When hiding a cache...

[+XopherN71]

Yesterday morning I went out to hide 2 caches (my first ones). I did my research to make sure there were no other caches in the area, or so I thought.

 

First hide went great and off to the second. I got to the location and started looking for a good resting spot, low and behold I find another cache!

 

Turns out to be one of those caches that are not at the posted coordinates, but solving something gets you the right coordinates.

 

To me this kind of sucks because I spent a fair amount of time and energy planning this hide only to find out that I couldn't do it.

 

What to do?

 

To the cache owner:

I don't fault you, it's a great cache... I'm just wondering what the procedure is when this happens because I could technically claim this location since it's not posted anywhere. Had I not seen the cache in question there would in fact be two located within 5 feet of one another.

[+meralgia]

i'm guessing that either:

 

1) the cache could be the last stage of a multi. try doing the multis in the immediate vicinity and see if the coords lead you there.

 

2) the cache is only viewable by premium members. i found that out the hard way also. if you're not a premium member and are interested in hiding, I'd suggest signing up so you don't go to unnecessary trouble in the future.

Edited April 4, 2008 by meralgia

[+XopherN71]

Group: Premium Members

 

Here's a link to the cache in question:

GC17F2Y

[je4wdep's wife]

Actually it is posted, since it is a puzzle cache, and you can not technically claim the spot. Sorry, but a reviewer would tell you your cache is too close to one in the area.

[+XopherN71]

Right, however my point is... how am I supposed to know this prior to planning my hide unless I go and figure out each caches location first?

 

There's a missing piece to this if you ask me.

 

1. Prepare the cache.

2. Look up local caches in the area and find a good unused location.

3. Plan to deliver and hide the cache.

4. Hide cache and mark coordinates.

5. Log in and submit the cache.

6. BAM, sorry - this location is in use.

 

You just wasted a fair amount of time for a cache I can't place because the location wasn't known to you.

 

You're ok with this?

Edited April 4, 2008 by XopherN71

[+PhxChem]

because I could technically claim this location since it's not posted anywhere.

 

You cannot claim this location......Groundspeak indeed has these coordinates. If you were to attempt to hide one here...it wouldn't have been approved.

 

Unfortunately, the only way to know is to solve all the puzzles near where you want to place a cache. A couple of different other ideas have been floated around here (some fairly recent), but none of them seemingly would satisfy everyone.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

What to do?

 

To the cache owner:

I don't fault you, it's a great cache... I'm just wondering what the procedure is when this happens because I could technically claim this location since it's not posted anywhere. Had I not seen the cache in question there would in fact be two located within 5 feet of one another.

 

What to do is find another spot.

 

Technically their cache is there and yours is not. Technicly their cache is posted and the solution for the coorsds is there to be found. That's the nature (and risk) of puzzle/multi caches and placing new ones. Even though your cache may have been placed 5' away it likely would not be approved on this site due to the 528' rule and the confusion such a close hide could cause. Listing your cache somehwere else would be bad form since you know they are close enough to cause confusion.

[+Renegade Knight]

Right, however my point is... how am I supposed to know this prior to planning my hide unless I go and figure out each caches location first?

 

There's a missing piece to this if you ask me.

 

It's a paradox. If you ban puzzle/multi caches you can solve the problem but then there are no puzzle and multi caches that people enjoy. Or you can have those kinds of caches and then deal with the occasional issue of someone wanting to hide a cache on top of the final cache of a puzzle.

 

It's a question of picking the problem you would rather have. This site has chosen to track the locations of caches that have coords that are not directly posted to better track when a new cache might overlap. I like this solution. They have the option to allow a little more flexability in how close you can be as a result to minimize the number of conflicts.

[+TeamGumbo]

I just wanted to note that your log to the cache was very classy.

 

*thumbsup*

[+Team_CSG]

Yesterday morning I went out to hide 2 caches (my first ones). I did my research to make sure there were no other caches in the area, or so I thought.

 

First hide went great and off to the second. I got to the location and started looking for a good resting spot, low and behold I find another cache!

 

Turns out to be one of those caches that are not at the posted coordinates, but solving something gets you the right coordinates.

 

To me this kind of sucks because I spent a fair amount of time and energy planning this hide only to find out that I couldn't do it.

