Problem With Placing A Cache

1.1k · February 8, 2005

On the Getting Started Forum Thot started a thread reguading placing multi stages how do you know if they are to close to anothers person's multi stages. Not the start or final cache but the legs of a multi. Well this got me to think about one of the real problems as I see it to placing a cache is that to palce a cache you have to have it in PLACE with all stages etc... pluce the final cache in place. SO you have been careful not to break any of GC.com rules for placing a cache but then your approve denies your cache. If it is done so specifically that it can not be moved then you wasted a lot of time and effort etc... to place a cache.

This almost mean DON'T do any thing that requires any creativity then throwing a container out of you car as you drive down the road. I and I know may folks have put a lot of work into our caches and I guess that is some of the frustration I or we feel when trying to get a cache approved.

So what do we or can we do to make it a better process. It is hard enought to lay out a cache without have to make extra trips????

I dont kknow that iw why I ask. And sorry if it is an old topic but searching through 20+ pages of threads is not very viable.

7.2k · February 8, 2005

Not sure I totally understand what you are saying, but I always tell people who have proximity problems with nearby multi-caches to go find all the caches in a park if you want to place another one there. That doesn't always work since some multi-caches spread out across several miles. If you do find all the caches in a park before you place yours you minimize that problem though. I am doing that right now. There is a multi near a place I want to place a traditional cache. I am going to find the multi first so I know where the parts of the cache are.

38.2k · February 8, 2005

SO you have been careful not to break any of GC.com rules for placing a cache but then your approve denies your cache.

If you haven't violated any guidelines, they will approve your cache so what's the issue?

20.7k · February 8, 2005

I agree. The worst case scenario is that you will have to tweak it.

21.9k · February 8, 2005

Not sure I totally understand what you are saying, but I always tell people who have proximity problems with nearby multi-caches to go find all the caches in a park if you want to place another one there. That doesn't always work since some multi-caches spread out across several miles. If you do find all the caches in a park before you place yours you minimize that problem though. I am doing that right now. There is a multi near a place I want to place a traditional cache. I am going to find the multi first so I know where the parts of the cache are.

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like what I wrote in my post to the other thread. So now we have the same advice from volunteers in two different threads. Reviewer consistency... I guess there's a first time for everything! :rolleyes:

1k · February 8, 2005

SO you have been careful not to break any of GC.com rules for placing a cache but then your approve denies your cache.

If you haven't violated any guidelines, they will approve your cache so what's the issue?

G'day

Sorry but I disagree. The guidelines are just that, guidelines and there is plenty of discussion in these forums over the interpretation of those guidelines. It is not, IMO, as black and white as you imply.

Getting back to the OP point, my suggestion would be that, if you think that there might be some question over your cache or just to avoid all the work in the first place just to get it rejected, ask your reviewers first. Get the issues sorted out then place the cache.

Regards

Andrew

Edited February 8, 2005 by Aushiker

1k · February 8, 2005

Not sure I totally understand what you are saying, but I always tell people who have proximity problems with nearby multi-caches to go find all the caches in a park if you want to place another one there. That doesn't always work since some multi-caches spread out across several miles. If you do find all the caches in a park before you place yours you minimize that problem though. I am doing that right now. There is a multi near a place I want to place a traditional cache. I am going to find the multi first so I know where the parts of the cache are.

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like what I wrote in my post to the other thread. So now we have the same advice from volunteers in two different threads. Reviewer consistency... I guess there's a first time for everything!

G'day

That is good to see .

Andrew

38.2k · February 9, 2005

Sorry but I disagree. The guidelines are just that, guidelines and there is plenty of discussion in these forums over the interpretation of those guidelines. It is not, IMO, as black and white as you imply.

The guidelines can be stretched and there is some subjectivity, but there are also clear lines. If you do not cross those lines your cache will be approved. Its when people walk those lines that they run into trouble.

For instance if you have a non-temporary, non-commercial or soliciting, traditional cache, with a logbook, that is placed with permission, on public land in accordance with local laws, not buried, containing no banned objects and more than .1 mile from the nearest cache, over 150 feet from RR tracks, 5 miles from your home, it will be approved.

Change any of those paramaters and you are approaching, or crossing the line and approval is no longer a sure thing.

