Jump to content

fear and loathing in the maritimes


abvhiael

Recommended Posts

i live in the nova scotia canada.

 

ive been geocaching for just over a year and fell in love with the sport from day one.

 

my wife and i each build our seperate caches and manage our hides seperately. we have tried to place caches throughout the county we live in because it was fairly bereft of caches and we knew a lot of nice spots to take people to. we like to 'cluster' some caches, put four or five within a few km radius, its a fair distance from ANYWHERE to county richmond, and with gas being up so high, we wanted to offer local geocachers a couple caches for their pleasure. *WE* feel nice and satisfied if we can do a couple kilometer walk and do a three or four caches. ive been across the country geocaching, have gotten my parents, siblings, friends all hooked on teh sport. so far, until today, this sport has been very satisfying.

 

in the past year, i have hidden 34 caches. some of them are puzzle caches that i worked hours on creating. ive tried to be creative in creating different cache containers and spent a good deal of time this winter crafting concealments that would have had peoples heads spinning and tongues wagging. my wife had 17 hides to her name. we went out to a nice coastal hike and placed five caches between the two of us. all the caches were beyond the 0.1 mile Groundspeak limit from eachother.

 

we went out and placed five caches within the first couple km of a much longer coastal hiking trail that is featured in one of the regions more well recieved hiking guides, "hiking trails of cape breton" by michael haynes. i placed three caches, a set of small plastic-ish lifesized forest animals with micro containers containing a logsheet and pencil in a small little ziplock thingy and a coupell lapel pins and polished semi-precious stones. (i hate an empty cache, even micros) they were hidden in appropriate places for these forest critters to be. my wife placed two caches interlaced with my three. hers were duct tape and camo tape wrapped tobacco cans that were stuffed to the gills.

 

the immediate response by the local volunteer cache reviewer is that we were creating a POWER TRAIL and that the new ruling was that "We are now asking for any caches in/on parks/trails that the distance between caches is to be 0.15 - 0.2 miles...." i looked this new ruling up on Groundspeak, and couldnt find hide nor hair of it. seems it was al decided on a local geocaching assosciations webforum INSTEAD. this new rule came out last month, and neither of the cache revieweres in the area made any attempt to get this new ruling from "the Geocracy" (cache agent and cache-tech) to geocachers who arent users of the local webforum. im a member of the local assosciation but rarely use the service. i had no idea there had been rule changes, nor that these capricious changes were made only in relation to this geographical area between these two, and that i was unknowingly breaking an INVISIBLE RULE.

 

i wrote back to cache agent, pleaded my case with relation to these caches. they are a cluster ina remote area that doesnt see many hikers. for most geocachers in the community (cape breton island in this case) the drive to the trailhead from sydney (the most populous place of note nearby) is well over an hour. i even pointed the cache agent to my facebook album that has pictures of my little caches to show her that i wsant trying to make a power trail, i was just trying to put out a couple geocaches. i requested that the series be allowed as was as they were further than 0.1m apart. the reviewers email back to confirmed this. quoting from which......

 

"Y our cache GC1B9H5 is 0.12 from GC1B9GW

Your cache GC1B9HX is 0.16 from GC1B9GJ ( this one might be ok in distance)

Your cache GC1B9GJ is 0.13 from GC1B9HP"

 

for reference, since its unlikely these caches will ever see the light of day now that the martinet has spoken her Divine Writ, heres the public link to my facebook album that has these caches shown both after creatoion and after "release into the wild". jsut ignore the funny lookin guy in the other pictures....

 

<http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=31620&l=373ce&id=636054103>

 

i requested that this series be allowed and that further caches in the region would comply with the new ruling that i had been heretofore unaware of. a ruling that isnt exactly posted anywhere on Groundspeak either. this was denied.

 

the volunteer cache reviewer is at their discretion to this guideline to prevent saturation and after a conversation with me, i cant see why she would remain so stubbornly set, except that she dislikes being disagreed with perhaps.

 

this situation has had repurcussions that i was unaware of from other cachers as well, in reading the exchange on the local geocaching association's website, i noticed that a prominent local geocacher from the neighbouring province who has over 160 hides and for all accounts is a well respected member of the community has archived a few SCORE caches with comments like "death by reviewer" and "death by autocracy". another prominent geocacher stated publicly that he had placed his last cache out, stating:

 

"We hide caches so there will be caches for other cacher to find

( use our expense & time to help the sport ) but when power tripping reviewers change the rules it's time for me to stop hiding."

 

<http://www.maritimegeocaching.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5009&hl= >

 

the cache agents totalitarian attitude sneaks in around page three of this exchange with the reviewers comments like:

 

"Ok how about 0.4 mile? We do have permission to go whatever limit to prevent or reduce power trails.."

