My Cache Denied For Not Logging Online!

[MOCKBA]

In the event that a cache is not being properly maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an extended period of time, we may archive or transfer the listing.

That's from the official guidelines. The respective official policy on the matter has been discussed in many separate threads on inadequately maintained caches or on cache adoption.

Basically, if there are issues with cache maintenance, the owner is asked to correct the situation, and is given fairly generous time to respond. E.g. one of the California caches I dnf'd had an owner sidelined for almost a year because of a bad injury. Eventually he replaced the missing cache.

If the owners is missing or not responding, the admins proceed with adoption requests very slowly and deliberately. There have been situations when original owners re-emerged and were not amused that someone adopted their hides.

Essentially, the standart policies presume innocence of cache owners. The community also tries to self-maintain the good caches which, for one or another reason, don't receive proper attention from owners. For example, in our state, we bring new logbooks and even new containers to the early caches whose owners no longer play.

I guess you get my point. If a cache is "archived for non-maintenance" because it takes the owner a few weeks (Sic!) to correct the issue, it is an outsize violation of existing policy. As if we didn't know.

[+AJ of Dunbar]

In my experience, micros clearly require MUCH MORE maintenance than traditional caches. Just with my own caches, I have had twelve maintenance issues this year alone. Nine of them involved micro containers. I found out the Altoids breath strip tins don't hold up to a Pittsburgh winter, even if spray-painted, and that a "waterproof" match case wasn't. Plastic keyholders deteriorate and fall apart. One-pint rubbermaids can get damp, soaking clue sheets. Logbooks fill up and need to be replaced.

 

Maybe dampness and rust aren't issues in New Mexico, but muggles and full logbooks definitely are issues everywhere. And at least around here, if a cache maintenance issue on a micro isn't fixed within two or three months, you're likely to hear criticism.

well the micro i placed is only a block from my house, its a bison with rubber o-ring to keep it water proof. yes it could get wet inside if damaged. but the log book has a large list for every one to sign. I doubt it would ever get filled up. so unless it got muggled or the o-ring went bad it shouldnt need that much maintance. But i suppose it depends on the container you use.

 

It does seem very much like a power trip. and since your other cache was archieved ill keep with keystones suggestion and say nothing in this thread. I dont see why people who have a litle bit of power,, if you call the position CO holds power, it goes to their head!

 

aj

[+Mechanics Hands]

Hmm 360 read the last paragraph of my first message I said heck take GPSSAX up on his offer to maintain it. He made that offer at 2:08PM on 6-26-04. At that point did you stop and resubmit the post and ask that this thread be locked until a decision was made? It does sound like a wonderful idea and area for a cache, just with a clear maintainability issue. So find someone to help, take a deep breath resubmit the cache for approval and close the thread. Seems like a simple solution so everyone wins. You get the cache you wanted approved, and the rest of us get to benefit from a great sounding cahce to find.

 

MH

[+Kealia]

I have plead my case. Your Honor, the Defense rests.

Did I miss the resting part?!!?

 

Seriously 360, we've agreed on many things in the past, but I can't give you this one. 365 miles is quite a way for a trip you only make 2-3 times a year.

 

Sax man offered but then admitted he couldn't maintain it after a few months. Find somebody else or let it go.

 

This is going to sound harsh, but it's not all about you.

 

I'll go read the other thread about the plaque, but I have a hard time believing it was done out of retaliation. If this thread brought another problem to light that has just now been addressed I could see how it would look but CO Admin would have to be pretty stupid to make a move like that out of spite knowing that it would quickly become public knowledge.

 

I've had to pass on many cache spots for one reason or another. Life goes on.

 

For the record, what you did with the plaque was great (I haven't seen it yet), but I'm afriad that it shouldn't grant you special privledges, sorry.

[CoyoteRed]

List in on Scout's site and then put a link on all of your caches listed here to Scout's site.

 

Besides, it's already placed, right? It's not as if COA is not letting you put it there. He's just not letting you list it here.

 

The more things like this happen and the more caches get listed elsewhere, the more steam the other sites get.

[+RJFerret]

Objectively speaking, since the only problem with the approval of this cache is finding a local to help maintain it, do that.

 

Yes, it's a judgement call. I believe CO Admin used his discretion wisely. Finding a local to help out is free and easy, perhaps CO Admin has a recommendation since he's most intimately familiar with hiders there...

 

That's one thing I wish approvers were encouraged to do. Rather than just flag problems, offer solutions.

