First cache hide... what to do about difficult reviewers?

[+keeweechris]

Hi,

 

Just to introduce myself, I have been finding geocaches for a few years now, but have recently had an idea for hiding my first cache. I'm not really into traditional caches, unless they have some sort of twist or associated interest factor, so my first hide is one of historical inportance to the area I grew up in, and contains a bit of a puzzle.

 

I wrote the geocache page, and hid the cache ok, but I'm getting a little bit frustrated at the review process, so I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas.

 

Basically, my cache is technically within 161m of a pre-existing cache (the only one at this landmark and for miles around). But because of the nature of the cache and from reading the clause in the Listing Guidelines, I thought the review would realise it wasn't conflicting with the object of the Listing Guidelines, and also see the historical and adventuring significance of my cache, and approve it.

 

So seeing as my only contact with Groundspeak has been through this one volunteer reviewer, I was wondering if there was any way I could communicate with another member of the Groundspeak team, and maybe get a fairer hearing.

 

The guidelines state: "Cache Saturation: The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 m) of another cache may not be published on the site.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."

 

I think my reviewer has missed the point, that the rule is a "guideline", and "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".

 

There is only 1 other cache in the area, so with my addition this is hardly a saturated environment.

 

Also, there will be no confusion whatsoever when hunting for either caches, because my initial waypoint is down a 100ft cliff and across a road from the other cache in question. Also, the other one is a simple "behind a flax bush" cache, while mine is a puzzle cache, quite obvious from the cache page wording. The geocacher will not be looking anywhere near the other cache, when searching for mine, and vise-versa.

 

If anyone wants to read the cache page, here it is: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c1-5756a5b93e82. My cache starts on a rocky outcrop near the sea at the bottom of a cliff, where the site of the first searchlight was built in 1899. The geocacher reads a fictional story based on the area in WW2, and follows the story across the road, up some hiden steps to halfway up the cliff, and into a hidden tunnel built in 1899 for the searchlight generator. The cache is in the tunnel. The other cache in question is at the top of the cliff, where there is no nearby route up from my cache's starting point.

 

Ie, my cache satisfies both parts of the root object of the guideline, and I think it should be allowed to be published.

 

Does anyone have any idea where I can go from here? I think it is unfair that considering the circustances and that geocaching is meant to be a fun free hobby where people can contribute to the geocaching community, that my cache be disallowed.

 

Thanks for any feedback

Chris

[+Tequila]

I think there is an appeals process. But I would recommend you contact your reviewer and ask their guidance on how you can resolve this issue and still maintain the integrity of your cache.

[+StaticTank]

If anyone wants to read the cache page, here it is: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c1-5756a5b93e82.

 

We can't see that because it isn't published yet. Only you and reviewers will be able to see it.

 

My cache starts on a rocky outcrop near the sea at the bottom of a cliff, where the site of the first searchlight was built in 1899. The geocacher reads a fictional story based on the area in WW2, and follows the story across the road, up some hiden steps to halfway up the cliff, and into a hidden tunnel built in 1899 for the searchlight generator. The cache is in the tunnel. The other cache in question is at the top of the cliff, where there is no nearby route up from my cache's starting point.

 

You might try explaining that there is a cliff that seperates the two caches but generally there would have to be a really good reason for them to publish two caches that are within the 161m/528feet rule.

 

StaticTank

[+J-Way]

"initial waypoint is down a 100ft cliff and across a road"

 

ALL physical stages have to follow the 161m guideline concerning adjacent caches, not just the initial one. You mention that the seeker leaves the initial point and comes back across the road, so at least one of the stages is even closer than the initial one.

 

However, if all stages are down the 100-ft cliff then that's a good reason for an exception. I know of several caches where they are closer than 161-m, but are permitted because of an impassable cliff, river, or limited-access highway. Take a picture of the cliff and send to the reviewer along with an explanation.

 

Incidentally, this guideline only applies to physical containers. Virtual stages are exempt. Would it be possible to rework this cache so that all physical containers are at lest 161m away?

 

Most importantly, be polite to your reviewer. It'll make any future cache submittals go much smoother.

Edited April 29, 2009 by J-Way

[+Knight2000]

Did you try to work this out with the reviewer? Did you tell them the terrain difference between the two points? Did you slip them a Benjamin?

 

I think talking with your reviewer will be the best things that there is to do. No point in creating friction. It is just a guideline and exceptions can be made- but give them a good reason for it.

 

Contact your reviewer and ask a mod to delete this thread before your reviewer sees it.

[jholly]

The guideline used to determine cache saturation is 528 feet. This guideline is pretty rigidly enforced. Re-read the guideline

 

Cache Saturation: The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 m) of another cache may not be published on the site.

 

Pretty clear and concise. This is the guideline used to determine cache saturation, it is not a wishy washy it is okay if it around 500 foot type of guideline.

 

Jim

[+keeweechris]

Thanks very much for your prompt replies! I'm amazed!

 

Yes, the initial point is a "virtual" waypoint, and yes, the physical cache is sort-of closer ;-)

 

Good idea about the photo! Thanks.

 

The initial point is near the sea. A road separates the sea from the cliff. The tunnel entrance is up some overgrown steps, halfway up the cliff. You can then scramble up tree roots another 10m to the top of the cliff, where the other cache is somewhere (I havn't looked for it). The tunnel goes 50m into the hillside, and my cache is in a room at the end of the tunnel.