 

What to do?

 

To the cache owner:

I don't fault you, it's a great cache... I'm just wondering what the procedure is when this happens because I could technically claim this location since it's not posted anywhere. Had I not seen the cache in question there would in fact be two located within 5 feet of one another.

This is just part of the game. I see this all the time in the Denver area. Telling you before hand if a multi or puzzle was in a certain area would be unfair to to the hider of that cache. I hope you logged a find while you were there!

[+XopherN71]

Thank you TeamGumbo.

 

Don't get me wrong here, I understand all this - however I feel there needs to be a method to find available locations.

 

Something as simple as a web based coordinate search with a response of yes or no would suffice, I don't need to see it on the map in turn not giving away the location of the existing cache.

Edited April 4, 2008 by XopherN71

[+the hermit crabs]

Something as simple as a web based coordinate search with a response of yes or no would suffice, I don't need to see it on the map in turn not giving away the location of the existing cache.

 

This has been suggested many times, and at first glance it seems like a very reasonable idea, until the potential for abuse is pointed out.

 

It is best described with Keystone's "Battleship" story... read his posts from this forum search.

[+egami]

Thank you TeamGumbo.

 

Don't get me wrong here, I understand all this - however I feel there needs to be a method to find available locations.

 

Something as simple as a web based coordinate search with a response of yes or no would suffice, I don't need to see it on the map in turn not giving away the location of the existing cache.

 

It's called the "Reviewer".

 

You can't really do a web-based coordinate search because people would utilize it as a cheating mechanism.

Edited April 4, 2008 by egami

[+StumpWater]

because I could technically claim this location since it's not posted anywhere.

 

You cannot claim this location......Groundspeak indeed has these coordinates. If you were to attempt to hide one here...it wouldn't have been approved.

 

Unfortunately, the only way to know is to solve all the puzzles near where you want to place a cache. A couple of different other ideas have been floated around here (some fairly recent), but none of them seemingly would satisfy everyone.

 

Couldn't this work like GeoChecker? Let you know that there is a cache within 0.1 miles of your proposed site?

 

StumpWater

[+the hermit crabs]

Couldn't this work like GeoChecker? Let you know that there is a cache within 0.1 miles of your proposed site?

 

Here are some threads that may explain the problems with this suggestion:

 

An "Available Location" Check Feature

Absolutely Frustrated, hiding caches

.1 mi. rule...earlier notification?

Posting a Cache Location

Request: Coordinate Proximity Check, I Wanna Know... Where Your Cache Is

Question on Placing Puzzle Caches

[+XopherN71]

You can't really do a web-based coordinate search because people would utilize it as a cheating mechanism.

 

Well so be it... If they have that much time to waste then I feel sorry for them. I'd rather someone who is 'cheating' lose out on a little fun than have to jump through hoops to find out if I can place a cache in a certain location or not.

 

This would benefit everyone if you ask me, the submitter, the reviewer and the owner of the mystery cache for not having to worry about another cache being placed or found by accident.

 

Make it available to Premium members only, or heck... even charge extra for it.

Edited April 4, 2008 by XopherN71

[+egami]

You can't really do a web-based coordinate search because people would utilize it as a cheating mechanism.

 

Well so be it... I'd rather someone who is 'cheating' lose out on a little fun than have to jump through hoops to find out if I can place a cache in a certain location or not.

 

You have to jump through that hoop now though.

[+XopherN71]

Kind of the point of this thread lol

[+egami]

Kind of the point of this thread lol

 

Not really. I am talking about waiting for a reviewer. This step is taken care of for you. You don't need control of it. Yes, it'd be nice to know for certain ahead of time, but there really isn't a need for it.

[+hydnsek]

Right, however my point is... how am I supposed to know this prior to planning my hide unless I go and figure out each caches location first?

[snip]

You just wasted a fair amount of time for a cache I can't place because the location wasn't known to you.

Avoiding this problem is pretty easy: Check with the reviewer first if you have any concerns about a potential cache location. I've done this several times. Example: I want to place a cache in a park that, surprisingly, shows no caches in it. I take coords of my desired location, but don't spend time and energy on the full cache placement and writeup until I email the reviewer with the coords and ask if there are any caches within (say) .2 miles of my desired location. If they say no, I'm good to go. If they say yes, then clearly, there's a puzzle or multi container within that radius (without giving away which one).