 

Every instance I've seen of a cache being denied/archived was presented to the hider in an unpleasant way, as if they'd done something wrong.

 

'Twould be much nicer if solutions were presented rather than just blank denials.

 

If CO Admin had said, "I can't tell if this is within your maintainable range without any finds to check and believe it's too far. If you can find a local maintainer to help out, this cache can be approved."

 

This whole situation wouldn't exist!

 

Above and beyond the call of duty (and more time consuming) would be to add: "Here's a list of a few locals who might be willing to help out--they've hidden similar caches in that area."

 

hth,

 

Randy

[Keystone]

A cache in an airport? After 911? THATS NUTS!! I'm an aircraft mech and wanted to do one at dfw airport (already a virt there) but had common sense to keep the idea as a virt. Common sence says to keep away from airport property etc, especially after 911. Not only is it illegal to place things on airport property, but it would also would give geocaching a HUGE black eye.

 

Lets all take a Deep breath relax and not turn this into attacking accusing etc. To make comments like the admins issues etc WILL NOT help you to get your caches approved. I would hate to see your inputs to the forums and giving to the sport decrease. Sounds like it was a wonderful idea and thing you did with the portland cache. But still is it really that hard to follow the rules and use some respect and sence with things?

 

MH

Don't worry, I am informed that this cache was removed from the PDX airport, by someone (not affiliated with Groundspeak) who was concerned about an accidental find of a cache container with a Geocaching.com stash note inside the airport security area. Odd, though... I didn't know that it was the cache owner who had arranged for this, as he implies above. Perhaps I was misinformed.

[+Runaround]

I'll go read the other thread about the plaque, but I have a hard time believing it was done out of retaliation. If this thread brought another problem to light that has just now been addressed I could see how it would look but CO Admin would have to be pretty stupid to make a move like that out of spite knowing that it would quickly become public knowledge.

I had the same interpretation after reading both threads.

[+velvet_elvis]

So why not just go ahead and make it a virtual cache? these require no maintenance, and you could manage the thing via e mail. If it's really that big of a deal to you, simply change your zip code in your user profile, or open a new account in another name, using the zip code of the area you want to put your cache in. Another idea would be to search the user profiles for a local in that area, and suggest the site. That way there would be a cache there, and you could enjoy its contents whenever you please. IMO, it's a good thing the reviewers are being carefull, otherwise these caches would overflow, the contents would get spread all over, possibly causing the banning of geocaching in that area. I've found caches in my area where the lid is almost impossible to get back on properly. BTW, why don't you want others "tracking your numbers"? do you see yourself as a serious competitor?...my god, I hope we won't have to get tested for steroids anytime soon!

[+Mopar]

If it's really that big of a deal to you, simply change your zip code in your user profile, or open a new account in another name, using the zip code of the area you want to put your cache in.

Trying to decieve people to get your cache listed instead of just playing by the rules is never the right option.

[+Mudfrog]

Now, just about everyone knows I don't post my "finds" online, I do, however, post a "note" on the cache page, allowing the owner to read about my hunt. The only reason I don't post a "find" is to avoid having my numbers tracked.

 

Thats silly! But, on the other hand, it really shouldnt have anything to do with your hiding of a cache!

 

The fact that you are 365 miles from the location and that you dont have anyone lined up for maintenance makes this one NOT a good one to be listed under the current GC.com rules. For now this is a good call!!!

[Ahetma Vaakenjaab]

I think the maintanence issue is what should have been addressed in the denial from CO Admin if that is the actual issue. By stating that the cacher doesn't log his finds online, CO Admin has implied that was the only reason for not approving the cache. That is not right. I wonder how many other cachers there are that never log their finds? There sure seems to be a lot that never post on these message boards. I think CO Admin should have given 360 an honest denial, not based on whether he logs online or not, as well as giving helpful information as to how to get the cache approved. Probably would have prevented a heated debate here.

[+JoGPS]

Hey, 360 you did a great thing by placing the Original Stash Tribute Plaque, that was far out man, I been reading the forums for a pretty good while and you are always stirring the pot when you don’t get you way . This is not a flame, plain facts.

 

You did a geocide and archived all your caches then came back and asked for them to be unaarchived and they did that.

 

You don’t log you finds as found, and they seem to use this for checking vacation caches and that’s cool to I guess, so you have to expect it to be harder to do anything with your past track record.