 

the other reviewers response to criticism over this idea reads:

 

"So what were all saying here is, if we can shoehorn another cache in a location, lets do it, because that is what everyone wants. Lets line up every trail and every parking lot with a cache every 0.1 mile that we can. Then lets pressure (and don't say it won't happen because it does all the time) to squeeze one more in at 500 feet/475/450 since there is a ditch/road/wall/bush in between."

 

this is HARDLY CONSTRUCTIVE. nor is it likely to attract new people to this burgeoning sport.

 

My wife, lady debenedictis, has now archived ALL of her caches, not liking, as she put it, the tone and tyrannical attitude postured by the cache reviewers.

 

im willing to have the appeals look at this and decide. i think it would be a shame for me to have to delist all of my other caches as well because of a reviewer that refuses to discuss things and hands down decisions arbitrarily. i feel that she could have allowed these caches to go through, especially now that there are only THREE of them, two of them being 0.12 miles apart. this is HARDLY a power trail. i have no issue with any further caches that i personallyput down this trail will b e well beyond the reviewers new limit, just in case they change their mind again without letting anyone else know.

 

i was unaware of any ruling about power trails, and i feel that she could have taken this into consideration instead of getting everyones backs up against the walls like this. i think its perhaps time for Groundspeak to step in and figure out how to get this reviewer to be more INTERACTIVE rather than DESPOTIC with the local geocachers. people are delisting and archiving caches and there is beginning to brew a lot of bad blood in the area. others, as mentioned, are stopping in posting cache hides. im not sure if this is the sort of person that should be representing Groundspeak as a reviewer if they take the job and requirements too personally and take it out on people that they are supposed to be assisting. maybe its time for a couple MORE reviewers in the area and a more quorum decision making or peer reviewed decision making to prevent one persons bad attitude from DRIVING AWAY potential geocachers.

 

the reviewers reasoning that the "trail that could easily become over saturated with caches every 0.1 mile,

either by one or more cachers placing caches over a period of time" is irrelevant. what exists is not a power trail by ANY reasonable definition and i feel the cache agent is now taking things on a personal level rather than ensuring that my caches meet Groundspeak guidelines. i think this oversteps her bounds with imagined authority. the FACT is that, especially now that my wife has archived all of her caches in protest, there are only three caches along an approximate 1.5 kilometer run.

 

the caches in question are:

GC1B9GJ:Cap Auget Trail: Whale Watching at Cape Hogan

N 45° 28.095 W 061° 00.782

<http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=85d84fa6-fc4b-468a-a487-73afe37be38f>

 

GC1B9GW:Cap Auget Trail: Too Far Gone

N 45° 28.137 W 061° 00.268

<http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d4fec90b-bc3b-4085-9b86-205ffec0c7de>

 

GC1B9H5:Cap Auget Trail:Green Island View

N 45° 28.132 W 061° 00.116

<http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=586e2abc-7c67-4cd1-b296-4e104801a5b2>

 

i have formally appealed the decision by "cache agent" to not allow these, i have stated that i will further on abide by this new ruling even though i dont think it is appropriate for the reviewers to have made such a decision without better input from the community they supposedly serve, or to have implemented a FUNDAMENTAL change to the rules without informing the local geocachers beforehand. they have accepted teh responisbility to review caches to ensure that they meet Groundspeak guidelines and have taken on a weighty task, but with that sort of authority comes the responsibility to be accountable for your decisions and to make sure those you are supposedly in charge of are aware of those decisions. making a new rule and hoping everybody just KNOWS that its in effect, especially one so BASAL to the way we operate as cache hiders, shouldnt be left to "well...ill tell 'em about it the next time they try to hide a cache."

 

im also a premium subscriber to Groundspeak because i want to support the site and the sport. its also due for renewal at the end of this month. im having HUGE DOUBTS whether to renew this membership. its my money that buys the swag and the cache containers and the REAMS of camoflage duct tape to make the caches and my gas to drive to where im hiding the cache. all ID like is a HINT of consideration by the reviewer and a whole lot LESS autocracy.

 

thats my rant. ive sent out the appeal so that i can place these caches, but the whole affair has left a real sour taste in my mouth, and i think that some big changes need to be made to geocaching and that WE as geocachers need to take control of this sport back from the reviewers a little bit and make them more responsive to discussion rather than offering down gospel writ from on high. we the geocachers MAKE the sport, we ARE the sport and without our support there IS no sport.

 

feh. my fingers are tired and i have a chess game to lose to my dad over on facebook. thanks for reading this far if you did.

Link to comment

OOooOooo Long and angsty. :D:):D

 

I pulled the ripcord after the first skim. I'll wait to see what the peanut gallery has to say....

 

However, I'd like to see that power trail thingy in writing too, or I might be hoppin' mad like you if I were in your shoes. :D

 

BUT....