 

So as you can see, I can't really move the physical cache, and still keep inline with the WW1/WW2 theme unfortunately.

 

Yes, I've had a fairly lengthy email conversation with the reviewer, in which I've tried to remain calm and collected... it hasn't been easy, he/she doesn't seem to see past the 161m, and into the reason behind the clause.

 

Oh yeah, I forgot the cche wording wasn't published. I'll stick it in my next post.

 

Thanks agon for your help. I just feel I need to go "higher" up the ladder to get a reasonable review.

Chris

[+keeweechris]

Cache wording, if anyone is interested (password is searchlight):

 

The time is 2:23am, on August 25th, 1943. Your name is Officer Mackenzie Taylor, on-duty alone at Bastion Rock observation post. The threat of a Japanese invasion is at the forefront of everyone’s mind, but so far tonight nothing in the harbour in front of you has moved. You imagine the mines bobbing on the surface, strung between here and North Head.

 

As the rest of Auckland is sleeping, you sense something is amiss. Instead of the muffled drone of the 4 Lister diesel engines in the searchlight generator room behind you, all you hear is the wind howling and waves breaking on the rocks below. You turn and peer out into the darkness toward the cliff-face through the rear window of the directing tower. Expecting to see the dimly lit entrance to the engine-room, you squint but see nothing but the faint outline of the cliff-top and 12-pounder gun turrets above.

 

Leaving the tower, you battle the gale across the Tamaki Yacht Club forecourt, then up the flight of steps leading to the tunnel entrance. "Bob, you in there?" you yell, but all you hear is your echo and a faint clinking of metal on metal. Switching on your standard issue torch, you walk cautiously along the rough cut tunnel snaking through the cliff, and into the engine-room.

 

"Bob, what's going on mate?" you ask, after spotting him illuminated by a lantern and hunched over engine #3.

 

"Oh, hello Mac, the dadgum engines have stalled again. I think the weather out there is filling the air filters up with crud. Go get us a new set from the magazine room would ya."

 

"Yeah, righto mate" you answer, and walk past the quiet engines and into the dark south passage. Following the passage veering slightly to the right you come to the main entrance gate and feel the steady breeze entering through the iron gate from outside. You turn to your right and pull open the heavy steel door of the 6-pouder ammunition magazine room. Expecting to see 5000 rounds of armour piercing shells on the side platforms, all that greets you is darkness.

 

"Jeees, the lamp's out too Bob!" you call.

 

"Yeah, that wind's strong tonight. There’s a box of matches next to the lamp."

 

You turn and follow the narrow lamp passage hugging the outer wall of the ammunition room. Sure enough, the lamp is out, but as you reach down for the matches, something else catches your eye...

 

****************************************************************

Please remember to keep a sensible level of stealth... there's tons of muggles around on sunny days, and they're all oblivious to where you're headed... please don't give away the secret. Also, I'm not going to lecture you, but remember to use a reasonable level of caution around dangerous slippery bits.

 

The log book will contain a password. If you're interested in a detailed history of Fort Bastion, visit (http://www.kiwichris.com/fortbastion) and enter the password.

 

Hope you enjoy! :-)

[+keeweechris]

Jim,

 

Words like "rule of thumb" and "may not be published" tend to suggest a case-by-case basis rather than a strict rule. Well, thats how I see it, and apparently backed up by the words following the sentance you quoted: "This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline"

Edited April 29, 2009 by ccoutts

[+erik88l-r]

What to do about difficult reviewers? Hard question to answer, but if "difficult" is applying the published guidelines then I doubt I could give a satisfactory reply.

 

.1 mile, or 161 meters, or 528 feet, is the guideline. Cache reviewers try to maintain it, as if we started publishing any cache at least 500 feet, for example, from another then that would quickly become the defacto guideline as people cite one cache as the reason theirs should also be published. .1 mile is as arbitrary as the speed limit signs on the highway are, I suppose.

 

The cache in question in this case is 342 feet from a physical stage of another cache. I don't review caches in New Zealand, but in all honesty I would not make an exception for 342 feet unless there were an impassible crevasse or river between them. A bit of altitude difference doesn't add much to the distance in most cases.

 

.1 mile is a guideline, but in the northern part of my state the US Forest Service has asked that caches not be any closer than ½ mile. That's 2640 feet. 528 feet seems pretty reasonable to me.

 

I would encourage further discussions with your local reviewer, but moving the cache a couple of hundred feet might be more expedient.

 

~erik~

 

edited to fox typi

Edited April 29, 2009 by erik88l-r

[+keeweechris]

Thanks for your reply erik88i-r.

 

If you have a read of the 3rd paragraph of the Listing Guidelines, it states "First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is."

 

That seems to contradict your statement about people citing other caches.

 

Also, in my opinion the 100ft cliff, and concrete-lined tunnel are a pretty good separator between caches!

 

So accidental discovery of each cache is very improbable, and "cache saturation" is extremely low, as there is only 1 other cache in the whole Takaparawha Regional Park.

[+erik88l-r]

That seems to contradict your statement about people citing other caches.

 

Not really.

 

Back to my speed limit analogy..... The perimeter highway around Atlanta has a speed limit of 55 miles per hour. The prevailing speed is actually between 65 and 75 miles per hour, with many people driving much faster. Sixty five or seventy has probably become the defacto speed limit even when police officers are driving in the flow of traffic.