 

You don’t play the game like most do, and man there ain’t nothing wrong with that either but you are always butten your head the wall. You are not gonna win against City Hall, you are not looking at the big picture as they are. You only see you…………… JOE

[+Insp Gadget]

"Since I dont know how often you travel in this area a cache that is a few hundred miles from where I believe you live and in another direction from your other far away caches may be outside your maintainable distance."

And just praytell how do you know where he lives????????????

[+JoGPS]

Insp Gadget said: “And just praytell how do you know where he lives???????????? “

 

Don’t know but you live in : Bathurst, New Brunswick, Canada

 

JOE

[+norbu]

I have a question....If this is the case

Since you do not post your finds on the website I really have no way of

knowing if you can or can not maintain a cache this far away from where

I think you live.

Then how is it that people with only one find, or even zero, can hide a cache. This does seem a bit odd. I think that maybe the point of saying it is a "vacation cache" is much more plausible. The note to Approver should clearly state how you plan to maintain if it is possibly an issue...

This being said, I will say the Mokita - I think there is more to this. I think it is somewhat inappropriate, although I am not naming names. I think that many people can see both sides, but that many are probably a bit uncomfortable with the situation. And, I think that it is not right to archive a cache AFTER being maintained, on the basis of it not being maintained....That is kinda silly. Even if you are correct that it is not being maintained properly, at least act while there is a problem, not after it is corrected.

 

Anyway, flame away, I don't burn easy, and I don't have any hides.

[+Insp Gadget]

Insp Gadget said: “And just praytell how do you know where he lives???????????? “

 

Don’t know but you live in : Bathurst, New Brunswick, Canada

 

JOE

So everytime someone enters a new cache, the approvers have to look up where they live in their profile and check how far they live from the new cache?

 

BTW, I do not live in Bathurst. Yeah, I know it says that on my profile, but I don't live there....

[+Kealia]

No, but they can tell by looking at the concentration of your finds, your other hides, etc.

 

In this case it's no secret where 360 lives. He's been a round a while and most of the normal crowd here (including approvers) know where he lives (not teh street address mind you, but the city/area).

[+JoGPS]

Insp Gadget , I have no idea saw that on your sig line and had to post…….. JOE

[+Team GPSaxophone]

So why not just go ahead and make it a virtual cache? these require no maintenance, and you could manage the thing via e mail.

Because a physical cache could be placed there, a virtual is not an appropriate solution. Also, virtuals do require maintenance. Signs and markers are removed and/or replaced from time to time. Part of maintaining a virt is to make sure it is still there.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

No, but they can tell by looking at the concentration of your finds, your other hides, etc.

 

In this case it's no secret where 360 lives. He's been a round a while and most of the normal crowd here (including approvers) know where he lives (not teh street address mind you, but the city/area).

Hmmm...I think I've got his street address around here somewhere

[+Kealia]

Bad smurf!

 

Bad, bad smurf!

[kd7evs]

I'm not specificly going to take either side. however I would like to throw something out there.

 

There are people, typicly city folk. who think driving five miles across town to walmart is far. They whine and complain when they have to go to a different one cause the first stop was out of stock.

 

Though I currently live in boise, Idaho... where I really grew up and hope to return to, you have to drive over 3 hours to walmart. and that's pushing 75ish. Countless times we'd get bored on a summer after noon and take the 2 and a half hour trip over the mountains to go to pizza hut.

 

Distance is relative. It's not really one person's place to decided how far, far is to someone else. I'm not going to tell you that your McDonalds on the other side of town isn't far... and I won't tell you that driving 4 hours to get a pizza is far. I'm going to be putting a new cache out this weekend about 150 miles north of here. I travel up there every month. though, the cache will be under 10 feet of snow for 5 months of the year. (hmm, might hang it). either way I'd suggest that general users have more imput about cache maintenance. and as long as current caches are being maintained, let the owner decide how well he can manage another one. I've already got six locations planned for deployment this summer. Places within a 300 mile radius that I travel at least once every three months. Ask my truck, I travel alot.

 

by the way... it's always fun when someone not from the west (and I don't include the west coast in 'the west') comes to visit. ask them if they would like to go to pizza hut? then after an hour (less than halfway) when you are crossing your first mountain pass at 8,000 feet they begin to wonder!

 

again, just something to consider. I'd suggest leeway when someone is approving a cache in the west, unless they know that a 150 mile trip is a short trip across the county and a 300 miles is a nice relaxing sunday afternoon trip.