Edited April 4, 2008 by hydnsek

[+XopherN71]

Yes, it'd be nice to know for certain ahead of time, but there really isn't a need for it.

Sure there is... reviewers have lives too, and if I want to go hide a cache on a Sunday morning with my kids, why should I have to wait for a reply that might not get to me for a day or two?

 

Technically, couldn't a 'cheater' use the reviewer to find the location just the same?

 

What's the difference? All they'd have to do is say they are placing caches and need some coordinates checked. If someone is going to 'cheat', they are going to find a way regardless if we have this feature or not.

 

Avoiding this problem is pretty easy: Check with the reviewer first if you have any concerns about a potential cache location.

Technically this would have to be done with every cache you place.

 

I'm still not convinced there is a valid reason for this feature not to exist... it would greatly improve the cache hiding experience and limit; 1. manual interaction 2. reviewer load 3. human error.

Edited April 4, 2008 by XopherN71

[+hydnsek]

Avoiding this problem is pretty easy: Check with the reviewer first if you have any concerns about a potential cache location.

Technically this would have to be done with every cache you place.

 

I'm still not convinced there is a valid reason for this feature not to exist... it would greatly improve the cache hiding experience and limit; 1. manual interaction 2. reviewer load 3. human error, tremendously.

Not really. I've hidden a bunch of caches, and only have queried the reviewer twice, for placements that seemed like they might have conflicts (suspiciously empty parks) or had puzzle/multis nearby (that could potentially end where I wanted to place mine).

 

It's really pretty darned rare to wind up with conflicting placements, so it's not something most of us worry about.

 

As for the automated query feature you advocate, that's been discussed in numerous threads, with valid reasons presented for why it's unlikely to happen. The hermit crabs listed the thread links earlier.

Edited April 4, 2008 by hydnsek

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Right, however my point is... how am I supposed to know this prior to planning my hide unless I go and figure out each caches location first?

 

There's a missing piece to this if you ask me.

 

1. Prepare the cache.

2. Look up local caches in the area and find a good unused location.

3. Plan to deliver and hide the cache.

4. Hide cache and mark coordinates.

5. Log in and submit the cache.

6. BAM, sorry - this location is in use.

 

You just wasted a fair amount of time for a cache I can't place because the location wasn't known to you.

 

You're ok with this?

Fist, I agree with the other posters who pointed out to you that you do not technically have any claim to the spot just because the waypoint for the other cache is not publicly listed. Next, to answer your question, of "am I okay with this?", my answer is a wholehearted "yes"! We have been hunting and hiding caches for years, and this is not a problem for us!

 

P.S. In any case, the reality is that such conflicts are EXTREMELY rare!

Edited April 4, 2008 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+egami]

Yes, it'd be nice to know for certain ahead of time, but there really isn't a need for it.

Sure there is... reviewers have lives too, and if I want to go hide a cache on a Sunday morning with my kids, why should I have to wait for a reply that might not get to me for a day or two?

 

Technically, couldn't a 'cheater' use the reviewer to find the location just the same?

 

What's the difference? All they'd have to do is say they are placing caches and need some coordinates checked. If someone is going to 'cheat', they are going to find a way regardless if we have this feature or not.

 

It's incorporated as part of the Reviewing process now. You act as if it's putting them out. You don't have to physically place a cache before you submit it. I don't.

 

And, no, you can't cheat through querying the Reviewer on a single coordinate like you could having open access to checking multiple coordinates.

[+gof1]

I need to stop posting and doing other things at the same time. By the time I actually submit a post it is no longer relevant.

Edited April 4, 2008 by gof1

[+XopherN71]

In any case, the reality is that such conflicts are EXTREMELY rare!

 

I guess since this happened on my 2nd hide it concerned me... perhaps more than it needed to.

 

Thanks for all the responses, I truly appreciate them.

 

Best regards.

[+gvsu4msu]

Thank you TeamGumbo.

 

Don't get me wrong here, I understand all this - however I feel there needs to be a method to find available locations.

 

it is called geocaching - go out and find caches, then hide some caches. If you're worried about an area, find the "competition" and then place yours. You then get counts for finds and hides. everyone wins. You also get the exposure to different types of caches.