 

However try to tell all that to a judge if you are awarded a speeding ticket. Ditto with the proximity guideline. If reviewers started routinely publishing caches under the .1 mile guideline then that would become an expectation, and people would cite other caches as the reason theirs should also be published. However the guidelines warn, as the judge does, that just because other have gotten away with it that doesn't mean you can.

 

I've been reviewing caches for 7+ years, and don't think I've ever published one 342 feet from another. If I have it was long enough ago that I've forgotten. Seriously, that is a very large variance from the guideline.

 

~erik~

[Keystone]

So seeing as my only contact with Groundspeak has been through this one volunteer reviewer, I was wondering if there was any way I could communicate with another member of the Groundspeak team, and maybe get a fairer hearing.

Among the many helpful tips and courteous guidance that I saw in your reviewer's notes to your cache page was the following:

 

If you do wish to pursue it there is a pathway:

 

(i) You can request that I take it to the wider NZ reviewer community for discussion.

 

(ii) If they reject it and you still want to pursue it you can request that I take it to the international reviewer community for discussion.

 

(iii) If they reject it and you still want to pursue it you can take it directly to Groundspeak yourself through their appeals process.

 

To be perfectly honest I don't think you'd get much traction at any of these levels, but I'm willing to ask if you want me to.

Those are your appeal rights, in plain English. They are also set forth in more formal terms in the Listing Guidelines that you read before submitting your cache:

 

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that "pushes the envelope" to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas. If, after exchanging email with the reviewer, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, your next option is to ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum. Sometimes a second opinion from someone else who has seen a similar situation can help in suggesting a way for the cache to be published. Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived. Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an email with complete details, waypoint name (GC*****) and a link to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com.

Echoing the comments from your reviewer and from Erik, I consider it highly unlikely that either the reviewer group or Groundspeak would overrule your local reviewer's decision at this distance. The flexibility in this guideline is for caches at distances like 520 feet or 495 feet.

 

Finally, I wanted to direct your attention to this article in the Groundspeak Knowledgebase about the review process. There are other helpful articles about hiding caches besides that one, so have a look around.

 

I hope that this is helpful.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Okay. Here's my take. 'Guidelines' are very strictly adhered to. Rare exceptions are made, which is why they are guidelines rather than rules. The exceptions are rare. Work with your reviewer, don't argue with him/her. Dog biscuits also work.

How impassible is the 100' cliff? (I hiked for two days, witha 3000' climb, once, for a virtual!) How far around is it to get from one cache to the other? Photos of the cliff (as suggested) might help.

But, the best advice is to work with your reviewer, not argue with your reviewer. Have you discussed the problem with the other cache owner? Maybe s/he would be willing to move the other cache to make room. It actually sounds like a very interesting cache!

[+keeweechris]

OK, I get the general idea.

 

Thanks for quoting contents of the reviewers reply to me. I'm not quite sure what helpful tips you are talking about, but one comment that sticks in my mind is "I'm sorry that isn't likely to see the light of day" as you can read in his/her reply:

 

Hi Chris,

 

No problem with the fast reviewing - you got lucky! I just happened to be online. I'll answer your questions (always glad to help a first time hider) but the answer ain't going to be pretty!!

 

You wrote:

Hi Curglaff, thanks for reviewing my cache so fast. Yes I read that, but kinda hoped you might be able to waive that requirement just this time ;-) For one, it seems a perfect place for a cache, to educate people on that particular piece of history. I've even created a webpage for more info (www.kiwichris.com/fortbastion password=searchlight). I'd move it if I could, but obviously I can't.

 

I think:

You have obviously gone to some effort, and I'm sorry that isn't likely to see the light of day. One way to avoid this is to ask a reviewer about a location before creating the cache. Probably not worth it for a simple cache, but if you're going to put in significant extra effort...

 

I would also agree it's a good place for a cache - that's probably why there's already one there!!

 

You wrote:

Also, I had a look around my neighbourhood, and quite quickly found a few caches within 100m of each other (GC1MJET (Puzzle) and GCXZ8C, GCQF96 and GC1FG7N, GC16BR7 and GCHQ2Y, GC1EF4E and GC1HKKC), so this seems a little unfair.

 

I say:

The first named cache in each of those pairs is either a puzzle or an earthcache - i.e. there is no physical container at the point.

 

Also one of the first things the guidelines say is "there is no precident" - although your "seems a little unfair" is soft enough to squeak by as a question ;-)

 

You say:

I'm also wondering exactly what this rule to trying to achieve? In the case of Bastion Point, theres only 1 cache there anyway, so its not like its overcrowded. My cache could definately not be confused with the other, seeing as its underground!

 

I reply:

Confusion is a point. The problem isn't people finding yours by mistake. It's the other way around, looking for yours (and not finding the tunnel entrance so widening the search above ground) and finding the other one.

 

The other point is simply - it's the rules! I know this seems a bit arbitrary but Groundspeak make the rules (oops guidelines) and I just get to apply them. I do have a teeny bit of discretion but not at 45m (or 57m or even 145m usually) when it says 160m.

 

You say:

Is there not any way we can just let it slip this time? Its my first cache, and I've been thinking about it and planning it for a while. I know people will enjoy it :-)

 

I respond:

I know, I think it sounds like fun - a couple of my favourite caches involve tunnels. However...

 

So my judgement is "No, it's just too far away from the guidelines to be acceptable". If you do wish to pursue it there is a pathway:

 

(i) You can request that I take it to the wider NZ reviewer community for discussion.