1k · February 9, 2005

Sorry but I disagree. The guidelines are just that, guidelines and there is plenty of discussion in these forums over the interpretation of those guidelines. It is not, IMO, as black and white as you imply.

The guidelines can be stretched and there is some subjectivity, but there are also clear lines. If you do not cross those lines your cache will be approved. Its when people walk those lines that they run into trouble.

G'day

Sorry, but I beg to differ and my experience and these forums and others suggests otherwise. At least in my experience with some reviewers and given others comments on their experiences with their local reviewers, interpretation of those guidelines does seem to vary. That said I don't have experience with all reviewers therefore can't comment on the wider community.

All that said, I prefer and will continue to engage in constructive communication where I think there may be issues ... found that works best.

Regards

Andrew

38.2k · February 9, 2005

Sorry, but I beg to differ and my experience and these forums and others suggests otherwise

So you have examples of caches that cleary conform to all guidelines and have been rejected? Was a reason given?

20.7k · February 9, 2005

I don't recall any threads about caches that met the guidelines, but were denied anyway. Can you provide a link.

BTW, putting 'gday' and signing off on every post, while quaint, is not really necessary.

2.1k · February 9, 2005

something that I did not see - and surprised it was not raised by the approvers above -

when you post a multi cache you have to give the coords for ALL of the stages for just the reasons you are giving - so it does NOT impinge on another cache or cache stage. The approvers already know (the approved them) where all the other multi stages are supposed to be. They have a couple great utilities that put dots on satelite photos as well as tell them the distance between cache stages.

It is difficult for us to know all the stages but we should be able to avoid all the regular caches. All you have to do is map it on the gc site - and as was posted, find 'em and mark the waypoints so you can put them on your own map software like I do.

Delorme Topo is great for taking the ouput from GSAK (which downloads the waypoints and tracks from my GPS's) and then puts different colored flags on my topo map.

February 9, 2005

One thing I don't understand, and if it was explained, I missed it. It seems using the same existing "structure" for a waypoint on two multis is not allowed.

Obviously, saturation isn't a problem because it already exists. Confusion shouldn't be an issue because you will be going off the cache page gathering information that will be cache specific.

Is there another reason I'm missing?

1k · February 9, 2005

BTW, putting 'gday' and signing off on every post, while quaint, is not really necessary.

G'day sbell111 and Briansnat

Thanks for comment, and whilst you may not find it necessary, I do consider it to be manners and will continue to do so.

As to the link, not of the top of my head ... search for the Texas discussion as one example. BTW I never said that I had any experience of caches "clearly" confirming to guidelines being rejected. What I have said is that I have had some experience of varying interpretation of the guidelines and have read in this forum and heard/read in other fora of similarly experiences. A different animal.

Personally I have had two caches, one now approved and one in development, which where rejected initially either outright or in the idea stage over guidelines interpretation/cache idea interpretation. Following further discussion the cache was approved and the idea has been given the go ahead.

Anyway, that is my take. If you have a problem with it so be it, it really is not worth further discussion IMHO.

To me the more positive aspect in this discussion, is that in my view constructive discussion ideally before placing the cache is more likely to address any concerns the hider might have and the approver might have. Hopefully out of such dialogue may come good innovative caches.

Regards

Andrew

Edited February 9, 2005 by Aushiker

February 9, 2005

I have seen some strict logging guildlines, espeacially in this forum as othe people have brought it up, I believe that Geocaching should crack down on the un-needed restrictions to log a cache.

38.2k · February 9, 2005

BTW I never said that I had any experience of caches "clearly" confirming to guidelines being rejected.

Which was my entire point. :blink:

February 9, 2005

Well, Let's face it, if you think your new cache is near another multi, do the other multi to find out.

As for caches fitting the guidelines and not being approved, I've seen it happen and had it happen. "nough said on that.

38.2k · February 9, 2005

As for caches fitting the guidelines and not being approved, I've seen it happen and had it happen. "nough said on that.

This is the first I've ever heard of this happening. What reason did they give?

21.9k · February 9, 2005

Brian, I believe the gentleman is referring to a virtual cache submission that I archived; it is his only archived submission. The cache target was a large concrete railroad bridge. The reason given was that a physical cache could be placed nearby.

