing with you.

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

1.5k · December 1, 2002

My Monster Cache sounds similar to what you are doing. It didn't contain a log book, and it was there just to give away little good luck monsters... at first I intended to archive it when it was emptied, but then I did refill it once before it was stolen. Everyone that found this one seemed to love it.

I also recently replaced an abandoned cache near Moonville Ohio with my Moonville Replacement Cache which I happened to place without a log book. I was going to use the log from the abandoned cache, but when I got there to place the new one - I discovered the log book was destroyed... so it is sitting there with no log book as well. Next time I'm down that way I will add one, if it hasn't been done by some kind geocacher before then. I don't think this cache is any less worthy because it doesn't have a log book yet. It has assloads of goodies in it, it is in a sturdy ammo box style can, and it is hidden in a pretty nifty little spot.

I've not seen anywhere on the site where it says that a logbook is mandatory for a cache to be approved, either.

View The ToeCam

December 1, 2002

Here's another example:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=38424

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

I can't lie around and be lazy. I am a Thing-Finder, and when you're a Thing-Finder you don't have a minute to spare...The whole world is full of things, and somebody has to look for them.

-Pippi Longstocking

4.5k · December 1, 2002

I'll see if i can get these links right. These are two that are still on the website, although i know that one of them had the last item picked up by a cacher today and will be archived by the owner shortly.

This first Angels Among Us does have a logbook to sign. I can put out a logbook if thats what it takes but as some of you have stated, it doesnt seem to be a mandatory thing.

Second one is Travelers Rest

There were two other caches that we found like this also, but they have since been archived by their owners because all the items were indeed found. I dont usually practice the ""they did it so i should be able to do it"" routine, but there does need to be some consistancy in the rules. By the way, here is a Q&A from the FAQs:

quote:
Are there any variations in the game?

YES! We strongly encourage it, actually. Geocaching is a game that constantly reinvents itself, and the rules are very flexible. If you have a new idea on how to place a cache, or a new game using GPS units, we'd love to hear about it.

December 1, 2002

I can see why it was denied in the first place because it violated at least 3 of the stated provisos.

1. As you mentioned you have no intention of maintaining it.

2. It wasn't a permanent cache

3. It had no log book.

But I don't see why if you are going to roll it into a micro with a log book that there should be any problem. Unless they feel that after the critters are gone you'll just archive it anyways. I guess the real problem is with the inconsistancies of the PTB if other similar ones are getting approved. I personaly am impressed by the approval process. I submitted my first cache at 11:30 A.M. on Thanksgiving day and went off to see Harry Potter. When I got home at about 4:30 P.M I found that an Eric that shall remin nameless had already approved it and someone had logged it as a FTF. I thought that was pretty cool.

1.5k · December 1, 2002

quote: 1. As you mentioned you have no intention of maintaining it.

From what I could gather, the cache was a collection of items - not a traditional container full of stuff. Once the cache was depleated, it wouldn't require maintenance - as there would be nothing there anymore.

quote: 2. It wasn't a permanent cache

quote: 3. It had no log book.

I still haven't seen anyone show proof that those two things are required to place a cache. In fact, not too long ago one of the cache approvers even said that single use / single finder caches were okay. (In this thread he seemed to be saying that they are still allowed, as the caches were approved and posted... nothing was ever said to the contrary, at least in that thread)

quote: I guess the real problem is with the inconsistancies of the PTB if other similar ones are getting approved. I personaly am impressed by the approval process.

Very true. If there is a page somewhere saying that temporary caches are forbidden, or that log books are required... then I'll accept when caches like this are refused. But, when I've placed a cache nearly identical to this one - and it was allowed, it makes it hard to swallow when someone else's similar idea gets smacked down.

If you MUST have a log book, fine... make that clear somewhere. If it MUST be a cache that you intend to leave out there indefinitely, okay - just put that in the "rules" somewhere. As it is now, all we have are lots of suggestions of what a cache should be. Too much room for interpretation, imho.

View The ToeCam

1.5k · December 1, 2002

Mudfrog... you should tell the person that you want to take it to the forums for a vote. Jeremy always seem open to that suggestion. I mean, there is a whole forum area made just for that purpose. Perhaps it might provide some clarity for folks in a similar situation months or years from now.

4.5k · December 2, 2002

Just wanted to say thanks for the all your responses, both negative and positive. Im going to ask that he put it in the voting forum to see how that goes. I do feel that this is an acceptable cache and i know first hand that these types of caches are alot of fun.