 

(ii) If they reject it and you still want to pursue it you can request that I take it to the international reviewer community for discussion.

 

(iii) If they reject it and you still want to pursue it you can take it directly to Groundspeak yourself through their appeals process.

 

To be perfectly honest I don't think you'd get much traction at any of these levels, but I'm willing to ask if you want me to.

[Keystone]

Folks, to explain the OP's most recent post, he quoted the full text of one of the reviewer's notes to his cache page. That note took each point made by the cache owner, and replied to it.

 

I'm actually happy that you quoted the entire note. I would hope the community would agree that the reviewer was being polite, helpful and thorough. "Difficult" is not the word I'd use after reading the correspondence you exchanged.

[+keeweechris]

OK, I'm starting to get the message. I never realised that the simple distance guideline would be taken too seriously, considering geocaching is a fun un-serious pasttime. Guess if it was me "in control" of other peoples caches/projects, then I'd be a bit more understanding and consider the overall picture, not just 1 line of the guidelines. To me this cache is more than just the simple (and IMHO too plentiful) traditional caches which seem just to be used to get a geocaches find and hide count up. Its just really gutting when you go to so much effort researching ang planning a cache, and find this roadblock. Forget the 161m for a minute, and consider that mine neither breaks the "accidently find" idea, nor the "cache saturation" idea.

 

And yes, of course I read the terms that I clicked on (please don't suggest I didn't), but I thought I could reason with the reviewer, since they are stated as "guidelines".

 

Yeah, I should have named this topic something slightly different... Maybe "What to do about a difficult review". But I fail to see what helful tips the review was giving. He was just justifying his decision.

 

Anyway, its put a bit of a damper on my first hide. I got really excited about sharing my research and history with the local community and/or visitors, who I'm sure would be very interested.

 

Chris out.

 

 

Okay. Here's my take. 'Guidelines' are very strictly adhered to. Rare exceptions are made, which is why they are guidelines rather than rules. The exceptions are rare. Work with your reviewer, don't argue with him/her. Dog biscuits also work.

How impassible is the 100' cliff? (I hiked for two days, witha 3000' climb, once, for a virtual!) How far around is it to get from one cache to the other? Photos of the cliff (as suggested) might help.

But, the best advice is to work with your reviewer, not argue with your reviewer. Have you discussed the problem with the other cache owner? Maybe s/he would be willing to move the other cache to make room. It actually sounds like a very interesting cache!

Edited April 30, 2009 by ccoutts

[+In Need of Cache]

A cliff may appear to be an unsurmountable seperation, but even if the cliff were 161m tall, a cache at the top and the bottom could for arguements sake have the exact the same coordinates. So I could come from out of town and easily make the approach from the top and find the wrong cache.

The "rules" are guidelines and as you say exceptions could be made but usually only if there is a way to be certain the wrong cache will not be found such as a 150M wide raging river in between.

 

The opposite could hold true, a reviewer could require further seperation if a location is surrounded by other caches as they are simply guidelines.

 

Brian

In need of Cache

[+gof1]

Folks, to explain the OP's most recent post, he quoted the full text of one of the reviewer's notes to his cache page. That note took each point made by the cache owner, and replied to it.

 

I'm actually happy that you quoted the entire note. I would hope the community would agree that the reviewer was being polite, helpful and thorough. "Difficult" is not the word I'd use after reading the correspondence you exchanged.

 

You reviewer types are all alike. Always enforcing the standards and guidelines. Difficult, every one of you.

[+keeweechris]

Sorry for not explaining the situation better In Need of Cache, but one cache says the clue is behind a flax bush at the top of the cliff, and my one starts from a rocky outcrop about 80m north of the other cache and 30m lower, and leads the hunter into a dead end tunnel in the cliff-side. My cache page clearly leads the hunter to my cache, so much so that you don't really need a gpsr device to complete it. (Could find starting location from Google Earth).

 

Could anyone please explain how either cache could be found when searching for the other?

 

 

A cliff may appear to be an unsurmountable seperation, but even if the cliff were 161m tall, a cache at the top and the bottom could for arguements sake have the exact the same coordinates. So I could come from out of town and easily make the approach from the top and find the wrong cache.

The "rules" are guidelines and as you say exceptions could be made but usually only if there is a way to be certain the wrong cache will not be found such as a 150M wide raging river in between.

 

The opposite could hold true, a reviewer could require further seperation if a location is surrounded by other caches as they are simply guidelines.

 

Brian

In need of Cache

[+Markwell]

There are two components to the guideline. Confusion of the wrong cache and limit caches in an area.

[+Team Shiney]

Have you talked to (Bribed) the other cache owner? Offer to include a thank you note for moving/removing his cache? Include him in the fun?

 

Just a thought.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I always find it interesting when people argue that since the cache distance guideline is a guideline that that should automatically mean that the distance can be less. Doesn't it make sense that since it's a "guideline" that the reviewer can decide/determine that a GREATER distance is in order for certain caches/locations?

 

Also, if you look at this page http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx , the page is title "Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines".

 

Also, you repeatedly asked the reviewer if it could "just slip" this one time. What if everyone expected that? And based upon previous discussions by reviewers, it would seem that there would need to be COMPELLING reasons to modify the compliance with the guidelines. Reasons like "because I want it" or "because it's a cool location" or "my cache is great" would not seem to suffice.