38.2k · February 9, 2005

Brian, I believe the gentleman is referring to a virtual cache submission that I archived; it is his only archived submission. The cache target was a large concrete railroad bridge. The reason given was that a physical cache could be placed nearby.

So it didn't conform to the guidelines then. Hmmmm.

21.9k · February 9, 2005

I should add that a local geocacher has proven the decision correct by placing this ammo box cache to feature the same bridge.

February 9, 2005

Yes, In an area that I was speciffically told was Off Limits by the town!

1.1k · February 9, 2005

Not sure I totally understand what you are saying, but I always tell people who have proximity problems with nearby multi-caches to go find all the caches in a park if you want to place another one there. That doesn't always work since some multi-caches spread out across several miles. If you do find all the caches in a park before you place yours you minimize that problem though. I am doing that right now. There is a multi near a place I want to place a traditional cache. I am going to find the multi first so I know where the parts of the cache are.

I wished we lived in an ideal world where we could all find every cache that was in a park. But if someone has a 5/1 cache and it starts 5 miles a way and goes through a park and you DO NOT know it becacuse it is to hard for you to solve or even SUSPECT then how would you ever know. This advice may sound good but it is a bit naive, sorry but it is. There is current on cache here in Denver that has over 12 stages and covers the entire Denver metero area that is a 4.5/2.5 how is anyone to know execpt someone who completers the cache or has hidden it where the stages are at. There is another cache that I am told is a 29 mile drive around Lakewood Co a suburb of Denver. How do I know that that fire hydrant or the numbers on that building or that light pole is part of that multi and I can't put my hide a key under that bench because it is part of someone elses multistage cache. HOW DO I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you see now what the problem is there is no way to know.

And Yes I have had a cache refused because the approver did not like the idea of it. It was not moral/crude/crass etc. it did not viplate any of the guidelines of GC.com cache place ment rules and there are other caches that had the same purpose. But mine was denied buecasue the approver didn't not like the idea.

I don't mean to seem harsh but people make statements that just get your dander up.

cheers

38.2k · February 9, 2005

And Yes I have had a cache refused because the approver did not like the idea of it. It was not moral/crude/crass etc. it did not viplate any of the guidelines of GC.com cache place ment rules and there are other caches that had the same purpose. But mine was denied buecasue the approver didn't not like the idea.

I'm sure there is more to the story. It always turns out that there is.

February 9, 2005

I wished we lived in an ideal world where we could all find every cache that was in a park. But if someone has a 5/1 cache and it starts 5 miles a way and goes through a park and you DO NOT know it becacuse it is to hard for you to solve or even SUSPECT then how would you ever know.

OK, sometimes that happens. Unfortuantely ( and please don't take this as a flame), but sometimes this sort of thing happens. You could even run accross a case where you go to place a cache and it turns out that someone else just placed one within.01 miles and put it in for approval the night before.

In the situation you seem to be discussing, I'd suggest POLITELY asking the approver what the problem was and where the conflict came in. Unless there is some extreme reason why your stage has to be in that specific location ( Your sending people to look at a series of statues by the same sculptor lets say) you should be able to rework it and move that stage. Remember .01 miles is less than 600 feet. It would be nice if the approver would give you the coords that you are too close to to avoid guesswork.

20.7k · February 9, 2005

I bet if you work with the approver, he will tell you what stage there is a problem with and even suggest which direction you could move it in.

20.7k · February 9, 2005

Thanks for comment, and whilst you may not find it necessary, I do consider it to be manners and will continue to do so....

My feeling on this is that a thread in the forums is like a conversation. One would not say 'Hi, Steve' every time they speak to me in the same conversation.

Edited February 9, 2005 by sbell111

1.1k · February 9, 2005

Okay realize I am not talking about a real sutuation, except in the case of having my cache not approved. But it is mostly something I have been thinking about. Why can not two differant caches use the SAME statue if it is in a park and all and the first stage and final cache is the required 528 feet. I can usder stand if you leave a film canister with a hint, which would actually be funny if there were multiple canisters for diffeant caches in the same spot and you had to figure out which was which, /em bonks head evil thought go bye bye. But why where is the definative rule. I know it has to do with cache density etc... but I didn't put the statue there. This is just all an idea and the more WE know the better WE will be at placing caches.

cheers

7.2k · February 9, 2005

Why can not two differant caches use the SAME statue if it is in a park and all and the first stage and final cache is the required 528 feet.

