Installing New Caches

[+mrgreen/moneypenny]

:angry:I live 100mile from penfield new york .I reviewed guildline for placeing the caches, note more than four day ago I tried to post a series of new caches in pendfield new york area the first reply from the new york admin was to permanently archived all caches I had no chance to reply why? they read me the riot act.number one I have placed over fiftycaches . I fell that they treated me as three year old . I tried to talk to the new york admin no reply .personally , I thing ground speak should change the quarum for new york admin

[+OurWoods]

I don't ever remember hearing/reading there was a limit to the number of caches you can hide. If you live 100 miles away, there may be concern. However if the 100 miles is an area you often travel to, again, its my understanding that placing a cache that far away is alright.

 

I know personally I have seen logs by you guys all over Western NY. So maintaining caches shouldnt be too hard since you do travel around a bit. NY Admin probably doesnt know that. S/he is just a volunteer with lots of thankless work to do. Send them another email and explain the situation and ask what the next step is. If the caches are "approvable" it is my understanding that a regular approver cannot unarchive caches, so the issue would have to go to someone else.

 

If you feel you have been treated unfairly, as per Hydee:

 

You may now email approvers@Groundspeak.com. This queue will only be used for approver issues, and will separate the emails from the general mailbox. Please use this sparingly or it will defeat the purpose of having a separate queue.

[+Mopar]

OK, I'm bored, so I took 5 minutes to plot all your 50+ hides on a map.

Looks to me you are probably located near Jamestown, NY? Mapquest puts Penfield, NY at about 150 driving miles, and 2.5 hrs each way.

So, I guess the issue you need to address with your reviewer is, can/will you drive 300 miles/5hrs round trip to check these caches if there is a problem, while at the same time maintaining the other 50 caches you have close to home?

I didn't bother to plot all your finds (I"m not THAT bored, lol); do you have many finds near that area? If you do, are they spread out, or all just on the trip you hid these caches? If you have a history of caching in the area on a regular basis, say your caching history shows you found caches around there every month or so, perhaps you can use that to convince the reviewer that you will in fact be able to take care of the caches if a problem arises. Between my partner and myself, we have placed over 35 caches, and we've really been trying to tighten up our hide area. Sometimes its really hard to even schedule time for the ones more then an hour drive away, even those in areas we frequent fairly often. I don't think I would be very inclined to spend 5 hours to go check if one of my caches was still there, or replace a logbook.

 

[edit: OurWoods addressed most of the same issues while I was composing this post!]

 

[edit 2: Since you mentioned the 100 mile distance to the caches, I assumed thats the problem. I forgot NY has/had some major issues with land managers like the DEC banning caches or requiring permits. Haven't seen that discussed lately, so I don't know if that's been resolved. If the caches are in an area that's banned or requres a permit, that could be a problem too]

Edited October 30, 2004 by Mopar

[+Renegade Knight]

Odds are its the maintainability issue that zapped you. The approver should have said as much in the archive note for the caches.

 

Let us know what the issue is then we can all pitch in and give you better bad advice.

[avroair]

Is there a local cacher you know or could contact who would volunteer to maintain your caches for you? I have never done this myself, but I have talked to others who have.

[Keystone]

Hello Mr. Green,

 

As you know, I've enjoyed working with you on your geocache hides in Northern Pennsylvania. That's your "home territory." I, too, would have questioned a cache hidden more than 100 miles from your home territory.

 

I went and checked the archived caches. You received an 8 paragraph note from the reviewer, explaining why there was a concern, and quoting the applicable guidelines paragraph. The note concluded with the following:

 

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.

 

Before this cache can be listed on the website, I need to know how this cache will properly maintained.

 

I would have used the exact same note if you had hidden this cache in Pittsburgh rather than Penfield. Your cache pages did not include any sort of explanation about how you could maintain the cache. If you have such an explanation, you should state it in a "Note to Reviewer." Although you did not do that, if you re-read the quoted portion of the Reviewer's archive log, it clearly invites you to write back and have that dialogue.

 

Some reviewers prefer to archive submissions to remove them from the active queue of caches they're working on. New York Admin is one of them. This is also explained in the Guidelines for placing a cache:

 

If your cache has been archived…

 

First please read the archival log for an explanation. It is a common practice for the approvers to temporarily disable or even archive a submission while they obtain additional details required for its approval. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it won’t be listed. In order to ensure a prompt response when responding to an archival note please click on the Approver’s profile from the cache page and e-mail the approver through Geocaching.com.  Replies directly to cache notifications can be delayed considerably.