 

I wouldn't have archived my caches in a huff. :) I would have appealed over the reviewer's head to Groundspeak and kept it out of the forums. :D

Link to comment

Two comments:

 

1. If everything you typed is true then this is horrible. I love going on a short hike and having the opportunity to do 4-6 caches. Personally, this is the best thing about geocaching for me. I'd rather spend 3-4 hours geocaching in 1 nature perserve / hiking area, etc. and get 4-6 caches than spend 3-4 hours DRIVING all over an area hitting a combo of cemeteries and lake accesses. Not that I don't enjoy these but the trail concept is just so much more appealling to me.

 

2. My father always told me there are 3 sides to every story. His, hers and the truth. From the sounds of it, you and your wife make some nice quality and creative hides that certainly can be enjoyed by others. Now, your going to pick your ball up and go home? Why? Are you placing hides for ourselves, others or both? The umpire hasn't even made an official ruling yet and your quitting? I believe you can appeal a reviewers decision to Groundspeak and I didn't see any mention of you doing that.

 

And even if things don't go your way, I now don't get to enjoy any of your caches? If this is true, then your probably not placing hides for the reasons I like geocaching.

 

Best of luck...I sure hope they (Groundspeak) aren't going in that direction. I like the hikes.

Link to comment

i live in the nova scotia canada.

 

ive been geocaching for just over a year and fell in love with the sport from day one.

 

my wife and i each build our seperate caches and manage our hides seperately. we have tried to place caches throughout the county we live in because it was fairly bereft of caches and we knew a lot of nice spots to take people to. we like to 'cluster' some caches, put four or five within a few km radius, its a fair distance from ANYWHERE to county richmond, and with gas being up so high, we wanted to offer local geocachers a couple caches for their pleasure. *WE* feel nice and satisfied if we can do a couple kilometer walk and do a three or four caches. ive been across the country geocaching, have gotten my parents, siblings, friends all hooked on teh sport. so far, until today, this sport has been very satisfying.

 

in the past year, i have hidden 34 caches. some of them are puzzle caches that i worked hours on creating. ive tried to be creative in creating different cache containers and spent a good deal of time this winter crafting concealments that would have had peoples heads spinning and tongues wagging. my wife had 17 hides to her name. we went out to a nice coastal hike and placed five caches between the two of us. all the caches were beyond the 0.1 mile Groundspeak limit from eachother.

 

we went out and placed five caches within the first couple km of a much longer coastal hiking trail that is featured in one of the regions more well recieved hiking guides, "hiking trails of cape breton" by michael haynes. i placed three caches, a set of small plastic-ish lifesized forest animals with micro containers containing a logsheet and pencil in a small little ziplock thingy and a coupell lapel pins and polished semi-precious stones. (i hate an empty cache, even micros) they were hidden in appropriate places for these forest critters to be. my wife placed two caches interlaced with my three. hers were duct tape and camo tape wrapped tobacco cans that were stuffed to the gills.

 

the immediate response by the local volunteer cache reviewer is that we were creating a POWER TRAIL and that the new ruling was that "We are now asking for any caches in/on parks/trails that the distance between caches is to be 0.15 - 0.2 miles...." i looked this new ruling up on Groundspeak, and couldnt find hide nor hair of it. seems it was al decided on a local geocaching assosciations webforum INSTEAD. this new rule came out last month, and neither of the cache revieweres in the area made any attempt to get this new ruling from "the Geocracy" (cache agent and cache-tech) to geocachers who arent users of the local webforum. im a member of the local assosciation but rarely use the service. i had no idea there had been rule changes, nor that these capricious changes were made only in relation to this geographical area between these two, and that i was unknowingly breaking an INVISIBLE RULE.

...

 

It is too bad that you quit. The reviewers are volunteers and they follow the guidelines that geoundspeak sets up. Ground speak sets up guidelines, and they are just guidelines. The power trail guideline has been in place for a while. From my understanding it always made sense. When I place multiple caches along a trail that could be interpreted as a "power trail" I always "yield room" for the next several people to place caches in the "gaps" between mine. After all, I enjoy coming back and getting a finding a few caches as i do cache maintenance on mine.

 

Regarding archiving your caches. Who does that publish. Certainly not Groundspeak. Did it take you long to go retrieve all the cache containers that were in the wild?

 

here is the text from the cache saturation page:

 

"Cache Saturation

 

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published 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 (sometimes called a “Power Trail”), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache.

 

The cache saturation guideline applies to all physical stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches, as well as any other stages entered as “stages of a multicache.” The guideline does NOT apply to event caches, earthcaches, grandfathered virtual and webcam caches, stages of multicaches or puzzle caches entered as “question to answer” or “reference point,” or to any “bogus” posted coordinates for a puzzle cache. Within a single multicache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between waypoints."

 

found at: cache saturation link

Edited by weathernowcast
Link to comment

abvhiael, you and yours aren't the first to quit or slow down over overbearing reviewers. We will only post events here anymore due to some tone in one reviewer's note to my wife that if we had been standing face to face it would have gotten ugly. Overbearing reviewers are around. Folks will be quick to defend them no matter what.

Link to comment

abvhiael is correct.