 

I certainly can understand the frustration that might arise when trying to place a cache, but there are reasons that the Listing Requirements/Guidelines are in place (even if we may not understand or agree with them).

 

The easiest way to get a cache published is to read and understand (really understand) the listing requirements and to make sure that your cache complies with them completely and that the reviewer doesn't have to "make an exception" for your cache.

 

In your case, the reviewer seemed to respond very politely and gave great details about the issues involved and about the process to follow if you were not satisfied with the decision.

Edited April 30, 2009 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+ernbob]

I agree with the OP that the intent of the 161M restriction is to avoid cache saturation. Since this area is obviously not saturated, and there is a specific reason for the cache location (not just a cool tree stump) then I really don't see why an excemption couldn't be made.

 

The reviewer could easily place the reasons for the exceptions and to not use this cache as a reference for future exemptions.

 

To re-use the speeding analogy...if you're on your way to the hospital and have a police escort with permission to speed...that doesn't mean everyone on the highway also gets to speed. It's a case-by-case basis and with approval for a specific reason.

[+Lil Devil]

I always find it interesting when people argue that since the cache distance guideline is a guideline that that should automatically mean that the distance can be less. Doesn't it make sense that since it's a "guideline" that the reviewer can decide/determine that a GREATER distance is in order for certain caches/locations?

I always find it interesting when people think the guidelines don't apply to them, or that their cache is so special that it should be allowed to exist despite the guidelines.

 

I think Team Shiney had the best idea yet.

[+240 Jordy]

I'm going to put in my 2 cents.. first a reviewers job is never easy.. We are quite lucky here in BC to have one that always offers assistance on how to fix a cache so we can accomplish our goals.

 

I'd like to refer people to the town of Tulameen, BC and the surrounding area.

 

GC1ED5T Blakeburn

 

In Nov of 2007 there were no caches in this area - not a one, this cache was placed in July of 2008. When the reviewers are approving caches they must not only consider the situation at the time, but what must potentially end up occuring in the future. 2 months after this a 2nd cache was placed in the area, this cache ended up highlighting a very important part of the history there - one of the abandoned buildings. it was declined based on the fact it was too close to the cache above - (141 meters I believe) and the owners had to put it in a new location. At the time it made no sense - as they couldn't have been confused at all and you wouldn't have stumbled across it and thought it the other one.

 

But with the appeal declined (even though supported by us and a good friend) the owners moved it.

 

Looking back now at the amount of caches in the area and how quickly it's growing - I now understand.

 

Right now we're working our way through a multi-cache, we misunderstood and thought "physical container" meant a container you opened - we had put our coordinates on "tags" that hung up - but 2 stages in Tulameen were to close to other caches. So we went back and found new locations and waiting this time for approval prior to repounding the coordinates into the tags.. lol

 

In the end though - The reviewers do an awesome job.. with the amount of caches submitted, moderating the forums.

 

If you have an awesome location & caches - those who visit may want to place new caches to bring more people there - so imagine your location with 10 other new caches there.. what if exceptions were made to all of them?

 

Just my 2 cents

Edited April 30, 2009 by Tulameen Turtles

[+ThirstyMick]

Of what you posted, in your discussion with your reviewer it doesn't look like you explained the cliff and tunnel? Explaining that may change your reviewers opinion. Pictures may help. Being polite and open, giving as much info as possible will definitely help. Try to work with your reviewer before going above his head. It will benefit you in the long term.

 

Okay. Here's my take. 'Guidelines' are very strictly adhered to. Rare exceptions are made, which is why they are guidelines rather than rules. The exceptions are rare. Work with your reviewer, don't argue with him/her. Dog biscuits also work.

How impassible is the 100' cliff? (I hiked for two days, witha 3000' climb, once, for a virtual!) How far around is it to get from one cache to the other? Photos of the cliff (as suggested) might help.

But, the best advice is to work with your reviewer, not argue with your reviewer. Have you discussed the problem with the other cache owner? Maybe s/he would be willing to move the other cache to make room. It actually sounds like a very interesting cache!

 

Harry's suggestion is a good one. If the other cache is a simple one in a bush, the other owner might be willing to move his cache a couple hundred feet. I've moved caches to allow room for other people. Just make sure to be polite when you ask beg. That might just end up being the easiest solution.

 

If neither of those things work though, how difficult would it be to move the final elsewhere? The spot it's in is of significance, yes, but would it be possible to convert it to a virtual stage? Converting it to a virtual stage might also have the added benefit of forcing the finder to read any information that's there and learn something Good luck.

[+mrbort]

I think Team Shiney had the best idea yet.

 

QFT... it sounds like this other cache could be located anywhere and moved to accommodate your cache location... Offer to make the cache owner of that one a co-hider etc and see if he/she would be willing to make the space. Offer politely and explain your cache idea. If they don't want to, accept the fact that they put a cache there first and that sometimes you don't always get the spot you want. It sucks to put so much time into a cache only to have it be too close to another; in the future, before even the glimmer of an idea of a puzzle, check the caches in the area and make sure that you have an open zone Good luck with your cache and with placing what sound like really neat future caches in the future! I love creativity and history... keep thinking along the same lines and make some others

 

EDIT: Er... looks like Harry had this idea too and while I was posting, ThirstyMick highlighted my not reading carefully

Edited April 30, 2009 by mrbort

[+keeweechris]

Thanks mrbort, and others for the positive idea's. I really appreciate it.