For me its exciting to take off for a cache like this in hopes of finding a unique item that you dont normally find in a cache. The last one we did was about 70 miles away, we took off after work and arrived after dark. The items were homemade Angel ornaments and we knew they would be very nice. Turns out that we got to pick the 7th Angel out of 14 that had been placed. Knew these would go fast and sure enough, all of them are now gone after less than a week.

The cache will be archived by the owner now and yes, it was short lived. I can see where there is some effort on someone's part as far as approving the cache, but after it gets on the site how much maintenance, work is involved? I wouldnt think very much, therefore i wouldnt see a problem with a temporary cache. I still havnt found any rules/guidelines concerning temporary caches by the way. Thanks again for letting me ramble!

December 2, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ok, im a bit frustrated. Im trying to get a cache approved and have run into a snag.

I know this was long but i had to vent somewhere! ARRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

I feal your pain, from my own experience.

More rules = Less fun!

NTGA member

5.7k · December 2, 2002

This cache was one of the most amazing caches we've been too (and we've been to a lot!) I'm hoping that the first to finder posts some pics of the tree when he found it. It was really something to behold.

--Marky

"Everyone spends time in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

3k · December 3, 2002

because of their difficulty. Others never receive 10 visitors because they were quickly plundered. So I don't have a problem with it containing only 10 items, or being "temporary."

A logbook can be used to verify questionable finds ... though there is no guarantee that the book was signed . (The container might be lacking a writing implement and the cacher didn't have one handy.) It's also fun to read the immediate, (unedited) responses of finders. Often times, the online logs don't detail the miscues one can read about in the physical logs. So edit your log page to say you forgot to leave a logbook, and would the first visitor leave a sheet of paper.

December 3, 2002

The approvers have been discussing these same issues, and have raised similar points.

Please consider the following:

We won't approve one-time-caches. I'm sure Markwell can reference where this has been discussed.

A cache with ten items in it that gets archived when all are gone would last a day in some areas, would last forever in others. The approvers have no sure way of determining which the case would be with a given cache.

Much of what was previously approved predated the posting of guidelines in May to limit silly locationless caches, lame virtual caches, and also traditional caches. See

http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp

There are situations that may not be addressed in the guidelines that are nevertheless agreed upon by the approvers. We won't post events that are not geocaching events, we won't post caches within 150ft of RR tracks or within .1 mile of another, and so on, so please understand that not every situation can be found in that link.

We won't post caches without a log book or some other means of cache find verification. As I indicated to one of the Christmas ornament cache posters - "to prevent people from logging it from 1000 miles away with TNLN, just ask that those who log it e-mail you the answer to some question - like with a virtual cache."

It does say in the link above that caches have to be permanent. That is why we don't post corn field mazes as virtual caches. Same with seasonal Christmas illuminations. Would you not assume the same would hold true of physical caches?

To cut to the chase: as noted in the first sentence the approver group has been discussing the issue of seasonal caches as well. Here is what we propose as a solution to satisfy both those submitting caches and those who have to laboriously review, approve, and post them:

We'll post seasonal caches under one of two conditions - either they stay on as a "normal" cache after the season ends, or they are "deactivated" (not archived) by the cache owner and then "reactivated" next Christmas (or Halloween, or whatever). Does that sound reasonable?

Remember though - there has to be some way to verify the find. You can't just hang ornaments in a tree out in the woods and say "come get it", and as with any traditional cache the cache hider is expected to maintain it.

Cheers,

erik - geocaching.com admin

1.5k · December 3, 2002

quote:
We won't approve one-time-caches. I'm sure Markwell can reference where this has been discussed.

Well, I referenced the older thread where single-uses caches were approved, so yeah - I wouldn't mind seeing the thread where the guideline was changed on that one. (Perhaps I just missed it somewhere in that thread where the general tone turned against single-use caches. The final post before the thread was locked just seemed a bit vague.)

quote:
There are situations that may not be addressed in the guidelines that are nevertheless agreed upon by the approvers. We won't post events that are not geocaching events, we won't post caches within 150ft of RR tracks or within .1 mile of another, and so on, so please understand that not every situation can be found in that link.

Perhaps those things that all of the approvers agree upon should be listed in those guidelines. If there is no doubt about those issues, they should probably be made known to potential cache hiders there in the guidelines rather than here in random forum postings.

quote:
We won't post caches without a log book or some other means of cache find verification.