[+Isonzo Karst]

There is a technique.

Scout the location.

Get coords.

Use Hide and Seek a cache to check out what's around.

This will show you proximity to Members Only caches, even if you aren't a member (start coords, on multis, bogus coords on puzzles).

Look out 2 miles from your proppsed cache for any puzzle caches. If there are some, solve them, or worry about them, or ask the owners for coords. ..;-)

If there are multis starting up nearby, find 'em.

 

This will eliminate 99% of the problem of placing and then discovering that there's a cache already in the area.

Yes, you can still get tripped up by a long range multi, or an old puzzle with bogus coords 14 miles away.

 

Also, as mentioned, your reviewer will tell you if coords are okay.

 

My other account is a reviewer account. I get these questions from time to time. It's not onerous to check coords. If it's a lot of coords (multi cache) it's nice if the cacher has written them up as an unactivated cache with the many coords in the waypoints tool, and emails me the GCxxxx.

[Clan Riffster]

Example: I want to place a cache in a park that, surprisingly, shows no caches in it. I take coords of my desired location, but don't spend time and energy on the full cache placement and writeup until I email the reviewer with the coords and ask if there are any caches within (say) .2 miles of my desired location. If they say no, I'm good to go.

I've done this myself on occassion, and it works wondors. The Reviewers are cachers. They want to publish your cache, and they'll work with you to find a suitable spot.

[+TrailGators]

Right, however my point is... how am I supposed to know this prior to planning my hide unless I go and figure out each caches location first?

[snip]

You just wasted a fair amount of time for a cache I can't place because the location wasn't known to you.

Avoiding this problem is pretty easy: Check with the reviewer first if you have any concerns about a potential cache location. I've done this several times. Example: I want to place a cache in a park that, surprisingly, shows no caches in it. I take coords of my desired location, but don't spend time and energy on the full cache placement and writeup until I email the reviewer with the coords and ask if there are any caches within (say) .2 miles of my desired location. If they say no, I'm good to go. If they say yes, then clearly, there's a puzzle or multi container within that radius (without giving away which one).

Exactly! You don't have to waste any time if you check the rough coords with your friendly local reviewer!

[+FamilyDNA]

...You don't have to physically place a cache before you submit it. I don't.

According to the guidelines, you do:

Your cache should be in place and ready to hunt at the time your cache page is submitted for review.

[Clan Riffster]

I often type up cache pages long before I hide my cans. In fact, I've got 3 or 4 typed up now, waiting for placement. The key is to uncheck the box that says the cache is active. This gives you a GC number that you can forward to your reviewer, when asking about coords.

[+meralgia]

I have sympathy for both the reviewer and the cache placer. First of all, if you desire to be a cache placer, it takes a considerable amount of time to do so and should not be entered into lightly. Worst possible scenerio (as you found out) is this:

1. Prepare the cache.

2. Look up local caches in the area and find a good unused location.

3. Plan to deliver and hide the cache.

4. Hide cache and mark coordinates.

5. Log in and submit the cache.

6. BAM, sorry - this location is in use.

Let's add some rough time approximations:

1. Preparation. This can take ten minutes minimum if you don't want to be simply a black-tape-over-pill-bottle hider.

 

2. Research. Finding a suitable spot via google earch and researching the park on the state/city webpages can take me ten to twenty minutes. If a park is not already taken, there's usually a reason why. I've run into situations where a private college owns a park, a county park has regulations about caches hidden in the park, and there's a premium-member multi in the park.

 

3. Travel. Time, time, time...gas money, gas money... If you're truly interested in hiding the cache well, actually visiting the location is a must. If I were to ask a reviewer about the park each time I saw an empty one, it would be a considerable waste of their time. Besides, there are some parks that simply don't accommodate a micro. Trust me, I've searched for nooks in trees countless times that seem like a good spot and eventually the micro just won't stay in the dang tree. It's quite embarassing to have an active cache that fails time and time again.

 

4. Hide and mark. This can take another ten minutes minimum. Instead of spending oodles of time to prepare just the perfect cache for that spot, try taking a temp cache into the field. Mark the coords of the temp, ask the reviewer about the coords (#5 below), and go back to see if the cache even stuck around overnight. Sometimes kids with sticky fingers find things that we'd never imagine them to find in a million years. Of course cammo might help the sticky fingers, but you also don't want a cache that's been cammo'ed especially for a spot, disabled, sits in your pile of useless caches, and angers you each time you see it.