 

This is a real issue in Maritime Canada. In the particular areas in question, there really is no likelihood of one stumbling on a cache while looking for another. Unfortunately, our reviewers live 1000 miles away and have no way to know this.

 

According to the reviewers, the caches along a trail have to be 0.2 miles apart. The only way to know this rule is to subscribe to the local forum found here: http://www.maritimegeocaching.com/forum Geocachers (myself included) go out and place caches just to find out after the fact that they are now too close together due to some unspecified distance ruling. It's frustrating, it's costly, and it's time consuming.

 

Is this rule being imposed everwhere or is it just us?

Edited by Zonker&co
Link to comment

I apply the power trail guideline regularly in my review territory. It's right there in the listing guidelines, and it's been there for years. We added the phrase "power trail" in the February 2007 listing guideline update. So far this year, I've applied it to modify a 25 cache series and a 100 cache series, both of which were published in their entirety through cooperation with the cache owners.

 

Informed cache hiding begins with a careful read of the listing guidelines. If you see a concept that's unfamiliar to you, your reviewer or the forum community will be happy to explain it to you. If you are surprised by a guideline provision you've never read, I suppose that the volunteer cache reviewer is one possible person to blame. There may be another.

 

I do ask, however, that we refrain from name-calling whilst discussing this issue. Thank you.

Link to comment

<snip>

we went out and placed five caches within the first couple km of a much longer coastal hiking trail that is featured in one of the regions more well recieved hiking guides, "hiking trails of cape breton" by michael haynes. i placed three caches, a set of small plastic-ish lifesized forest animals with micro containers containing a logsheet and pencil in a small little ziplock thingy and a coupell lapel pins and polished semi-precious stones. (i hate an empty cache, even micros) they were hidden in appropriate places for these forest critters to be. my wife placed two caches interlaced with my three. hers were duct tape and camo tape wrapped tobacco cans that were stuffed to the gills.

 

the immediate response by the local volunteer cache reviewer is that we were creating a POWER TRAIL and that the new ruling was that "We are now asking for any caches in/on parks/trails that the distance between caches is to be 0.15 - 0.2 miles...." i looked this new ruling up on Groundspeak, and couldnt find hide nor hair of it. seems it was al decided on a local geocaching assosciations webforum INSTEAD. this new rule came out last month, and neither of the cache revieweres in the area made any attempt to get this new ruling from "the Geocracy" (cache agent and cache-tech) to geocachers who arent users of the local webforum. im a member of the local assosciation but rarely use the service. i had no idea there had been rule changes, nor that these capricious changes were made only in relation to this geographical area between these two, and that i was unknowingly breaking an INVISIBLE RULE.

 

<snip>

I'm very sorry that happened to you. :) Your caches sound like they are very fun and creative.

 

Our local Reviewer is excellent and has published several caches that are in a series, some of which are as close together as the ones you mention in your post. This is one cache that begins a series on a set of trails. There were three of us setting out those caches at one time. Since it is a long drive, we didn't want cachers to have to keep returning to the area as other caches were put out.

 

These days, with gas prices as high as they are, I think it is a good idea to draw cachers to an area where they can park the car and get out and walk and find several caches along the trails, as long as they aren't all exactly 528' apart, before having to return to the car and drive to another location to find more caches.

 

I hope this can be resolved for you.

Link to comment

Love the "Three sides to every story... yours, mine and the truth!" line! It's helped me many times from opining on a topic where only part of the story had been told. :)

 

Disregarding the rest of the unfortunately-worded screed (I know the Reviewers in question; whatever the whole story they don't deserve such names and descriptions), the issue seems to be that of making rules on a local forum that do not exist or are in variance from the Groundspeak Guidelines... if I read it right the local forum states a .2 distance while the Guidelines still mention .1, and the Reviewer is using the local forum-published distance?

 

Is that a correct reading?

Link to comment

I apply the power trail guideline regularly in my review territory. It's right there in the listing guidelines, and it's been there for years. We added the phrase "power trail" in the February 2007 listing guideline update. So far this year, I've applied it to modify a 25 cache series and a 100 cache series, both of which were published in their entirety through cooperation with the cache owners.

And probably most people, looking at those 25-cache or 100-cache series, would have immediately recognized them as "power trails". But I doubt that most people would see the three caches placed by the OP and the two caches placed by his wife as a "power trail".

 

After reading the maritime forum thread that the OP linked to, it appears that any two caches on a trail in their area are to be treated as a "power trail" by the reviewers for that area, and are subject to wider proximity rules than normal caches are.

 

Informed cache hiding begins with a careful read of the listing guidelines.

The OP states that he did read all of the guidelines. The guidelines listed on geocaching.com, that is, not this one posted by Cache Agent in the maritime forum:

"After lots of discussion between CT and I .... it has been decided that in/on parks/trails that the distance between caches is to be 0.15 - 0.2 miles."

 

The OP cannot be faulted for not finding that rule in the gc.com guidelines, nor for being upset when it was imposed.