I've placed plenty of caches, but I've never gone back and checked the names in the written log book to verify them against the names of people that have logged it online. I understand the idea of the log book providing "proof" of some sort, but in practice I'd think it would be pretty hard to guarantee every cache is hidden with a log book.

quote:
It does say in the link above that caches have to be permanent. Would you not assume the same would hold true of physical caches?

Well, I was only making my assumption based on another thread that I read, where you said something like "something has to be done with these, we just can't archive them" in regards to some single-use caches. The virtual/locationless caches specfically say that they must be semi-permanent to permanent... but the regular caches say nothing of the sort. One might conclude that since it was specifically stated in every form of cache except traditional caches, that the guideline might not specifically apply to traditional caches.

I'm really not trying to stir anything up - I'm just trying to point out some things that might help situations like this in the future.

quote:
Here is what we propose as a solution to satisfy both those submitting caches and those who have to laboriously review, approve, and post them:
We'll post seasonal caches under one of two conditions - either they stay on as a "normal" cache after the season ends, or they are "deactivated" (not archived) by the cache owner and then "reactivated" next Christmas (or Halloween, or whatever). Does that sound reasonable?

How is that going to make a difference from what is done now? The caches will still have to go through the same process - and with option 1 you will have a lame-off season virtual, and with option 2 you will most likely have lots of seasonal caches that never get "re-activated" the next year. I'm not sure of a good solution, but this doesn't sound any less laborious than any other cache approval process.

Again, I'm not trying to be a trouble maker... I'm making all these suggestions to show what "some geocachers" might think. Simple things could be added to the guidelines, if all approvers agree on it anyway. I mean, that would be like a cop pulling you over for sticking your arm out your window.

COP: "Sorry, I'm gonna have to give you a ticket for that."

GUY: "I didn't realize it was against the rules."

COP: "Well, it isn't actually IN the rules, but all us cops agree you can't do it."

GUY: "Oh... umm... okay..."

That being said, I've never had any real complaints about the process, and I do appreciate the hassle that it must be for the approvers to do this stuff.

(And please don't delete my Moonville Replacement Cache due to the lack of logbook. If it gets archived before me or some other kind-hearted geocacher can get a log book into it, I'll probably leave it there as a rotting pile of geotrash just for spite. ) j/k

The Toe Pages

December 3, 2002

Unfortunately the posted rules or guidelines can't always be updated to reflect every nuance of the game. A few days ago the authorities of one state contacted Jeremy to ask that no more hide-a-key micro caches be stuck to steel supports of bridges there. Apparently a passerby saw a cache hunter and assumed it was Al Queta planting a bomb. We have similar situations with dams in other areas. In my state the State Parks have severe limits on physical caches.

We can't post all the everchanging rules guys; we rely on the forums and reviewing caches on a case by case basis to address changing situations. If an approver isn't sure he posts if for all the admins to view and discuss. To keep the approval queue from becomeing a clogged mess the cache in question is usually archived until things can be sorted out.

Apparently the seasonal cache issue came up this past Halloween, with several approvers recalling that the solution was to ask people to deactivate them when Halloween was over and to "reuse" that cache next year instead of asking the approvers to go over it all again. It seems pretty reasonable, doesn't it?

~erik~

PS, what was the GCXXXX number of that cache you referenced above

5.3k · December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:
We can't post all the everchanging rules guys)

Yes you can; you have an entire website at your disposal to post information concerning cache placement.

I think it is imperative that information such as you metioned above (about magnetic caches on bridges) be posted somewhere on the geocaching.com site where it is available to everyone.

December 3, 2002

I forgot I'm not allowed to post to controversial subjects. See Freelens's post.

December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by fizzymagic:
Yes you can; you have an entire website at your disposal to post information concerning cache placement.

I think it is imperative that information such as you metioned above (about magnetic caches on bridges) be posted somewhere on the geocaching.com site where it is available to _everyone_.

Do you even have to be told that it's not a good idea these days to place a magnetic cache under a bridge or at a dam? Besides I think Eric's point wasn't that they don't have a venue for telling people about changes but that things change so fast that there isn't time to do it. I think we all need to remember that if the PTB decide that this site isn't fun anymore, your game is as good as over until someone else steps up.