 

zeb

KD7EVS

[+briansnat]

again, just something to consider. I'd suggest leeway when someone is approving a cache in the west, unless they know that a 150 mile trip is a short trip across the county and a 300 miles is a nice relaxing sunday afternoon trip.

 

The distance isn't the issue, it's the frequency of your visiting the area. It doesn't matter if you live in Rhode Island, or Utah, if the Walmart is a 200 mile drive for you, if you can't prove you make that drive regularly, they won't let you place a cache there.

 

I have several caches over 200 miles away in Vermont. They were approved because I have a record of visiting the area frequently over a period of years (in the form of finds). Were I to try to place a cache 200 miles away in another direction, say PA, or MD, it would probably be rejected, as I have no finds in either place; hence no track record of frequenting the area.

[+Mopar]

again, just something to consider. I'd suggest leeway when someone is approving a cache in the west, unless they know that a 150 mile trip is a short trip across the county and a 300 miles is a nice relaxing sunday afternoon trip.

 

The distance isn't the issue, it's the frequency of your visiting the area. It doesn't matter if you live in Rhode Island, or Utah, if the Walmart is a 200 mile drive for you, if you can't prove you make that drive regularly, they won't let you place a cache there.

 

I have several caches over 200 miles away in Vermont. They were approved because I have a record of visiting the area frequently over a period of years (in the form of finds). Were I to try to place a cache 200 miles away in another direction, say PA, or MD, it would probably be rejected, as I have no finds in either place; hence no track record of frequenting the area.

I can use a picture I recently posted in another thread as the perfect example. Here is a map of my local finds:

 

 

Notice that in close to 3yrs of caching, I've never found a cache on Long Island, even though it's only 20 miles away. So even though it's only 20 miles, it's too far for me to maintain a cache hide there, yet I have hides 100 miles away that I can usually check on within a week or 2 if there is a problem.

[MOCKBA]

The distance isn't the issue, it's the frequency of your visiting the area.  It doesn't matter if you live in Rhode Island, or Utah, if the Walmart is a 200 mile drive for you, if you can't prove you make that drive regularly, they won't let you place a cache there.

As I already mentioned, this rule, if literally interpreted and truly enforced, would totally abolish any remote caches. Indeed, if there are no caches (or very few caches) within a few hours of travel from a submitted cache location, then the owner can't establish a pattern of 'caching in the area' almost no matter how one tries.

edit: grammar

Edited July 3, 2004 by MOCKBA

[+JMBella]

I've never found a cache on Long Island, even though it's only 20 miles away.

 

Well what the heck are you waiting for?! Look at all these wonderful caches! Plus I'm having an EVENT on the 18th of this month.

 

[+cachew nut]

I've never found a cache on Long Island, even though it's only 20 miles away.

 

Well what the heck are you waiting for?! Look at all these wonderful caches! Plus I'm having an EVENT on the 18th of this month.

He's not allowed on the island

[+JMBella]

I've never found a cache on Long Island, even though it's only 20 miles away.

 

Well what the heck are you waiting for?! Look at all these wonderful caches! Plus I'm having an EVENT on the 18th of this month.

He's not allowed on the island

[Vacman]

Umm... "this is only a hobby"....

[+Mopar]

I've never found a cache on Long Island, even though it's only 20 miles away.

 

Well what the heck are you waiting for?! Look at all these wonderful caches! Plus I'm having an EVENT on the 18th of this month.

Actually, the last time I was there, I didn't have time to cache. Just took the ferry over to meet some friends for lunch and come back. I hate driving on LI with a passion, but since someone else has offered to drive, it looks like I just might get to attend your little party on the 18th.

[+JMBella]

I hate driving on LI with a passion...

 

Wow, it must be bad if someone from NJ says that. Hey at least we're allowed to make left turns on LI.

 

Looking forward to seeing you at the EVENT.

 

Sorry 360, I know this is completely off your topic. Won't happen again. For the record I agree that your cache should have been approved flat out.

Edited July 4, 2004 by JMBella

[+robert]

Why not just post your finds. [i hear Black Helicopters]

Please don't go there.

 

Use the Search feature for more than you'll ever need to know.

[PC Medic]

from mapquest. from Phoenix AZ to Continental Divide NM where the cache in question is

Total Est. Time: 5 hours, 29 minutes Total Est. Distance: 365.25 miles

This cacher has caches that are

Total Est. Time: 4 hours, 33 minutes Total Est. Distance: 215.72 miles from his location however they are in the opposite direction.