 

If you see a concept that's unfamiliar to you, your reviewer or the forum community will be happy to explain it to you. If you are surprised by a guideline provision you've never read, I suppose that the volunteer cache reviewer is one possible person to blame. There may be another.

I don't think that the concept of a power trail was necessarily unfamiliar to the OP. And I don't think that the cache saturation guideline was one that he had never read. I think it's just that he was:

  • stunned to think that this handful of caches was considered a "power trail"
  • confused and frustrated to discover that his local reviewers had instituted a new and stricter proximity guideline for all caches in parks or on trails
  • justifiably annoyed by the apparent threat in that long thread that he linked to (somewhere on page 3), where the reviewer said "Ok how about 0.4 mile? We do have permission to go whatever limit to prevent or reduce power trails... edited to say.... I thought I was being reasonable at 0.2 mile... guess not... " Maybe both the OP and I took this the wrong way, but to me it sounded exactly like an authority figure who hands out a punishment, and then when protests are made about the unfairness of it, threatens to double the punishment just to get people to shut up.

I can certainly understand why the OP and others in that area are frustrated with this issue.

Link to comment

I apply the power trail guideline regularly in my review territory. It's right there in the listing guidelines, and it's been there for years. We added the phrase "power trail" in the February 2007 listing guideline update. So far this year, I've applied it to modify a 25 cache series and a 100 cache series, both of which were published in their entirety through cooperation with the cache owners.

And probably most people, looking at those 25-cache or 100-cache series, would have immediately recognized them as "power trails". But I doubt that most people would see the three caches placed by the OP and the two caches placed by his wife as a "power trail".

 

After reading the maritime forum thread that the OP linked to, it appears that any two caches on a trail in their area are to be treated as a "power trail" by the reviewers for that area, and are subject to wider proximity rules than normal caches are.

 

Informed cache hiding begins with a careful read of the listing guidelines.

The OP states that he did read all of the guidelines. The guidelines listed on geocaching.com, that is, not this one posted by Cache Agent in the maritime forum:

"After lots of discussion between CT and I .... it has been decided that in/on parks/trails that the distance between caches is to be 0.15 - 0.2 miles."

 

The OP cannot be faulted for not finding that rule in the gc.com guidelines, nor for being upset when it was imposed.

 

If you see a concept that's unfamiliar to you, your reviewer or the forum community will be happy to explain it to you. If you are surprised by a guideline provision you've never read, I suppose that the volunteer cache reviewer is one possible person to blame. There may be another.

I don't think that the concept of a power trail was necessarily unfamiliar to the OP. And I don't think that the cache saturation guideline was one that he had never read. I think it's just that he was:

  • stunned to think that this handful of caches was considered a "power trail"
  • confused and frustrated to discover that his local reviewers had instituted a new and stricter proximity guideline for all caches in parks or on trails
  • justifiably annoyed by the apparent threat in that long thread that he linked to (somewhere on page 3), where the reviewer said "Ok how about 0.4 mile? We do have permission to go whatever limit to prevent or reduce power trails... edited to say.... I thought I was being reasonable at 0.2 mile... guess not... " Maybe both the OP and I took this the wrong way, but to me it sounded exactly like an authority figure who hands out a punishment, and then when protests are made about the unfairness of it, threatens to double the punishment just to get people to shut up.

I can certainly understand why the OP and others in that area are frustrated with this issue.

 

I agree with Hermit Crab's observations. I'm confused about the local .2 restrictions. I've been to Cape Breton a couple of times, my favourite vacation spot by the way - it's mostly wilderness with a few small communities. Sydney's is the big city but it's a small city. Why the fear of cache saturation in so much open space?

Link to comment

Love the "Three sides to every story... yours, mine and the truth!" line! It's helped me many times from opining on a topic where only part of the story had been told. :unsure:

 

Disregarding the rest of the unfortunately-worded screed (I know the Reviewers in question; whatever the whole story they don't deserve such names and descriptions), the issue seems to be that of making rules on a local forum that do not exist or are in variance from the Groundspeak Guidelines... if I read it right the local forum states a .2 distance while the Guidelines still mention .1, and the Reviewer is using the local forum-published distance?

 

Is that a correct reading?

 

Yes, your reading is correct.

Link to comment

I apply the power trail guideline regularly in my review territory. It's right there in the listing guidelines, and it's been there for years. We added the phrase "power trail" in the February 2007 listing guideline update. So far this year, I've applied it to modify a 25 cache series and a 100 cache series, both of which were published in their entirety through cooperation with the cache owners.

And probably most people, looking at those 25-cache or 100-cache series, would have immediately recognized them as "power trails". But I doubt that most people would see the three caches placed by the OP and the two caches placed by his wife as a "power trail".

 

After reading the maritime forum thread that the OP linked to, it appears that any two caches on a trail in their area are to be treated as a "power trail" by the reviewers for that area, and are subject to wider proximity rules than normal caches are.

