From The "excuseeee Me!" Dept.

[+Duncan!]

The following is a note posted by Hemlock on a new cache that I wanted approved. This was to be a replacement on Duscwe's Dead End Cache:Four. I put a new cache there, new container, I wanted it to be a new cache, a new name, why is that lame? Why shouldn't people log an extra smiley? Is this a game or not? Most games are lame, are they not? Why the heck would I want to continue this game when I receive garbage like this? I pay good money (granted, it 3 bucks a month) to support this game? Do I really deserve this type of treatment? I'm I taking this too personally?

 

---begin quote---

 

April 25 by Hemlock (0 found)

I don't understand why you would archive one cache here then submit a new one in the exact same spot. Talk about lame. Why should people get an extra smiley for logging it again.

How about an anti-lame series?

 

Hemlock

 

ps. The above is my personal opinion and not a guideline. But I want to understand the reasons behind such a lame idea.

 

---end quote---

 

Watch for my ALC caches coming soon! Anti-Lame Caches!

Need feedback.

 

Duscwe!

 

PS- Remember, this is a GAME!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I don't understand how replacing the old container makes it a new cache either.

[+Duncan!]

I don't understand how replacing the old container makes it a new cache either.

I archived the old cache. I started a new cache. Is this not allowed?

 

D

[+Marky]

Maybe the wording could have been differently stated, but I tend to agree with Hemlock here. I don't think it's appropriate to archive a cache and then put a new cache in the same spot. If you replace the container of an existing disabled cache, I see no reason not to just re-enable the existing cache.

 

--Marky

[+PandyBat]

Why put a new container with a new name in the same spot? Doesn't make sense to me. I don't think it's fair to be able to log the same cache twice which is basically what would be happening with this one.

[+webscouter.]

Perhaps this is the kind of thing that needs to be addressed through other channels. I can't imagine that you gain any points or friends posting private e-mails on a public forum. Couldn't this have been taken up with e-mails to Jeremy or one of the other frogs?

[+Marky]

I don't understand how replacing the old container makes it a new cache either.

I archived the old cache. I started a new cache. Is this not allowed?

 

D

The approvers are over worked as it is. I see this as being a waste of their time. It would have been much easier for them and you to just re-enable the existing cache. I can't even imagine this being fun for finders of the previous cache. I personally would be annoyed if I had to go find the same cache multiple times.

 

--Marky

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I don't understand how replacing the old container makes it a new cache either.

I archived the old cache. I started a new cache. Is this not allowed?

 

D

Is it allowed?

Technically, yes. Once a cache is archived, the location is available for someone to place a cache there.

Should you archive a cache just to place a new one there?

I think most people would say no. It just doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

[+Duncan!]

I don't understand how replacing the old container makes it a new cache either.

I archived the old cache. I started a new cache. Is this not allowed?

 

D

Is it allowed?

Technically, yes. Once a cache is archived, the location is available for someone to place a cache there.

Should you archive a cache just to place a new one there?

I think most people would say no. It just doesn't seem like the right thing to do.

Okay, thanks for letting me know I'm wrong.

I'll pull the cache.

 

D

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Okay, thanks for letting me know I'm wrong.

Uh...sure, anytime

[+Duncan!]

Perhaps this is the kind of thing that needs to be addressed through other channels. I can't imagine that you gain any points or friends posting private e-mails on a public forum. Couldn't this have been taken up with e-mails to Jeremy or one of the other frogs?

Hey webscouter,

 

I happen to agree with you. I made an error in judgement in posting this here. In fairness, the following is an e-mail I sent Hemlock. (MMM...crow tastes good!).

 

---begin quote---

 

Hello,

 

Okay, my bad. I would very much like it if you could unarchive dead end four. Sorry for any trouble I may have put you in. Just a little frustrating to be told everything is lame when I put some effort into hiding a cache. Again, my apologies.

 

Duncan

Aka Duscwe!

 

---end quote---

 

Sorry to bother everyone.

 

D

[+Sparky-Watts]

Well, I gotta agree with Hemlock on this, however, I do think his email was a bit rude and condescending. Not at all the professional tact I would expect from a gc.com approver. I think he could have gotten his point across without insulting you.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Well, I gotta agree with Hemlock on this, however, I do think his email was a bit rude and condescending. Not at all the professional tact I would expect from a gc.com approver. I think he could have gotten his point across without insulting you.

Yeah, because we all know that you're so much better at insulting people. Don't let the approvers take your spot, Sparky!