 

5. Submit the cache. Two minutes. "Your cache should be in place and ready to hunt at the time your cache page is submitted for review." That's why the "activated cache" box exists. Don't click it at first--no matter how tempting it is. Mention to the reviewer in the intended box your concern about the park's use.

 

6. BAM, sorry. Unfortunately it happens. Be sure to spend the time to retrieve your temporary cache if it does.

 

I wish you well in making quality caches and finding suitable spots for them. I applaud your first effort. Don't let the process get you down. It's like college--the first year is supposed to weed out the folks that aren't truly "in it" for the long haul. The last thing we need are caches that people only spent two minutes on when a quality cache hider could have used the spot for a humdinger instead.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Hey all,

 

So, here it is...looking through the forums and see one of my caches

 

I have no problems with XopherN71 finding the cache the way it happened...X found the cache and posted the find and told a little about the experience.

.

.

.

On the other hand (of a different person...namely me)...before I hid my first cache, I found as many as I needed to find to be sure the area was open. No offense, but if one really want to be sure a area is available, one really needs to find all local caches. Sure, it can be a "pain" and can be time consuming, but it is part of the game...at least in my eyes. I had one turned away for the same reason...(I had actually found the multi...but forgot about it being in the park at the time I was placing the cache...opps).

.

.

.

Multi Caches can have stages just about anywhere (as long as they are .1mi from another cache) and puzzle caches can have their final up to 2mi from posted coords. As far as "claiming a spot"...as others have said...the final location is actually reported to and stored by gc.com...thus, it was better you found the cache before reporting your listing...otherwise you would have felt worse about haveing to go back out and retrieve your cache afterwards...

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

Edited April 25, 2008 by ArcherDragoon

[+softball29]

Never saw this thread until it was brought back up, but a good read.

 

I had a cache idea that I thought might be close to a multi (one that I'll have to wait for nice warm weather to do), so I e-mailed the reviewer. I didn't want to know what stage, where or anything about the multi... just wanted to know if I was too close.

 

I was, which stinks because it's a pretty nice spot.

 

That being said, I'm wondering if there couldn't be a bend of the rules when it comes to multis.

 

For example, if you are 300-400 feet from a multi stage (barring not being the beginning or end), wouldn't it be possible to have another cache? I know the answer is likely no, but it's something to think about.

 

The multi in question that I will eventually do requires boating of some sort and has only been found once in a year. The spot I wanted to use would be a nice little stroll in a small not well-known park in my town and it's a good fishing spot. It's a shame I can't put something there and hopefully bring people to the park and give them a chance to catch a trout, too.

 

I know the guidelines are there for a reason and fully respect them. I just think when it comes to multis/puzzle caches, we should consider other things when debating if another cache should be allowed there (now if it's like 10-100, 150 feet or something, I get it. But 300, 400, 450 etc... maybe a bend?) And I'm not sure how far my "spot" was from the multi stage. Could be 20 feet for all I know, in which case, kudos. (I'll find out this summer). But, I'm just throwing it out there.

[+deb3day]

Something as simple as a web based coordinate search with a response of yes or no would suffice, I don't need to see it on the map in turn not giving away the location of the existing cache.

 

This has been suggested many times, and at first glance it seems like a very reasonable idea, until the potential for abuse is pointed out.

 

It is best described with Keystone's "Battleship" story... read his posts from this forum search.

 

Clicking on that search link sent me no where. I really want to know more about Keystone's "Battleship" story because of something I found recently while caching. Can anyone tell me more about this?

[stoholmerne]

Hi,

 

Here is an example of a battle with a different outcome:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...1c-8ff65c1a8020

See note on Jan 10th, 2008.

[+the hermit crabs]

It is best described with Keystone's "Battleship" story... read his posts from this forum search.

 

Clicking on that search link sent me no where. I really want to know more about Keystone's "Battleship" story because of something I found recently while caching. Can anyone tell me more about this?

 

trying again (though it looks the same to me): link

 

Or just try this battleship post.