 

Informed cache hiding begins with a careful read of the listing guidelines.

The OP states that he did read all of the guidelines. The guidelines listed on geocaching.com, that is, not this one posted by Cache Agent in the maritime forum:

"After lots of discussion between CT and I .... it has been decided that in/on parks/trails that the distance between caches is to be 0.15 - 0.2 miles."

 

The OP cannot be faulted for not finding that rule in the gc.com guidelines, nor for being upset when it was imposed.

 

If you see a concept that's unfamiliar to you, your reviewer or the forum community will be happy to explain it to you. If you are surprised by a guideline provision you've never read, I suppose that the volunteer cache reviewer is one possible person to blame. There may be another.

I don't think that the concept of a power trail was necessarily unfamiliar to the OP. And I don't think that the cache saturation guideline was one that he had never read. I think it's just that he was:

  • stunned to think that this handful of caches was considered a "power trail"
  • confused and frustrated to discover that his local reviewers had instituted a new and stricter proximity guideline for all caches in parks or on trails
  • justifiably annoyed by the apparent threat in that long thread that he linked to (somewhere on page 3), where the reviewer said "Ok how about 0.4 mile? We do have permission to go whatever limit to prevent or reduce power trails... edited to say.... I thought I was being reasonable at 0.2 mile... guess not... " Maybe both the OP and I took this the wrong way, but to me it sounded exactly like an authority figure who hands out a punishment, and then when protests are made about the unfairness of it, threatens to double the punishment just to get people to shut up.

I can certainly understand why the OP and others in that area are frustrated with this issue.

 

Your perception of this issue in our area is accurate.

Link to comment

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks the guidelines have been properly interpreted and applied here?

 

First, to the OP, I think your cache ideas are probably just terrific and people would enjoy them. I also think it's very nice to have multiple caches to find on one trail. I also understand that you spent a great deal of time trying to create good hides. I am empathethic to your situation.

 

However, I don't think that anyone should go out and place three or four caches -in one area- at one time.

 

Yes, I know if the area is remote, fewer people will go there...but people will go there, and if the spot is nice, they will explore a bit and they will leave a cache. Then someone else will go and enjoy themselves and they will explore a bit and they will leave a cache and little by little the area will grow to hold a variety of caches placed by a variety of cachers.

 

Having one person claim the first/best/most portions of the trail/park can ruin that natural growth of caches. It annoys other people to find the entire area is already "taken" by one cacher. The first batch of caches might be terrific, but there is only one person having any ownership of the area and that just turns some people off. Advance planning may work well in the case of building new communities, but it limits creativity in geocaches. If people have to squeeze a cache into an area already peppered with caches by one person who staked out all the "best" locations, they will have to resort to using less desirable spots. We've all read in these forums about newbies feeling like experienced cachers have all the premium spots and people being annoyed because one guy takes up all the best real estate in a newly opened area.

 

I don't even have a problem with three or four cachers all placing hides in the same general area/same trail--even if they are fairly close together--(as long as they don't pack the caches in so tightly no one else can ever find a spot to add more). If a new trail or a new park opens and a group of cachers goes out and places a few well-chosen caches it gives many people a sense of ownership in the area. That diversity lets cachers who come along later feel they are welcome to contribute as well.

 

A truely clever group would look at the big picture of an area and really do some advance planning--They would place caches along the periphery of an area so people will spot wonderful areas to place new hides as they travel from one "rim" cache to the next. Then the original group of hiders would have a plethora of caches to find when they next return to the area--all nicely arranged in a limited area.

 

As for the individual cache owner, I think the way to approach it is to place one cache (or perhaps two caches at a greater distance) on a trail and wait to see what happens. Later, much later, if no one else has added any caches, then go back and place another cache. Talk a friend into going out with you that day to place their own cache.

 

It's pretty obvious that the intent of the guideline about power trails is to prevent anyone from going out and lining one trail with caches every x number of feet all in one fell swoop, as I've described above. I also think that most people are not as oblivious to the intent of the guideline as they proclaim to be.

 

I for one don't want to see volumes of specific wording added to any of the guidelines. Please don't spell it out in great detail on my account!

 

For one thing, you can never think of every contingency in advance. On the other hand, being too specific can limit the reviewers ability when they would like to make an exception and the idea deserves an exception. As a novice teacher I was (wisely) advised to keep my "rules' simple or run the risk of having my students work to bend every rule without technically breaking any of them. I've learned to appreciate that advice over the years.

Link to comment

However, I don't think that anyone should go out and place three or four caches -in one area- at one time.

That would wipe out a lot of cache placements in my local area, and probably quite a few other areas as well.

 

And even though you personally think that a single cacher shouldn't place three or four caches in a single area at one time, there is nothing in the guidelines prohibiting it (other than the "power trail" guideline -- but I hardly think that three or four caches constitutes a power trail.)