 

That is a vacation cache in my book. not within the normal maintainable distance or direction for this cacher. All this needs is a local cacher to watch it and its approvable.

A problem with this method is what may seem a great distance to one person, is 'down the road a piece' to another. Someone living in Manhatten finds a trip to Long Island far, where someone in Plains, TX finds a trip to Lubbock a quick shot down the road (yet it's over 100 miles).

 

While living in Rochester, N.Y. we used to regularly make trips (MANY times a year) to places like Albany (225.54 miles S.E), White Face Mtn in Lake Placid ( 274.97 miles N.E.), Kings Island, OH (478 miles S.W.), not to mention regular trips to Philidelphia, Virginia Beach and other destinations. We now live in Va. Beach and weekend road trips to Mrtle Beach, S.C, The Outer Banks, Richmond Raleigh or Roanoke are not unusal and in all different directions.

 

Point is there are many geocachers that travel great distances on a regular basis in many directions. I know of one that has caches in various parts of the world from the U.S. to India because he makes regular business trips to these places, sometimes even staying months at a time in a given location.

 

I think the best person to determine if placement of a cache would be spreading themselves too thin, is the cache owner.

 

Just my two cents.

[+Desert_Warrior]

In one way I like CO-Admin's stance.

 

I want people to log the find on the site.

 

In fact, I think if you won't log it, then don't go look for it.

 

The rest is relative to me, I live in West Texas. Travelling anywhere is 50 miles, but at 75 mph, it isn't a big deal. I can probably get to Las Cruces NM before a New Yorker can get to Wal Mart.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I thought when you placed a cache you clicked a button that says you can maintain this cache. If the button is clicked then where is the problem? If the owner has had no maintenance problems in the past there is no reason to doubt his ability to do so now.

 

If after it is approved a problem developes and the owner does not correct that problem then action can be taken. A note to the owner about the problem followed by archival if necessary. If the cache is archived perhaps the 'archiving admin' could put a thread in the 'local' forum asking for someone to retrieve it so it doesn't become geolitter.

 

If there are enough caches that get archived for problems then a full time thread in each of the local forums might be warranted. It sounds like this is a major problem for Geocaching.

 

Just the opinions of an oldfart.

 

John

[_sled_dog_]

I belive the approver has done the right thing in getting this cache aproved or not aproved in this case. I belive 365 mi away to place a cache is way to far to provide the proper cache maintance.I think approvers should take track history of owned caches into the consideration to. maybe you should spend moretime getting the caches you have arcived back up and running no flame intened

[thorin]

If it's really that big of a deal to you, simply change your zip code in your user profile, or open a new account in another name, using the zip code of the area you want to put your cache in.

Trying to decieve people to get your cache listed instead of just playing by the rules is never the right option.

Do you (or the admins) honestly expect people to play by "the rules" when the "rules" used aren't recorded anywhere? How can someone be expected to play by a rule that's made up on the spot? It's like a 5 yr old in a running race with his father or friends. "Race you to the end of the field" ... so you run to the end of the field just to hear ... "hahahahaha I mean to the end and back" once they're already half way back.

 

According to Co-Admin a difference of 1 hr travel time (see below) and logging of finds (or lack thereof) makes all the difference in the world in the hiding and maintaining caches ( I don't recall seeing this "rule" anywhere).

 

From Phoenix AZ to Continental Divide NM where the cache in question is:

Total Est. Time: 5 hours, 29 minutes Total Est. Distance: 365.25 miles

This cacher has caches that are

Total Est. Time: 4 hours, 33 minutes Total Est. Distance: 215.72 miles from his location however they are in the opposite direction.

 

Thorin

Edited July 4, 2004 by thorin

[+Mopar]

If it's really that big of a deal to you, simply change your zip code in your user profile, or open a new account in another name, using the zip code of the area you want to put your cache in.

Trying to decieve people to get your cache listed instead of just playing by the rules is never the right option.

Do you (or the admins) honestly expect people to play by "the rules" when the "rules" used aren't recorded anywhere? How can someone be expected to play by a rule that's made up on the spot?

I would tend to agree with you, if you were correct that the rules aren't written down, and were made up on the spot.