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

1.5k · December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by freelens:
Do you even have to be told that it's not a good idea these days to place a magnetic cache under a bridge or at a dam? Besides I think Eric's point wasn't that they don't have a venue for telling people about changes but that things change so fast that there isn't time to do it. I think we all need to remember that if the PTB decide that this site isn't fun anymore, your game is as good as over until someone else steps up.

I think that SOME things can and should be included in the guidelines.

Granted, not every common sense type guideline can be addressed... but when the approvers have agreed that no caches will be approved within .1 mile of another cahce, and no caches will be approved within 150 feet of railroad tracks - those things are cold hard facts, and should be made known in the guidelines.

It would just create less hassle for everyone involved. If people read the guidelines before they place a cache, they'd know what they are definitely not allowed to do. This would keep at least a few people from submitting more caches for approval when they are obviously against the rules.

I'm just saying - how are people supposed to know they can't place a cache within .1 mile of another, or withing 150 feet of railroad tracks if it doesn't say that in the guidelines? It just seems like a simple thing to ammend to the list if all the cache approvers are in agreement, that's all.

The Toe Pages

2.6k · December 3, 2002

Come on.

Step back and think. How many people even read the rules? How many people have never read the forums?

I introduced a friend to GEO. He's rounding a hundred finds, and he has never read the rules. He can barely navigate around the site.

Posting every little thing about the rules would only be read be the very very small percentage of us that have searched them out to read them.

That's why we need approvers. They have explained to us that the approval process is very dynamic. Sometimes they have to email each other back and forth for everyones take on the specifics of a cache, and still make a decision.

Sometimes they have thousands of caches to approve over a week. There are less than ten approvers for this entire country and others.

How could you waste their time complaining about this. Just comply with the simple elements of the cache hiding process. You wont get denied.

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

1.5k · December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:
Come on. Step back and think. How many people even read the rules? How many people have never read the forums?

With that type of attitude, why have any guidelines at all then? Saying that things shouldn't be added to the guidelines because people don't read them anyway is kinda silly, imho.

quote:
They have explained to us that the approval process is very dynamic. Sometimes they have to email each other back and forth for everyones take on the specifics of a cache, and still make a decision.

I agree with you when the situation is "dynamic" as you put it. But he said all the approvers go with these rules: no caches will be approved if within 1/10 of a mile of another, and no caches within 150 feet of train tracks. There's nothing dynamic about those rules - and that's why I think it'd be a good idea to add them to the guidelines. Are you saying that adding those two things wouldn't be a good thing?

quote:
How could you waste their time complaining about this. Just comply with the simple elements of the cache hiding process.

First off, we are in the forums... we aren't e-mailing anyone complaining about anything. If cache approvers spend their time reading and replying here, that is their own business. And since when is constructive critisism a bad thing? The suggestions that I've given are intended to help. I've suggested things that I believe might remove a bit of confusion about a situation.

It is simple. If there are rules that the approvers always go by, I think it would be a good idea to have them added to the guidelines. You'll have a hard time telling me any different.

Sure - there will be lots of gray areas... and I'm not asking that they all be addressed. But when they make rules that they all agree on, it would just make sense to let everyone know.

"Just comply with the simple elements of the cache hiding process."

If people do that now, they could still place a cache within 50 feet of another - or within 100 feet of railroad tracks, because they wouldn't know otherwise. The guideline changes that I am suggesting would only help people be able to do exactly what you are saying they should do.

The Toe Pages

December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:
I introduced a friend to GEO. He's rounding a hundred finds, and he has never read the rules.

So what. How many caches has he Hidden?

What we're talking about is publish more details to the unwritten 'rules' of cache approval.

It may be that most geo-searchers may not really have read the rules, but I would think that most people contemplating hiding a cache have at least read the instructions.

I know that a number of cache placers in this area have recently had problems getting saome caches approved, especially around the time we had an area event cache.

As for the 'overwhelming number' of caches for the approvers to process:

Think about it - If people have a chance to read some of these 'rules' that the approvers have aggreed upon but havn't published, then there would be less emailing back and forth with the cache placers trying to get the caches into 'compliance' before approval.

Published rules = Streamlined approval

I agree that there will always be judgement calls, but for some of these items like "caches can't be too close together" it would be a lot easier to deal with if you could find it in the guidelines instead of after you've gotten the cache together, placed out in the world and waiting for the approval process...

1.5k · December 3, 2002

What harm would it do? Adding a couple more guidelines to the list, if the approvers are indeed enforcing them?

2.6k · December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team VE:

So what. How many caches has he Hidden?