 

Reviewers have often said that even if they find a cache personally distasteful, if it meets Groundspeak's guidelines, they have to just hold their noses and publish it.

 

Yes, I know if the area is remote, fewer people will go there...but people will go there, and if the spot is nice, they will explore a bit and they will leave a cache. Then someone else will go and enjoy themselves and they will explore a bit and they will leave a cache and little by little the area will grow to hold a variety of caches placed by a variety of cachers.

 

Having one person claim the first/best/most portions of the trail/park can ruin that natural growth of caches. It annoys other people to find the entire area is already "taken" by one cacher.

I don't know if you've actually looked at the area where the OP was trying to place his caches, but it actually follows exactly the pattern you prefer.

 

There are only two caches in that area at the moment: one was placed in 2004, and one in 2006. The OP was placing three more, and his wife was placing two more -- and there was still a much longer and empty section of trail available for more caches.

 

They were not taking the "first/best/most" portions of the trail: the first ones were already there, and the new ones were leaving plenty of more space than they were taking up.

 

A truely clever group would look at the big picture of an area and really do some advance planning--They would place caches along the periphery of an area so people will spot wonderful areas to place new hides as they travel from one "rim" cache to the next. Then the original group of hiders would have a plethora of caches to find when they next return to the area--all nicely arranged in a limited area.

There is also no Groundspeak rule or guideline that says that caches can only be placed by "truly clever groups", thank goodness.

 

As for the individual cache owner, I think the way to approach it is to place one cache (or perhaps two caches at a greater distance) on a trail and wait to see what happens. Later, much later, if no one else has added any caches, then go back and place another cache. Talk a friend into going out with you that day to place their own cache.

As stated above, there was one cache placed in that area in 2004, and one in 2006. Maybe if 1 or 2 caches out there isn't enough of a draw for new finders and new hiders, then the OP's plan to add several at once would be?

Link to comment

i should point out that i havent archived MY listing, sor have i quit. i DID mention in my original post that i had sent the case to the appeals option and have recieved a letter from Groundspeak that it is being looked at. my wife, who is most certainly her own person, has archived her cache hides becuase of this and that was her decision. she is going to re-list them at another server so the cacehs will still be avaliable, but not through Groundspeak.

 

i brought this to the forums at the same time i appealed the reviewers decision because i felt this problem shoudlbe discussed. i love this sport and although it is in its growing pains STILL, rule changes to something which is as CLOSE to an unorganized sport as there is should be treated properly. i was not an actively contribulting member to the local maritime geocaching assosciations webforum and placed my caches in accordance to what Groundspeak STILL shows as its guidelines.

 

i should explain that i suffer from aspergers syndrome and that part of the etiology of my condition is that i seem hard wired to take things LITERALLY, as written. when i read a ruling or a law or a policy, i EXPECT it to be IMPLEMENTED as written and not to be played with fast and loose, and to not have an anonymous reviewer threaten the entire group with a HEAVIER HANDED STICK if we didnt just COMPLY. i got into this sport because i dont PLAY WELL with others, and have a devil of a time fitting in in NORMAL society, and i can go for a great long walk in the woods (especially around here in cape breton) and not have to deal with people except through logbooks and online logging.

 

i dont like bullies. and i dont like having arbitrary rules shoved down my throat without a REASONABLE explanation. the reply that i recieved from the cache agent that the " trail that could easily become over saturated with caches every 0.1 mile, either by one or more cachers placing caches over a period of time" basically states that NO ONE can place a cache on ANY TRAIL EVER AGAIN because someone ELSE might come along and put another one nearby EVENTUALLY. if thats acceptable behaviour and reasoning from a VOLUNTEER CACHE REVIEWER then this sport is doomed to die a slow painful death within a decade because overbearing despots with a taste for the little bit of power that they have will ruin it.

 

im NOT archiving my hides, in my opinion thats letting them WIN. i may not hide anything further through Groundspeak, there ARE other options to list a cache at, until such time as the cache reviewer locally is made more ACCOUNTABLE to the community they review FOR. like i said, WE make the sport, we FUEL it, and if we dont continue to each and every one of us contribute to the sport, it will die. and when the heavy handed GEOCRACY starts pushing away PROMINENT contributors with their unbending ways, then the reviewer needs to be re-examined if they are there for their love of the sp[ort or their love of the power.

 

i make no apologies for my opnions, i dont think the decision the cache reviewer made was appropriate, and im not the only one locally who has had these problems with this entity. i dont know who they oare normally, i dont mix with the other geocachers on a regular basis and this in no means is a PERSONAL ATTACK against them. this is an attack against stultifying policies that are not reflected on teh official mother site. this is an attack on restrictive reviewers with a heavy stick using thier leverage on the sport AGAINST the user.

 

i want to see this sport THRIVE. what im seeing is ONE persons actions in THIS REGION, their intransigance, is driving the local geocachers from active participation. i dont think thats right. maybe we need a more local reviewer in this area, maybe we need A COUPLE of them. but you cant fix a problem unless its picked apart and examined and discussed. blind compliance isnt my style.