 

Yes, I contacted the other cache owner a week ago, when the first version of my cache was rejected. (Sorry, never mentioned that... I initially set GZ directly above the tunnel end, on an empty patch of grass, and a bit of a cryptic clue. They had to figure out it was 2m under their feet, and how to get to it ;-) I thought a great idea for a puzzle cache, with history thrown in for good measure, so was gutted when it got declined. Then I started from the other direction, at sea level, which was rejected aswell.)

 

Anyway, the other cache owner (who turned out to be a neighbour at the house I grew up in, when I was 12 and discovered the cache!) didn't really want to move his, even after I explained it all. I visited it at lunch today, and found it pretty easily, under a tree. I even found a new place for it, but have yet to tell him. Its basically my last chance.

 

So, you'd think that after 2 revisions, and asking the other cache owner (of course politely) if I could help him move it, then I may have some luck. I end up feeling it wasn't meant to be for some reason. My subscription to Geocaching.com premium membership isn't meant to be either I'm thinking ;-)

 

Chris

 

I think Team Shiney had the best idea yet.

 

QFT... it sounds like this other cache could be located anywhere and moved to accommodate your cache location... Offer to make the cache owner of that one a co-hider etc and see if he/she would be willing to make the space. Offer politely and explain your cache idea. If they don't want to, accept the fact that they put a cache there first and that sometimes you don't always get the spot you want. It sucks to put so much time into a cache only to have it be too close to another; in the future, before even the glimmer of an idea of a puzzle, check the caches in the area and make sure that you have an open zone Good luck with your cache and with placing what sound like really neat future caches in the future! I love creativity and history... keep thinking along the same lines and make some others

 

EDIT: Er... looks like Harry had this idea too and while I was posting, ThirstyMick highlighted my not reading carefully

[+keeweechris]

Thanks Thirsty Mick. Yeah, sorry, that transcript is only the 1st bit of the conversation. I reworded the whole cache, and explained it all to him in detail in following emails.

 

It's funny how none of the people above who continue to explain to me that "these are the rules" can explain how either cache could possibly be mistakenly found!!

 

Of what you posted, in your discussion with your reviewer it doesn't look like you explained the cliff and tunnel? Explaining that may change your reviewers opinion. Pictures may help. Being polite and open, giving as much info as possible will definitely help. Try to work with your reviewer before going above his head. It will benefit you in the long term.

 

Okay. Here's my take. 'Guidelines' are very strictly adhered to. Rare exceptions are made, which is why they are guidelines rather than rules. The exceptions are rare. Work with your reviewer, don't argue with him/her. Dog biscuits also work.

How impassible is the 100' cliff? (I hiked for two days, witha 3000' climb, once, for a virtual!) How far around is it to get from one cache to the other? Photos of the cliff (as suggested) might help.

But, the best advice is to work with your reviewer, not argue with your reviewer. Have you discussed the problem with the other cache owner? Maybe s/he would be willing to move the other cache to make room. It actually sounds like a very interesting cache!

 

Harry's suggestion is a good one. If the other cache is a simple one in a bush, the other owner might be willing to move his cache a couple hundred feet. I've moved caches to allow room for other people. Just make sure to be polite when you ask beg. That might just end up being the easiest solution.

 

If neither of those things work though, how difficult would it be to move the final elsewhere? The spot it's in is of significance, yes, but would it be possible to convert it to a virtual stage? Converting it to a virtual stage might also have the added benefit of forcing the finder to read any information that's there and learn something Good luck.

[+mrbort]

Don't give up on the caching just because a cache has some bad luck Keep at it! Sounds like you have some really positive ideas and a positive attitude. Try a new one at a new spot If I lived near there I would be definitely keen to search for your caches... You have clearly put a lot of time and effort into them but in this case, just a case of bad luck. Don't try to push the original owner too much tho -- that spot might have personal significance. Instead think about how you could maybe transition your idea to a new spot (yeah it's a lot of work but it's FUN work!). GL with the cache and don't let one cache get you down

[+Prime Suspect]

Thanks Thirsty Mick. Yeah, sorry, that transcript is only the 1st bit of the conversation. I reworded the whole cache, and explained it all to him in detail in following emails.

 

It's funny how none of the people above who continue to explain to me that "these are the rules" can explain how either cache could possibly be mistakenly found!!

Where did you get the idea that "mistaken identity" was the only, or even the primary reason for the saturation guidelines?

[+keeweechris]

Hi,

 

Well it doesn't seem like rocket science... that particluar clause in the Guidelines explains 2 reasons for the 161m rule: Mistaken Identity, and Cache Saturation.

 

My reviewer only talked about Mistaken Identity when explaining his/her decision. Also, theres only 1 cache in the park, so I thought Cache Saturation wasn't an issue.

 

So considering that Mistaken Identity seems a very low probability, and Cache Saturation isn't currently an issue, and considering the historical, educational, and interactive nature of my cache, I thought I'd receive a more compassionate review than the simple "these are the rules" attitude that the reviewer (and most of the repliers to this thread) seem to give.

 

Never mind, theres more important things to worry about I guess. Moving on...

 

 

Thanks Thirsty Mick. Yeah, sorry, that transcript is only the 1st bit of the conversation. I reworded the whole cache, and explained it all to him in detail in following emails.

 

It's funny how none of the people above who continue to explain to me that "these are the rules" can explain how either cache could possibly be mistakenly found!!