Good question.

Why can't one or more virtual stages share the same spot? What, are you going to do, get the question on one cache page confused with one on another?

February 9, 2005

Why can not two differant caches use the SAME statue if it is in a park and all and the first stage and final cache is the required 528 feet.

Good question.

Why can't one or more virtual stages share the same spot? What, are you going to do, get the question on one cache page confused with one on another?

I'm the one that came up with the hypothetical statue. Yes, I suppose the approvers could let something like that go if BOTH caches just used lets say a plaque on the statue to figure out the next coords.

What if the clue was stuck on a phone booth though?

The rule probably came about back when GPS units didd'nt show any distance below .01 miles. Yes, it could be changed to say, 300 feet, but why bother?

7.2k · February 9, 2005

My contention has been for so long that I've stopped harping on it is if the stage is clearly marked it shouldn't matter how close it is. If someone is not observant enough to figure out they've gotten the wrong cache, or marker, the onus is on them.

This rule came about way back when I was planning a cache that specifically made the cacher be more aware of what they were doing. If they failed to pay attention they would be following the path to a different cache.

I see this as yet another example of "dumbing down" the hobby. Fortunately they only check proximity to other caches on this site. If you self-publish you can do pretty much as you please.

1.1k · February 9, 2005

These are listing guidelines only. Before a cache is approved a volunteer will review the page for inaccuracies, bad coordinates, and appropriateness before posting the cache to the site. The physical cache site is not verified. As the cache owner, you are responsible for the placement and care of your cache.

Cache Saturation

The approvers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the site approvers may strongly encourage you to create a multi-cache.

Okay here is the information directly off of the HIDE A CACHE Guidelins. FIrst they are guildlines and there is no precicent. Then we are at the whim of the approve.

Two there is NO statement that address stages of multies proximity to each other. So where does this come from?

Okay I don't mean this to be to heated but it is FRUSTRATING.

O'well it is only a game.

cheers

February 9, 2005

Not sure I totally understand what you are saying, but I always tell people who have proximity problems with nearby multi-caches to go find all the caches in a park if you want to place another one there. That doesn't always work since some multi-caches spread out across several miles. If you do find all the caches in a park before you place yours you minimize that problem though. I am doing that right now. There is a multi near a place I want to place a traditional cache. I am going to find the multi first so I know where the parts of the cache are.

I wished we lived in an ideal world where we could all find every cache that was in a park. But if someone has a 5/1 cache and it starts 5 miles a way and goes through a park and you DO NOT know it becacuse it is to hard for you to solve or even SUSPECT then how would you ever know. This advice may sound good but it is a bit naive, sorry but it is. There is current on cache here in Denver that has over 12 stages and covers the entire Denver metero area that is a 4.5/2.5 how is anyone to know execpt someone who completers the cache or has hidden it where the stages are at. There is another cache that I am told is a 29 mile drive around Lakewood Co a suburb of Denver. How do I know that that fire hydrant or the numbers on that building or that light pole is part of that multi and I can't put my hide a key under that bench because it is part of someone elses multistage cache. HOW DO I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you see now what the problem is there is no way to know.

And Yes I have had a cache refused because the approver did not like the idea of it. It was not moral/crude/crass etc. it did not viplate any of the guidelines of GC.com cache place ment rules and there are other caches that had the same purpose. But mine was denied buecasue the approver didn't not like the idea.

I don't mean to seem harsh but people make statements that just get your dander up.

cheers

Complete all the multi-caches in the area first. And then you'll know, first hand, where all the stages are. Bring the cache you want placed with you. And when you like an area that you want to place your cache, make sure it's +550 ft (benefit of doubt) away from any previously placed caches/stages. Period. :mad:

As a matter of fact, it would be fun to complete that multi-cache and at the same time you get to reconnoiter nicer locations for a possibly better cache.

What's so difficult about that? :mad:

1.1k · February 9, 2005

Complete all the multi-caches in the area first. And then you'll know, first hand, where all the stages are. Bring the cache you want placed with you. And when you like an area that you want to place your cache, make sure it's +550 ft (benefit of doubt) away from any previously placed caches/stages. Period.
As a matter of fact, it would be fun to complete that multi-cache and at the same time you get to reconnoiter nicer locations for a possibly better cache.