 

If you believe that your cache may be questionable, you are encouraged to add a note to the cache page. For example, you could add an explanation in the “notes to reviewer” section such as: "The train tracks running through this park are inactive and have been converted to a rails-to-trails path." The reviewer will read the note and take the information into consideration when approving the cache. Rest assured that notes to reviewers will be removed before the caches are posted. Most caches that are temporarily put on hold or archived are done so due to a lack of information. Having all the relevant information up front during the review process will help ensure a speedy approval.

 

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the approver and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines.

(Emphasis added in bold)

 

So my question back to you is, how long ago did you provide the followup message to New York Admin to demonstrate your ability to maintain the caches you placed, or to say that a local geocacher has agreed to maintain the caches for you? The caches were archived on Thursday, October 28th. It's Saturday. Perhaps New York Admin is out finding some geocaches. Give New York Admin a chance to read your reply, and respond to it.

 

Thanks.

[Keystone]

Hmmmm... it's been more than 48 hours, and no response to my question or any other update from the OP. I note that 48 hours is longer than New York Admin had to respond via e-mail before this topic was started.

 

So, any update, or was I just wasting my time trying to explain how the process works?

[avroair]

I found it informative. Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

Edited November 2, 2004 by avroair

[+Team Bam Bam]

Hmmmm... it's been more than 48 hours, and no response to my question or any other update from the OP. I note that 48 hours is longer than New York Admin had to respond via e-mail before this topic was started.

 

First, reviewers / approvers tend to be primadonnas due to the enormous salaries they receive from Groundspeak. Once you get beyond that I think they do a good job and ultimately have the best interests of Geocaching at heart when making decisions.

 

That being said, these pages are the forum reccomended by Groundspeak for the purposes of intelligent (sorry, AvroAir) and constructive discussion regarding current issues or debates. I don't think a forum discussion is inappropriate regardless of timing if the issue is legit. Whether the post came 5 minutes after the e-mail or 48hrs is, to me, irrelevant.

[+BMSquared]

first reply from the new york admin was to permanently archived all caches I had no chance to reply why?

 

Actually, the original post had an interesting issue. The poster stated that the caches were "permanently archived". This is certainly an intimidating status. If they area really only temporarily archived pending need for further claification, that could be a truly misleading message to receive.

 

That being said, these pages are the forum reccomended by Groundspeak for the purposes of intelligent (sorry, AvroAir) and constructive discussion

 

In AvroAir's defense, Team Bam Bam is a big fat stupid head.

[Keystone]

First, reviewers / approvers tend to be primadonnas due to the enormous salaries they receive from Groundspeak.

This is incorrect. I am a primadonna due to my enormous ego and thirst for power. The salary is just icing on the cake. I've told Jeremy I'd do this for free but he is very persuasive.

 

That being said, these pages are the forum reccomended by Groundspeak for the purposes of intelligent (sorry, AvroAir) and constructive discussion regarding current issues or debates. I don't think a forum discussion is inappropriate regardless of timing if the issue is legit. Whether the post came 5 minutes after the e-mail or 48hrs is, to me, irrelevant.

 

The issue is only "legit" (i.e., ripe for the forums) if the cache owner has not heard back from the volunteer within a reasonable period of time. The instructions I quoted above explain that the owner should work with the volunteer first and then bring the issue to the forums if it is not satisfactorily resolved. That being said, let's agree that it's fine to start a forum topic. I only wish that the original poster would then hold himself to the same response time standard that he is asking for from the volunteer. To quote the eloquent words of the opening post, "personally , I thing ground speak should change the quarum for" the original poster.

[+mrgreen/moneypenny]

UPDATE: We like to thank everyone who took part in the discussion on this topic. We value everyone's opinions. We agree with the Keystone approver, and believe it or not , New York Admin. We know there has to be rules. Our main concern was PERMANENTLY ARCHIVED. Permanently in the dictionary states "fixed and changeless,lasting or meant to last indifinitely". We think Groundspeak should change the policy OF NEW YORK ADMIN. WHAT DO YOU THINK? p.s. Two in our series of caches that had been permanently archived have been approved. Thanks.

[+BMSquared]

Our main concern was PERMANENTLY ARCHIVED.    Permanently in the dictionary states "fixed and changeless,lasting or meant to last indifinitely". We think Groundspeak should change the policy OF NEW YORK ADMIN.               WHAT DO YOU THINK?        p.s. Two in our series of caches that had been permanently archived have been approved. Thanks.

Yes, I find the term PERMANENTLY ARCHIVED sort of implies permanently archived. It would be nice if there was some sort of middle ground status or maybe a revision of the term to allow a glimmer of hope at getting the issues resolved and the cache approved. This is not an issue with any of the approvers, it is a term in the system. Congratulations on your cache approvals. I hope you get them all.

 

I still stand by my previous statement.

Team Bam Bam is a big fat stupid head.