Where did you get the idea that "mistaken identity" was the only, or even the primary reason for the saturation guidelines?

[+StarBrand]

Ok - I'll just have to agree that it is HIGHLY unlikely that anybody will confuse the 2 caches. However, the guideline is still there and still in place. Even Groundspeak admits the number is an "arbitrary" number. But it IS the number chosen. You keep behaving as though exceptions to this guideline should be handed out like candy -If you ask, you should nearly automatically receive. If it were that very easy, the guideline would have little or no meaning at all.

 

While saturation is not a problem at this moment - the guidelines are in place to make it clear that saturation will not occur in the future as well. It is an effort to show land managers that we as agroup are capable of limiting the number of caches in any given area.

 

Please respect that the other cacher involved probably thinks his cache is the most scenic, special cache location and he wanted to share it with others. While your idea may well be a very good one - it is simply too close to his very special location. You may not see it that way - but I'll bet he does.

 

I am sorry this has been a bad experience for you. Learn from it. If your proposed hide fits nicely into the guidelines - it will get published. If not - you run the risk of hearing a "no".

[+Rockin Roddy]

So, you'd think that after 2 revisions, and asking the other cache owner (of course politely) if I could help him move it, then I may have some luck. I end up feeling it wasn't meant to be for some reason. My subscription to Geocaching.com premium membership isn't meant to be either I'm thinking ;-)

 

Chris

 

I like this, the reviewers won't make an exception so I will pick up my ball and go home! You've displayed an attitude that isn't becoming all throughout this thread, maybe you should stop, listen and think about what's been told you? I also love the idea of asking the other owner to move his....like asking some stranger if you can cut in line because you feel you should be in front of everyone else?

 

Come on, if you can plan and set up a tricky cache, moving it can't be rocket science either, can it? Not trying to be mean, just practical here!

[+Car54]

.....

If you have a read of the 3rd paragraph of the Listing Guidelines, it states "First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is."

 

That seems to contradict your statement about people citing other caches.

.....

.....

You wrote:

Also, I had a look around my neighbourhood, and quite quickly found a few caches within 100m of each other (GC1MJET (Puzzle) and GCXZ8C, GCQF96 and GC1FG7N, GC16BR7 and GCHQ2Y, GC1EF4E and GC1HKKC), so this seems a little unfair.

 

I say:

The first named cache in each of those pairs is either a puzzle or an earthcache - i.e. there is no physical container at the point.

 

Also one of the first things the guidelines say is "there is no precident" - although your "seems a little unfair" is soft enough to squeak by as a question ;-)

.....

 

You confused me here. Sounds as though the first post I quoted above said you didn't think other people would try to use your cache as a precedent, but in the second post quoted above, it sounds as though you tried that exact argument with your reviewer..???

 

Just an observation...

Mrs. Car54

[+keeweechris]

Yes, you are absolutely right Mrs Car54, I did write those things and I did change my way of thinking. At the time I tried to justify my cache for the 1st time, I used the "precident" tactic, because I didn't really understand the guidelines' stance on this matter. Then when I had it explained to me by my reviewer, I understood and agreed with it. (Without that (legal) clause, if you let one cache slide then you risk having new cachers cite this decision as SOLE bounds for their own waive of the guidelines)

 

So after reading and understanding the guidelines, I was surprised that erik88i-r brought that up as a reason why "letting my cache past the normal guidelines" would be enable a future hider to cite my decision as bounds for their own cache to be approved. It obviously doesn't come into it, as I found out originally.

 

Hope you are not so confused now :-)

 

 

 

You confused me here. Sounds as though the first post I quoted above said you didn't think other people would try to use your cache as a precedent, but in the second post quoted above, it sounds as though you tried that exact argument with your reviewer..???

 

Just an observation...

Mrs. Car54

[+keeweechris]

I'm sorry I've come across to some people like I'm behaving like a spoilt kid or bad loser. I am quite aware that this is an easy explanation for my grumblings. Of course I'm noone special, hey I've only found 60 caches, compared to those immortals with 3000 next to their name.

 

But as a noobie to the process of hiding a cache (and a premium member), I am asking you guys to listen to my feedback with unbiased ears. I agree essentially with the guideline, but am asking reviewers to take a more case-by-case approach to executing it. If the original author of that clause intended it to be a hard-and-fast rule, it would not have been worded the way it was. It would have simply said all caches must be 161m apart.

 

I also suggesting that generally a more relaxed approach be taken to enforcing the guidelines. That may seem totally rediculous, but lets face it, we're not talking about WW3 here, its all just a game, for both hiders and players to enjoy.

 

I've been caching for 3 years now, and in that time I could have hidden plenty of traditional and multi-stage caches which seem to follow the same old formula. (eg, traditional: box in flax bush, multi: take 3rd number in year of xxx's death for A, 5th number in patent number on side of engine for B, etc) But there just so many of these unoriginal caches out there. Sure, the first few you solved were fun, but I have to admit that I was getting a little bored of the standard geocaches. So when making a cache I want it to be something different, something that people will remember, something that will inspire the geocaching and non-geocaching community. Sure, my first cache isn't anything outstanding (like the 3000' climb to find the virtual cache, or the 5/5 difficulty/terrain cache my mate planted near Waitomo), but I really want it to be different from other caches. I'm not just making this to add to my hide count and to say I made a geocache to my mates; I'm doing this to open the eyes of the player in every way possible given what I have available to me. In this case, after they finish the game, if I've hooked their interest by actually being in the hidden historic tunnel, I want to present them with the historical information I found about the area, and Aucklands coastal defences over the years. And I want to add something special to make their quest feel as realistic as possible, ie from start to finish, incorporate them in a fictional yet accurate story which could have taken place in 1899 or 1943 during the times when the area was operating as a military base.