[Parsa]

Personally, I think the approvers in the West need to worry more about the proliferation of cache-padding lameness that's a lot more serious than replacing a single cache with a new name. (Duscwe!, just move the new cache down the beach a ways... I'll go find it. Isn't that the game?)

 

Hasn't anyone noticed the fact that a few cachers are placing huge numbers of boring caches in crappy cache containers just so they can find each others caches and make their numbers go up? They also move higher on keenpeople because it counts placements in the stats. I'm tired of the Gladware behind the Wal-mart.

 

There's also the trend by some of these same people to have a multitude of event caches in the same place on the same day with four or five "caches" sitting on the table for everyone to log. Hell, what kind of sport is that? If you want people to say geocaching is not a serious sport, THATS what will prove it to them.

[+fizzymagic]

Personally, I think the approvers in the West need to worry more about the proliferation of cache-padding lameness that's a lot more serious than replacing a single cache with a new name.

Unfortunately, the approvers have no control over the placement of lame caches. If a cache is placed that meets the guidelines, it has to be approved. So please, let's not place the blame for our explosion of lameness on the approvers.

 

I couldn't agree more about the number-padding lameness that has infected caching out here, though. I think that it is a trend that will, sadly, spread nationwide pretty quickly.

[+Nurse Dave]

I'm tired of the Gladware behind the Wal-mart.

Gladware? Don't I wish people put the thought into trying to hide something like that in an urban palce!

[+Renegade Knight]

Nothing is wrong with the idea. New cache same spot. This RASH is new and we will start addressing this soon. We being geocachers as we discuss it at events, meetings and in the forums.

 

Should the spot be archived and left for another cacher to put one there? If it's the best cache spot in the vicinity the odds are good another cacher would do it eventually. That cache is no better or worse than the original one there except that nobody would question a new owener placing a cache in an old spot. Why should we retire spots? Why does a new owner make it suddenly better?

 

I just moved one 121' over and started a new page for it. Why? The old spot has visible wear and tear on the landscape. Time for a new spot. It's still about the same cache experience.

[+Sanruft]

I'm not sure if the above is right or wrong, but there a lot of us "newbies" that have not been geocaching as long as some of the experienced. Many of us would never had known that it was an "archived" area for geocaching placements. (With area, I mean re-instating a new cache in an area that a cache was archived)

 

I have seen some caches "re-appear' in the same area that a previous cache was archived and chosen not to do the same cache again. (As to not "pad" my numbers), but I don't look down on others who enjoy the hunt...even if it IS for the same cache but a new container. Let's face-it...Many of us cache for very different reasons. Mine happens to be that it takes me to places that I would nomally not go. If another cacher decides to cache because they like the "high" numbers ~ Good for them!! I wish all of us could enjoy it for their own reasons without looking down on others for their own reasons. (If I wanted to pad numbers, I would do nothing but locationless caches as they seem to be everywhere providing you have a GPS and camera...but again, to each their own.)

 

I appreciate ALL those who make an effort when placing a cache..Whether it's my cup-of-tea or not. Thank you to everyone who have placed a cache for me to find!!!

 

Happy caching!

[+Nurse Dave]

I just moved one 121' over and started a new page for it. Why? The old spot has visible wear and tear on the landscape. Time for a new spot. It's still about the same cache experience.

This doesn't make sense to me either and sounds like another numbers padding thing. If you are in the same area but only 121' away, that sounds like a note on the cache page and getting the approver to change the coords. If it's pretty much the same caching experience, then it should only be one find per person.

[+rusty_tlc]

I just moved one 121' over and started a new page for it.  Why? The old spot has visible wear and tear on the landscape.  Time for a new spot.  It's still about the same cache experience.

This doesn't make sense to me either and sounds like another numbers padding thing. If you are in the same area but only 121' away, that sounds like a note on the cache page and getting the approver to change the coords. If it's pretty much the same caching experience, then it should only be one find per person.

No that is responsible. When the cache starts to impact the environment you need to either remove the cache or move it to a new location. Period. It has nothing to do with padding numbers.

 

If the cache needed to be moved that far (121' ) it's a new hide. I bet if I moved your La Sable rental car 121' in a crowded parking lot it would take you more than a few minutes to find it again. So the new hide is also a new find.

[+Marky]

If the cache needed to be moved that far (121' ) it's a new hide. I bet if I moved your La Sable rental car 121' in a crowded parking lot it would take you more than a few minutes to find it again. So the new hide is also a new find.

I'm not sure if I buy that logic. I could see it going either way. Personally, I'd say it's the same hide until you exceed the 528 feet mark, since that's when you would need approver's help to move it that far. However, if the container and hide style was way different, I'd call it a new cache. I've definitely done both of these actions in the past. I think, in the end, that good judgement should be used in these situations.