[+WRASTRO]

Something as simple as a web based coordinate search with a response of yes or no would suffice, I don't need to see it on the map in turn not giving away the location of the existing cache.

 

This has been suggested many times, and at first glance it seems like a very reasonable idea, until the potential for abuse is pointed out.

 

It is best described with Keystone's "Battleship" story... read his posts from this forum search.

 

Clicking on that search link sent me no where. I really want to know more about Keystone's "Battleship" story because of something I found recently while caching. Can anyone tell me more about this?

 

Try this link to one of them: Battleship

[+Kit Fox]

You can't really do a web-based coordinate search because people would utilize it as a cheating mechanism.

 

Well so be it... If they have that much time to waste then I feel sorry for them. I'd rather someone who is 'cheating' lose out on a little fun than have to jump through hoops to find out if I can place a cache in a certain location or not.

 

This would benefit everyone if you ask me, the submitter, the reviewer and the owner of the mystery cache for not having to worry about another cache being placed or found by accident.

 

Make it available to Premium members only, or heck... even charge extra for it.

 

This statement is quite revealing. It is a glaring example of "entitlement." So you want geocaching to revolve around you, so hiding caches can be made easier, and trouble free?

 

As a general rule, puzzle caches are usually hidden within two miles of the listed coordinates. Had you tested your coordinates for hide two, you could potentially have discovered the nearby puzzle cache. Then all you would have had to do is solve the puzzle. This doesn't always work, but it is a great starting points.

 

My suggestion is do your homework for new cache hiding locations by including puzzle caches, and LB hybrids in your search.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+JacobBarlow]

Right, however my point is... how am I supposed to know this prior to planning my hide unless I go and figure out each caches location first?

 

There's a missing piece to this if you ask me.

 

1. Prepare the cache.

2. Look up local caches in the area and find a good unused location.

3. Plan to deliver and hide the cache.

4. Hide cache and mark coordinates.

5. Log in and submit the cache.

6. BAM, sorry - this location is in use.

 

You just wasted a fair amount of time for a cache I can't place because the location wasn't known to you.

 

You're ok with this?

 

That's why it's important to find ALOT where you like to hide, so you know where the FINAL's are.

[+burgessfour]

Yesterday morning I went out to hide 2 caches (my first ones). I did my research to make sure there were no other caches in the area, or so I thought.

 

First hide went great and off to the second. I got to the location and started looking for a good resting spot, low and behold I find another cache!

 

Turns out to be one of those caches that are not at the posted coordinates, but solving something gets you the right coordinates.

 

To me this kind of sucks because I spent a fair amount of time and energy planning this hide only to find out that I couldn't do it.

 

What to do?

 

To the cache owner:

I don't fault you, it's a great cache... I'm just wondering what the procedure is when this happens because I could technically claim this location since it's not posted anywhere. Had I not seen the cache in question there would in fact be two located within 5 feet of one another.

 

Hi,

I don't know if this has already been posted but we kind of ran across the same possible situation.

We saw on the map that there was a mystery cache very close to a park that we wanted to place a cache in. We e-mailed our reviewer asking what to do. They said to set up a "Test Cache" page with the coords and a note not to publish, that we were just testing the coordinates due to a nearby mystery cache. We did this and within 5 minutes of sending it off to them we got a reply that we were clear to put a cache there. If that mystery cache final had been there, it would have saved us the time and effort of describing, placing, etc. Hope this helps in the future....

[+gelfling6]

You're not alone.. I ran into this myself, when I went to hide part-II of what was supposed to be "Take Two Of These".. I thought I found the perfect spot, until I went looking around the boulder I had spotted.. a flat rock on one side, was hiding a Letterbox, placed by someone else. NUTS!

 

As it would turn out, I placed the 2nd part further down.. Only to have it muggled before I could post it. But, It's entirely a stroke of dumb luck, someone else found the perfect hiding place before I did.. simple enough.

 

I've also run into finding a letterbox, instead of the cache I was searching.. a 2-part cache, where the coordinates were less than 30 feet away from the letterbox. Actually, twice this has happened.. One, the clue for part-2, were duplicated to how the letterbox was hidden. (which made for a very frustraiting search, and later a comical find when I did find the 2nd part.

 

Stephen (gelfling6)