However, that's not the case. Before you even get to the cache submission form, you're asked to read the rules. Every time you submit a cache, you have to check off a box that says :

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

 

If you actually take the time to read them like you are agreeing that you did, you will see it says this:

Placing caches on vacation or outside of your normal caching area is unacceptable and these caches may not be approved. As the cache owner you are obligated to be in a position to manage your caches, and caches placed on vacation require someone else to maintain them for you. It is not uncommon for areas to be cleared, trails to be blocked or closed, objects used for virtual or multi-caches to be moved or removed, etc.  You must be able to react to negative cache logs and investigate the location quickly.  Please be responsible. This guideline applies to all types of caches including virtual caches.

 

The territory in which a geocacher is able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from one person to the next.  An active geocacher who regularly visits areas hundreds of miles apart can demonstrate their ability to maintain a cache 100 miles from home.  A geocacher whose previous finds and hides are all within 25 miles of their home would likely not see their cache listed if placed 250 miles away from their home. 

 

If you have special circumstances, please describe these on your cache page or in a note to the approver.  For example, if you have made arrangements with a local geocacher to watch over your distant cache for you, that geocacher’s name should be mentioned on your cache page.

 

The guidelines were last updated 11/05/03, long before this cache was placed, and they are not significantly different then previous versions. So please tell us what rule is being made up on the spot? I think the years-old rule that the hider agreed to covers this situation.

 

My own situation is a perfect example. I have active cache hides 100 miles from home. I also have found 100 other caches within that same area, spread out over almost 3yrs. It shows that I am regularly in that area. I do not currently have any finds logged on Long Island, even though it's only 20 miles away. So in my case, 20 miles one direction is too far for me to hide a cache, yet 100 miles in another direction is no problem.

Edited July 4, 2004 by Mopar

[thorin]

The rules that were made up on the spot are the two that says.

 

1) He must log his finds.

2) An hour extra in one direction is unacceptable where an hour more in another direction is fine.

 

My own situation is a perfect example. I have active cache hides 100 miles from home. I also have found 100 other caches within that same area, spread out over almost 3yrs. It shows that I am regularly in that area. I do not currently have any finds logged on Long Island, even though it's only 20 miles away. So in my case, 20 miles one direction is too far for me to hide a cache, yet 100 miles in another direction is no problem.

That's is an example, but it's your choice not to hide or find on Long Island. If you did choose to hide one on Long Island even though you've never found any there it shouldn't be up to someone else to try and tell you that you can't hide one there just because you've never logged a find. You know if you'll be able to maintain a potential cache hidden on Long Island better then anyone else does.

 

Edited for typos.

 

Thorin

Edited July 4, 2004 by thorin

[+Mechanics Hands]

The rules that were made up on the spot are the two that says.

 

1) He must log his finds.

2) An hour extra in one direction is unacceptable where an hour more in another direction is fine.

 

Hmm maybe you should go back and read much of what was posted on this topic. Co said clearly that it helps the approvers to know frequency in the area by logging finds online. Its not a requirement, Its a TOOL for them to use to make the process move along easily. If it couldnt be seen by finds in the area then it causes more work and needs clarification as to the true frequency in the area. especially when its such a long distance away, and opposite to other owned caches. Its obvious that this was discussed.

 

Also, the spirit of the guidelines about temporary archiving caches for maintenance for not more than a few weeks would certainly apply to cache maintenance and approving. If a cache is in an area you dont normally go, or can't get to within a few weeks of finding out there is a problem with it, then the cache shoulkdnt be approved. It keeps coming back to being a reasonable responsible cache owner.

 

It certainly appears this was brought to the forums FAR to prematurely. It should have been discussed in further emails. But it appears the a person didnt get what they wanted and didnt like the responses, and instead of further discussions, came here instead. The thing is we dont know the various communications back and forth between 360 and CO. And truly WE DONT need to know either. This was and should be between 360, CO and GC PERIOD.

 

IMHO this topic is done and over with. To keep it going with questioning raises questions about motives. Let the topic be done with. Its been beat to death already. This was an unfortunate mess that never should have happened in the first place.

 

MH

[thorin]

Dude take some of your own advice.

 

Yup a TOOL not a rule. If it's going to be used as a TOOL to such an extent that not logging finds is grounds for denial of cache approval then that should be stated hard and fast somewhere. Further it should also be stated that you must have a certain number of finds of a certain frequency within some radius to make it fair and applicable (Which would obviously be completely ridiculous).