He has hidden one. Nothing we are discussing here would have been taken into account for his hide.

Demanding that these rules be listed for a few of us to read, will only satisfy some of our sense of ambiguity.

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

December 3, 2002

He obviously read this page, which clearly states:

"prior to submitting a cache for approval please review the geocache guidelines posted here and be sure your cache complies."

2.6k · December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team VE:

Think about it - If people have a chance to read some of these 'rules' that the approvers have aggreed upon but havn't published, then there would be less emailing back and forth with the cache placers trying to get the caches into 'compliance' before approval.

_Published rules = Streamlined approval_

Yah, yah, good point.

I'm just saying that very few people read the rules.

quote:
With that type of attitude, why have any guidelines at all then? Saying that things shouldn't be added to the guidelines because people don't read them anyway is kinda silly, imho.

No Rubberhead, I'm not saying don't list them because they wont read them.

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

2.6k · December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team VE:
He obviously read http://www.geocaching.com/hide/report.asp page, which clearly states:

"prior to submitting a cache for approval please review the http://www.geocaching.com/articles/requirements.asp and be sure your cache complies."

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

December 3, 2002

Yeah, I'm assuming that to have hidden a cache that he filled out the "report a new cache" form.

(That's what "http://www.geocaching.com/hide/report.asp" is)

2.6k · December 3, 2002

No your assuming he read it.

Filling it out and reading it are different things. Not to mention clicking to a different page to review the rules.

I do traffic control where I work. I know humans don't read things.

Signs! What signs?

Ok that was a tangent.

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

2.6k · December 3, 2002

Cool avitar!

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

6.4k · December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:
No your assuming he read it.

Filling it out and reading it are different things. Not to mention clicking to a different page to review the rules.

I do traffic control where I work. I know humans don't read things.

_Signs! What signs?_

Ok that was a tangent.

http://home1.gte.net/res1ewfe/images/leathermanani.gif

_If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do._

http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/articles/95articles/Hunt-full.html

True, but at least when his next cache hide is disproved and he wants to know why, the PTB can point to "Prior to submitting a cache for approval please review the geocache guidelines posted here and be sure your cache complies." and the link.

End of discussion. No emails back and forth discussing secret guidelines. No debates or complaints in the forums. Here are the cache hiding rules, here is where you didn't follow them. Closing credits. The End.

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

December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:
Cool avitar!

I felt like jousting with windmills

Yeah, I know, some people don't read anything, but generally that means we have to put the information out there even more... (Like having the overhead stop lights, the roadside lights and an annuciator about 2 blocks back down the road)

2.6k · December 3, 2002

I preach to him all the time. I still can't get him into the forums.

Most of the dumb questions he asks me could and have been answered in the forums.

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

December 3, 2002

Sounds like he needs a verbal Markwelling.....

4.5k · December 3, 2002

Well i was going to stop while i was behind, but I read some of your replies and i wanted to add a little more myself.

Originally osted by Erik:

quote:
We won't post caches without a log book or some other means of cache find verification. As I indicated to one of the Christmas ornament cache posters - "to prevent people from logging it from 1000 miles away with TNLN, just ask that those who log it e-mail you the answer to some question - like with a virtual cache."

It does say in the link above that caches have to be permanent. That is why we don't post corn field mazes as virtual caches. Same with seasonal Christmas illuminations. Would you not assume the same would hold true of physical caches?

I have emailed you saying that i would add a logbook if needed. I have not found where it says that physical caches have to be permanent! This is not a seasonal cache, not that it makes alot of difference here.

quote:
the times they are a changin'....

Unfortunately the posted rules or guidelines can't always be updated to reflect every nuance of the game.

This is not a ""nuance"". As seen in the links above, there are many of this exact type approved allready. There is no way they all ""fell through the cracks"" and got approved by mistake, as someone above suggested. There is more than one person approving, evidently each has his/her own opinion on what makes a cache proper. I know that you, Erik, are trying to do what is right. Its not an easy job and i agree with others that the process usually works very well. As far as this cache goes, I honestly think that if another approver would have reviewed it, it would have been approved with no questions asked!

December 3, 2002

quote:
I honestly think that if another approver would have reviewed it, it would have been approved with no questions asked!

Mudfrog, I just took a look at the thread in which the approvers discussed this genre of caches. There were 54 views and 9 replies.

You'll just have to believe that I have better things to do than reply to myself and view those replies 54 times!

