Approving New Caches

[+aadenny]

Recently I have tried to find a few caches that been recently placed. On one the coords were 100-200 feet off (logs of others agree), one had a mistake in the coords (.633 instead of .833) and the third had a math error in the puzzle. I know we all make mistakes, but I thought there was some sort of approval process before a cache was put on the website so that errors could be caught. Isn't there a way to catch these problems before people go slogging all over kingdom come?

[+EraSeek]

No, unless you want to become the official volunteer math checker. That is asking an awefull lot of the approvers...to check each cache for accuracy and errors in content. Peer pressure to get it right the first time is probably the best we can do.

[+Wander Lost]

Also keep in mind that there are about 40 cache reviewers for the entire world. They do not have the ability to check each cache physically before it is listed. The best thing to do is make a note of it in your log for future finders and send an email to the cache owner.

[+Logscaler and Red]

Thats the price you sometimes have to pay for a FTF.

 

We kinda like having to be beta testers for new caches. We use the laptop and TOPO! mapping to help us plot out the possible locations where the cache could or should be if not at the stated location.

 

So far, a touch over 49 miles off is our best. One in the 16 mile range. Mostly, you just have to think of it as a higher difficulty level is all.

 

And be very nice to the folks who have the troubles.

 

One of these days, it WILL be you who made the mistake. Well, if you place any caches anyway.

 

logscaler.

[+aadenny]

Logscaler, I know that I will make these sorts of mistakes. That's why I was inquiring as to the review process. I guess one way to avoid the problem would be to ask a geo-friend to check everything in advance of release.

[+Zzzoey & illDRIVEuNav]

So far, a touch over 49 miles off is our best.

 

Boy it would take some real turkeys to screw up a cache that bad, huh Logscaler??

 

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

It seems to be that it wouldn't take a genius to walk a couple of hundred feet away from the newly placed cache and then to check the coordinates.

 

But, no minimum IQ required to place a cache.

[+Logscaler and Red]

Lazyboy is right about checking the numbers while still in the area of your cache.

Once you get a distance away from your cache, Just hit a "goto" for your cache placement and see where you would or should end up.

 

A lot of problems happen with multi stage caches where numbers have to be derived from clues and math.

 

I have made all(?) the mistake’s myself a few times so I have some idea’s as to where to start in fixing problems. If at all possible have someone Beta test any of your caches that require a lot of figuring. And check your own facts and figures for the final answer. If you happen to have an equation the start’s out something like "N 99: XX.XXX" and you are used to being in the "N 98" area, you could be off something like 150 miles. A long way’s to drive for a simple mistake.

 

And there are no turkey's involved. Mistakes happen and it is nice to have people who are willing - and able - to very politely point out the problems they had and help you fix those said problems. Just do not mistake their gibe’s as complaining.

 

And I will make you an offer.

As long as the caches will not be in the area’s we will be hunting caches, send me all the information for your hunt - both the information your posting as a cache page and any information I would need to locate in order to complete the cache - and I will try and work through the steps and see if it works out on paper. Whatever answer I get I will send you.

 

As for the cache area we hunt or might hunt, skip anything in Oregon, Washington,

Idaho, Western Montana, Northern Utah, Northern Nevada and Northern California.

 

logscaler

Edited March 5, 2004 by logscaler

[+Zzzoey & illDRIVEuNav]

We set the 49 mile record, I admit it. Logscaler has helped us out with more of our caches than I am prepared to admit

 

With time we've realized that the more complicated a cache is, the more that can go wrong for the hider AND the finder. We've come to a point where we hate seeing frowny faces on our hides, so we try to keep it simple. I think the most important thing that has been said is that gentle words, particularly when communicating electronically, always help. There are those cachers who can be overly critical sounding when they're just trying to help out. It's easy to hurt someone's feelers when you're only talking to a monitor

 

Sometimes it's just way too easy to click that send button

 

Thanks for your willingness to help others out with your beta testing skills Neal, it's much appreciated. But I still doubt that I'll ever find RidgeRunner

 

illDRIVE

[+bigeddy]

Sometimes it's just way too easy to click that send button

 

Thanks for your willingness to help others out with your beta testing skills Neal, it's much appreciated. But I still doubt that I'll ever find RidgeRunner

I get the feeling that some cache placers hit that submit button too quickly, too. Rushed, careless, overanxious to get the cache approved or whatever, but the result is poor coordinates and other inconsistencies. Accurate coordinates are basic to the sport. On my own I will accept mistakes to some degree, but chasing flakey coordinates is not enjoyable with nongeocaching friends or my wife. I'll cut a novice some slack, but I expect a higher standard from experienced hands. With repeat offenders I may avoid their caches or at least wait until a few logs are recorded. When someone screws up badly, I expect groveling and repentance!

 

And... don't give up on Ridgerunner. The coordinates are nailed on that one (after some beta testing by Mad Jack as I understand). If so inclined and with some good guesses you can proceed directly to "Go." Beautiful area no matter how many stages you do.