 

Thorin

Edited July 4, 2004 by thorin

[+cacheKidds]

I thought when you placed a cache you clicked a button that says you can maintain this cache. If the button is clicked then where is the problem? If the owner has had no maintenance problems in the past there is no reason to doubt his ability to do so now.

 

I think you are right. I support Team 360 on this one.

[+Mopar]

I thought when you placed a cache you clicked a button that says you can maintain this cache. If the button is clicked then where is the problem? If the owner has had no maintenance problems in the past there is no reason to doubt his ability to do so now.

 

I think you are right. I support Team 360 on this one.

By this logic then, we don't even NEED cache reviewers. I mean, you also agree that you aren't gonna hide a cache "near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings and airports", yet we know from these threads that Team 360 also submitted (and had declined) one recently inside an airport. So it seems that agreement means little to him. It's certainly not limited to him, either. Anyone who's been around has seen many cases where cachers have hid caches that go against the guidelines then come here complaining when it's not approved. For every 1 of those, there are probably 25 more who realize their mistake and fix it instead of complaining.

[+hedberg]

Okay, I have just one thing to add. A cache owner who has 100 caches 100 miles away from his house can be a better maintainer than a cache owner who has 2 cacher 10 miles away from his home. It has NOTHING to do with the miles, number of caches or the number of caches found.

 

It has to do with money & time. Do you have enough money to travel around to your caches, do you have the time to spend? That's the issue!

 

Many new cachers do hide a cache or two, then they quit geocache and perhaps even change email address. Other cachers move to a different country or state, no one really cares about that issue..

[Tahosa and Sons]

A few times a year is not often enough for this cache to be maintained.

Does this imply that we have a certain time frame to meet to keep our caches alive, or they will be archived.

 

I drive past that area at least two times a year and could check on it, and the Sax does it also, so the Team has some help. Let it be a cache.

[CoyoteRed]

By this logic then, we don't even NEED cache reviewers.

This is interesting. I'm sure one of the reviewers can answer this curious question: what's the precentage of caches that get approved without any modification?

 

If it's significant enough, then is there really a need for "approvers?" Leave it as "reviewer" and put a "report this cache" button on the cache page. Let the cache be approved automatically and let us decide if it's a viable cache or not. Then the "reviewer's" work load would drop to queries of viability and those caches that people report as questionable.

 

Besides, aren't many caches which are shot down already placed anyway? If they are, if the cache is denied they still have to be retrieved if they are not to be hunted. No difference either way.

 

This would go a long way to giving the perception the sport is controled by a few individuals.

 

Just a thought.

[+TEAM 360]

By this logic then, we don't even NEED cache reviewers. I mean, you also agree that you aren't gonna hide a cache "near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings and airports", yet we know from these threads that Team 360 also submitted (and had declined) one recently inside an airport. So it seems that agreement means little to him. It's certainly not limited to him, either. Anyone who's been around has seen many cases where cachers have hid caches that go against the guidelines then come here complaining when it's not approved. For every 1 of those, there are probably 25 more who realize their mistake and fix it instead of complaining.

First, I was not aware or the "no-airport" rule when I placed that cache. I really wasn't. I had not re-read the updated guidelines about that. That's my fault, really, but the cache has been removed, so that's a non-issue right now.

 

Secondly, I am tired of hearing about people saying it's "complaining" in the forums when they bring an issue in here. That's what the Forums are for! It's a GC.com guideline to post here in the Forums, not "complaining".

[+Harrald]

<<SNIP>>

 

Secondly, I am tired of hearing about people saying it's "complaining" in the forums when they bring an issue in here. That's what the Forums are for! It's a GC.com guideline to post here in the Forums, not "complaining".

The title of this thread is not asking the forum posting community for input. It is a statement and it sure read like a complaint. Explanation points have that ability.

 

My Cache Denied For Not Logging Online!

[+Sparky-Watts]

<<SNIP>>

 

Secondly, I am tired of hearing about people saying it's "complaining" in the forums when they bring an issue in here. That's what the Forums are for! It's a GC.com guideline to post here in the Forums, not "complaining".

The title of this thread is not asking the forum posting community for input. It is a statement and it sure read like a complaint. Explanation points have that ability.

 

My Cache Denied For Not Logging Online!

The title isn't the thread, though. Putting a title like that has garnered this thread 2389 views, whereas a soft title like "What do you think" or "Question" would not have drawn as many views, or responses. I don't see a problem with posting a title to your thread to draw attention to it.