Many others are involved in this besides me. If you would amend your cache as indicated above we can move on and I can join the others in reviewing and approving caches - the queue has been getting long.........

Cheers,

~erik~

1.4k · December 3, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ~erik~:
There are situations that may not be addressed in the guidelines that are nevertheless agreed upon by the approvers. We won't post events that are not geocaching events, we won't post caches within 150ft of RR tracks or within .1 mile of another, and so on, so please understand that not every situation can be found in that link.

We won't post caches without a log book or some other means of cache find verification.

Cheers,

erik - geocaching.com admin

However, it would be helpful to have those guidelines posted on the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines page, even if most cache placers don't bother to read them. SOME of us DO read them! Every time I place a cache (53 times), I re-read the Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines page to ensure I'm meeting the requirements. If most cache placers choose NOT to read the guidelines, it's their own fault if a cache is not approved. However, if a cache placer reads the guidelines, and does their best to meet the guidelines, only to have their cache not be approved due to a requirement that isn't listed, it puts an additional burden on the approvers. The "permanent" requirement is NOT currently listed for traditional caches, only virtuals/locationless caches. Nothing is mentioned about the .1 mile, the 150 foot of a RR track, or logbook requirements. If these things were listed, at least there would be no excuse for not meeting the requirements.

I truly believe the approvers do their best to ensure the requirements are met without putting undue burden on the cache placers. I really believe most of them will do what they can to help borderline caches meet the guidelines. Every time there has been an issue with one of my caches, the approvers have worked with me to change the cache to meet the guidelines. I like to push the limits with some of my caches, and so far every one has eventually been approved.

However, by having major approval guidelines NOT LISTED on the Guidelines page makes it more difficult for the approvers and those of us who actually try to meet the guidelines, especially as the guidelines evolve to meet the everchanging needs of the geocaching community.

I would like to see the web pages for submitting a new cache changed so that the link takes the placer to the top of the guidelines page, with the link to the online submission form placed at the bottom of the guidelines page. This would REQUIRE the placer to at least access the guidelines and scroll to the bottom to get to the submission form. Then there would be NO excuses for not reading the guidelines.

December 3, 2002

I wish we could post all the guidelines but they change. I could be flippant and say that currently we would not post a cache container consisting of a 4" diameter PVC tube if that tube is over 5' long and the cache is within 2 miles of an airport. But seriously, a week ago no one would have given a second thought to the ramifications of a geocacher being seen hefting something like that. (Think "Stinger")

One down side of posting every constraint is that they may then result in further constraints. Example - what if I listed the few states that prohibit caches in their state parks. What if the administrator of a park not listed there saw it when investigating whether to limit caches in his parks? Guess what the result would be? He'd take the path of least resistance.

Even the examples of no caches within .1 mile of another and none within 150 ft of RR tracks have to be taken with some flexibility. If the cache is in a public park seperated with a high fence from RR tracks 75 ft. away we'd post it. If a cache is on the other side of river rapids from another we'd post it even if the distance were under .1 mile.

See what I mean about sometimes taking things on a case by case basis and not posting so many rules that it becomes needlessly restrictive?

Too many restrictions also stiffle creativity, which sux.

~erik~

38.2k · December 3, 2002

We all encourage interesting and different caches. I try to add twists to my caches where possible. I know that many hunters are sick of "walk 100 feet from the parking lot" type stuff. But if you have a problem with the cache approval process here, there are a number of other geocaching websites where you can post your caches. Lets not give the volunteers a load of greif.

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

1.4k · December 4, 2002

I agree that there should be some flexibility in the guidelines. However, if there are firm rules that are not currently posted - such as that all caches (including traditional) must now be "permanent" - the guidelines need to reflect this.

The very first paragraph of the guidelines page reads,

quote:
Before posting a cache, first review the following guidelines and rules. This is a constantly changing and evolving sport, so the rules may change. Refer back before posting to make sure no new rules are added.

What good does it do to refer back to the guidelines if they're not updated?

Perhaps some of these guidelines should be posted as "suggestions" rather than "rules."

If there are extenuating circumstances, the cache placer can post this on the cache page as a note to the approver. For instance, if there is a high fence between the cache and a railroad, and the cache is only 75 feet from the railroad, the cache place simply explains this, and the cache should be approved. The approver then deletes the note before the cache goes online.

I just want to know what the restrictions are, so I don't waste my time or the approvers' time posting something that's going to get the axe.

Cache approval

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

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