 

--Marky

[+Green Achers]

...it's the same hide until you exceed the 528 feet mark, since that's when you would need approver's help to move it that far...

Good catch by Hemlock... wordsmithing required. Out of all the good things he does, I'd be able to get over the error. Hemlock's not trying to kill the fun.

 

Back to the fun. Since I like to know the parameters in the game, I'll ask what I've been meaning to here.

Q. If a stasher relocates their hide - say 527 feet. Then they relocate it again (in the same dirrection) an additional 527 feet. Would that need reapproval? If so, I once had a FTF on a cache that almost required reapproval to correct the coordinates. Talk about a seasoned cacher. [OK, it was just really dumb luck and I really felt stupid right up until I found it!]

[Parsa]

If Duscwe archived the cache, and Cacher X came and placed a cache in the same location a week later, would he be obliged to use the name of the previous cache? Obviously he is not so restricted.

 

Where do you draw the line? It's almost like a Supreme Court question. What's the cutoff on dates if Duscwe places a cache in the same area? If he archives the cache and waits a year, is that OK? A month? A week? A day? If there is no official rule, then the approvers' hands are tied. The decision to disallow a cache becomes arbitary, lame though the placement may be.

 

This is why I'm saying there are a lot more egregious examples of cache padding...

GCHXTW

GCFYH8

 

Parsa

[+Ed & Julie]

...it's the same hide until you exceed the 528 feet mark, since that's when you would need approver's help to move it that far...

Good catch by Hemlock... wordsmithing required. Out of all the good things he does, I'd be able to get over the error. Hemlock's not trying to kill the fun.

 

Back to the fun. Since I like to know the parameters in the game, I'll ask what I've been meaning to here.

Q. If a stasher relocates their hide - say 527 feet. Then they relocate it again (in the same dirrection) an additional 527 feet. Would that need reapproval? If so, I once had a FTF on a cache that almost required reapproval to correct the coordinates. Talk about a seasoned cacher. [OK, it was just really dumb luck and I really felt stupid right up until I found it!]

I have done that!

I once placed a cache, but mistyped the coordinates.

I tried to fix them, but I kept getting error messages that I had to get approval to move it that distance.

Sooooo...I edited the cache over and over, moving the coordinates 500 feet at at time. I think it took 4 edits to get to where I needed to go.

Ed

[+CO Admin]

...it's the same hide until you exceed the 528 feet mark, since that's when you would need approver's help to move it that far...

Good catch by Hemlock... wordsmithing required. Out of all the good things he does, I'd be able to get over the error. Hemlock's not trying to kill the fun.

 

Back to the fun. Since I like to know the parameters in the game, I'll ask what I've been meaning to here.

Q. If a stasher relocates their hide - say 527 feet. Then they relocate it again (in the same dirrection) an additional 527 feet. Would that need reapproval? If so, I once had a FTF on a cache that almost required reapproval to correct the coordinates. Talk about a seasoned cacher. [OK, it was just really dumb luck and I really felt stupid right up until I found it!]

I have done that!

I once placed a cache, but mistyped the coordinates.

I tried to fix them, but I kept getting error messages that I had to get approval to move it that distance.

Sooooo...I edited the cache over and over, moving the coordinates 500 feet at at time. I think it took 4 edits to get to where I needed to go.

Ed

Or you could have contacted your reviewer and they could have done it all at once. Reapproved the cache and no one would have had to push the guidelines.

[+Green Achers]

Q. If a stasher relocates their hide - say 527 feet. Then they relocate it again (in the same dirrection) an additional 527 feet. Would that need reapproval?

 

A. I once placed a cache, but mistyped the coordinates.

I tried to fix them, but I kept getting error messages that I had to get approval to move it that distance.

Sooooo...I edited the cache over and over, moving the coordinates 500 feet at at time. I think it took 4 edits to get to where I needed to go.

Ed

Interesting. Now how can I take advantage of this knowledge.

 

I once placed a cache that was not approved... I threw a temper tantrum [spelling?] and cleared every detail about the cache including the coordinates. In doing so, I moved the coordinates to zero-ville which is way over 527 feet [and miles]. It didn't make me feel better but did help keep the wilderness-holy-grounds from being infected [or enjoyed] by all the unwelcomed Geocachers. I think that was before the re-location controls were developed.

 

Or you could have contacted your reviewer and they could have done it all at once.

Huh? And loose the opertunity to go around a road block that's kind of not really there? What fun would that be?