What's so difficult about that?

I am sorry but this is about the MOST niave statement I have read so far, I am sorry but you missed the mark. READ what ws said before because I would only have to repeat my self.

1.1k · February 9, 2005

I'm sorry I had hoped for something meaningfull to come of this. SOrry if I take it to personal. But I wasnted some simple answers.

BYE.

February 9, 2005

I'm sorry I had hoped for something meaningfull to come of this. SOrry if I take it to personal. But I wasnted some simple answers.
BYE.

buh-bye

7.2k · February 9, 2005

Um, AtoZ, you probably should not call people naive and ask them to read the whole statements if you are not going to do that yourself...

Not sure I totally understand what you are saying, but I always tell people who have proximity problems with nearby multi-caches to go find all the caches in a park if you want to place another one there. That doesn't always work since some multi-caches spread out across several miles. If you do find all the caches in a park before you place yours you minimize that problem though. I am doing that right now. There is a multi near a place I want to place a traditional cache. I am going to find the multi first so I know where the parts of the cache are.

I wished we lived in an ideal world where we could all find every cache that was in a park. But if someone has a 5/1 cache and it starts 5 miles a way and goes through a park and you DO NOT know it becacuse it is to hard for you to solve or even SUSPECT then how would you ever know. This advice may sound good but it is a bit naive, sorry but it is. <snip> HOW DO I KNOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you see now what the problem is there is no way to know.

<snip>

I don't mean to seem harsh but people make statements that just get your dander up.

I said clearly in my reply that it doesn't always work to just find the caches in that park. Calling me (and others) naive is against the forum guidelines and is just plain rude, especially when you obviously did not even read my whole post. Asking for help and then calling people naive when they give you an answer you don't like is rude and uncalled for.

To say "there is no way to know" is totally incorrect. You just won't take the steps to find out where the caches are. You have been told several times how to find out but you won't take the steps needed. If you won't find the 5/1 cache that starts 5 miles away, well, who's problem is that exactly? Not the reviewer or the person who hid the cache. I think the simplest answers were give to you. Sorry that you cannot accept them.

sbell111 is also correct. If you work with the reviewer I am sure they will tell you to nudge your cache X number of feet in a certain direction to get it in compliance. I have done that myself.

If you don't bother to find difficult multi-caches, then don't get mad if your cache is not listed because of proximity issues. Either work with the reviewer to get it fixed or move on.

2.7k · February 10, 2005

Why can not two differant caches use the SAME statue if it is in a park and all and the first stage and final cache is the required 528 feet.

Good question.

Why can't one or more virtual stages share the same spot? What, are you going to do, get the question on one cache page confused with one on another?

Using the same spot, place, or statue should not cause any problems, unless there is a container located there. But when it comes to asking a question all we have to do is read and decipher the question. We have several here in Loveland that do just that. On this cache of mine question #1 says. He reminds me of my Irish relatives from the old sod? While on this other cache done by anothe cacher, uses the same statue for this question. c) How many fingers does the man have wrapped around the stick?

Same place, same statue, same coordintes, and no problem even exists. And there are about 5 multi caches that go thru that park, use coordinates that are close to each other, but the results wind up from about a mile to the South and four miles to the West. And as many times as I've been to that park, I even found a good place for a micro in there, but that will have to wait. And I'll start a dialogue with the approver even before I get ready to place this one. I just can't believe I didn't see that spot before.

2.7k · February 10, 2005

For instance if you have a non-temporary, non-commercial or soliciting, traditional cache, with a logbook, that is placed with permission, on public land in accordance with local laws, not buried, containing no banned objects and more than .1 mile from the nearest cache, over 150 feet from RR tracks, 5 miles from your home, it will be approved.

Change any of those paramaters and you are approaching, or crossing the line and approval is no longer a sure thing.

These caches of mine are under 5 miles from my house. When did that guideline come into effect that we must place caches greater than 5 miles from my home, I have one in the front yard. Do I archive the cache or my house.

February 10, 2005

I havent heard anything about not placing a cache within 5 miles of your house, and can't find that one in the cache placement guidelines.

I think someone was joking around with that statement.

Problem With Placing A Cache

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

Join the conversation