Link to comment

I'm following this topic with great interest and concern. I know the reviewers in my area would never impose these sort of restrictions, which is just as well, or I'd have to archive some of my caches.

 

I don't know if posting in the forums will help much, either, though. I'd be really frustrated, too! Have you tried to email appeals@geocaching.com, or did I miss that in my skimming?

Link to comment

Have you tried to email appeals@geocaching.com, or did I miss that in my skimming?

Yes, he did -- it's in the second-to-last paragraph of his initial post.

 

I hope it gets resolved in a way that makes everybody happy. I feel really sympathetic toward this guy.

 

I know that there are countless threads here from people who out-and-out ignore clear guidelines -- they hide caches 100 feet away from another cache, or on private property without permission, or in schoolyards or under highway bridges, etc. -- and then they complain about their caches being rejected. They are generally roundly chastised in the forums for not following the guidelines like everybody else.

 

But this is different -- he was, to the best of his knowledge, following the guidelines listed on this site. He made some nice caches in a nice area, with reasonable spacing, and left lots of room further along on the trail -- and was rejected due to a new rule listed only on a non-geocaching.com site. This just smacks of unfairness. :unsure:

Link to comment

I too skipped over much of the OP; it's just too much.

However, I see a few things I wanna comment on.

when i read a ruling or a law or a policy, i EXPECT it to be IMPLEMENTED as written and not to be played with fast and loose

This is a problem YOU have (and admit to earlier). They are called guidelines, not RULES, and not LAWS. They are not meant to be hard and strict, as you EXPECT them to be (again, your words).

 

Second, 7 caches (your 3, your wife's 2, plus the 2 existing) along a little over a mile (you said a few km, 1km equals about 6/10ths of a mile) sounds like it might meet the definition of a powertrail as described in the GUIDELINES (not RULES).

 

Third, there is nothing unusual about local areas having rules that are not in the GUIDELINES (not RULES). There are probably thousands of local rules regarding cache placement. In some areas some parks need a permit, others dont but caches must be within such and such a distance, others dont allow caching at all, some might allow only certain types of containers, etc. I heard that in a neighboring state to my own, the RULE (set by the government, not a GUIDELINE set by this website) for state run parks is that there can only be something like 5 caches in a park. It doesn't matter if the park is 5000 acres and the caches are all 5 miles apart; there can only be 5 in that park. There can be a county park right across the street that doesn't have any rules at all, and a town park down the street that bans caching outright.

There is just no way that all these can or should be listed in one document. It would be 1000 pages long, and nobody would read it all (much like your post). What the guidelines DO say is this:

In addition, there may be local regulations already in place for certain types of parks in your region (state parks, county preserves, etc.). There are many local caching organizations that would be able to help you out with those regulations. If your area does not have a local caching organization please contact your local reviewer for information on regulations.
I think that covers it pretty well.
Link to comment

Third, there is nothing unusual about local areas having rules that are not in the GUIDELINES (not RULES). There are probably thousands of local rules regarding cache placement. In some areas some parks need a permit, others dont but caches must be within such and such a distance, others dont allow caching at all, some might allow only certain types of containers, etc. I heard that in a neighboring state to my own, the RULE (set by the government, not a GUIDELINE set by this website) for state run parks is that there can only be something like 5 caches in a park. It doesn't matter if the park is 5000 acres and the caches are all 5 miles apart; there can only be 5 in that park. There can be a county park right across the street that doesn't have any rules at all, and a town park down the street that bans caching outright.

I think that if the caches had been rejected with some sort of explanation such as "I'd love to list your caches, but unfortunately the local park/city/government-agency has a rule that prohibits it," the OP might have been disappointed but would have understood.

 

But that's not the case here. The reviewers for that area have just recently decided that all new caches in any park or on any trail must now be "0.15 to 0.2 miles apart". I'd be upset too, if that suddenly happened where I live.

Link to comment

(I'm getting the impression that those who are too impatient to read the OP's posts are dismissing the issue as "just another case of not following the guidelines", while those who actually bother to read it rather than skim it are sympathetic to his plight.)

 

I think you're right... The summary should help with that, but...

Link to comment

This thread started out by attacking the reviewer, both with comments from the op

"the cache agents totalitarian attitude sneaks in around page three of this exchange with the reviewers comments like:"
and quoting others from another local forum.

 

Attacks are not allowed.

 

If you feel that you are not getting the level of service you should be from the reviewers or forum moderators simply e-mail; reviewers@geocaching.com with your concerns.

This e-mail address is only for reporting concerns regarding Cache reviewers and Forum Moderators.

 

If the OP has a complain about this reviewer the correct way is to write Groundspeak at reviewers@geocaching.com NOT attack them with opinions in our forums. People are welcome to open threads about a reviewer's decision but no one has the right to attack anyone on our forums.

Edited by Michael
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...