 

I hope the reviewers would see the value of my cache, and I hoped someone would be able to stretch the guidelines enough to let it be approved. Yes, I totally admit that it does not satisfy the saturation guidelines, but I was hoping that someone would see the tradeoff in bringing an educational, historical, interactive (and in my opinion exciting) cache into the area.

 

And thanks for your helpful comment Rockin Roddy. Unfortunately I can't move the tunnel, which is 100% inside the 161m perimeter of the other cache. I totally intend to create further caches inline with my comments above, and of course I will take the outcome of this experience to mind when designing them. I just felt that few people could get past the 161m thing, or hear my reasoning, hence why I felt negative at the whole thing. You obviously don't think strangers should be allowed to talk to each other or share their views with each other or help each other. I'm sorry to hear that mate.

 

Ok - I'll just have to agree that it is HIGHLY unlikely that anybody will confuse the 2 caches. However, the guideline is still there and still in place. Even Groundspeak admits the number is an "arbitrary" number. But it IS the number chosen. You keep behaving as though exceptions to this guideline should be handed out like candy -If you ask, you should nearly automatically receive. If it were that very easy, the guideline would have little or no meaning at all.

 

While saturation is not a problem at this moment - the guidelines are in place to make it clear that saturation will not occur in the future as well. It is an effort to show land managers that we as agroup are capable of limiting the number of caches in any given area.

 

Please respect that the other cacher involved probably thinks his cache is the most scenic, special cache location and he wanted to share it with others. While your idea may well be a very good one - it is simply too close to his very special location. You may not see it that way - but I'll bet he does.

 

I am sorry this has been a bad experience for you. Learn from it. If your proposed hide fits nicely into the guidelines - it will get published. If not - you run the risk of hearing a "no".

[AutumnRae]

I am new, I have no finds to publish, nor have I even begun to attempt it (still trying to find the right GPS unit). After doing some research about local caches, I have discovered that I know exactly where one cache is, and that I visit that place often.

 

There is a cache at my place of work. This place is on private property. The cache is a mystery cache. It is in the form of a structure on the private property. I'm not 100%, but I believe the structure is an official local historical landmark. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the hider did not recieve permission to make the structure a cache for this game. This cache promotes the defamation of private property. There is no official log. You aren't required to in order to log this cache as a find, but the cache page encourages signing the actual structure as a way of logging your find.

 

Now, I haven't sat and read all the guidlines for placing a cache. But I can pretty well tell you that almost every aspect of this cache violates the guidelines in some way or another; including, but not limited to: placing a cache on private property without permission and defamation of private property and/or a historical landmark (which would also be a violation of federal law).

 

But you know what? I think that cache is one of the most ingenious caches I've come across in my (limited) research, and I'm not sure how many would be able to top it. I've been visiting my place of work since I was born (I'm nearly 21), and never realized that this structure was being used in a global treasure hunt game. Whoever reviewed this cache obviously thought that bending the guidelines would be suitable for this type of cache. The cache is on private property, but is "public" in a sense (to be more specific, a free admission amusement park), and it has become a park tradition to sign this structure (an original covered bridge) during your visit, regardless of the fact that the bridge is private property and a possible historic landmark.

 

My point is that the cache breakes the guidelines of Groundspeak (or whatever, not sure of the technical terms for things yet), but the reviewer saw past these guidelines, taking in the personal aspects of the location before making a decision. A cache on private property without permission and one that defaces private and historical property would surely be dismissed if described as such. But a cache described as a bridge in a free admission amusement park with the ability to sign the bridge as a log, a tradition that has been in place long before the idea of geocaching, apparantly came off as good enough for the reviewer.

 

I would think the job of the reviewer would be to analyze the caches individually and make judgements on a case by case basis. I would hope that a reviewer would be seasoned enough in the sport to appreciate the true nature of the game, (to learn about the places surrounding us, to not become jaded with your surroundings, to appreciate what the Earth has to offer), and to just become a 'rule' abiding official who has forgotten the real reason the sport exists. I think your cache sounds like a lot of fun, and one that I would very much enjoy finding if in my local area. I find it sad that you obviously have a passion for the sport, but your efforts are being denied on the grounds of a technicality that isn't even a technicality because it's not a rule.

 

Good luck with your efforts. I hope things work out for you.

[+gof1]

I am new, I have no finds to publish, nor have I even begun to attempt it (still trying to find the right GPS unit). After doing some research about local caches, I have discovered that I know exactly where one cache is, and that I visit that place often.

 

There is a cache at my place of work. This place is on private property. The cache is a mystery cache. It is in the form of a structure on the private property. I'm not 100%, but I believe the structure is an official local historical landmark. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that the hider did not recieve permission to make the structure a cache for this game. This cache promotes the defamation of private property. There is no official log. You aren't required to in order to log this cache as a find, but the cache page encourages signing the actual structure as a way of logging your find.

 

Now, I haven't sat and read all the guidlines for placing a cache. But I can pretty well tell you that almost every aspect of this cache violates the guidelines in some way or another; including, but not limited to: placing a cache on private property without permission and defamation of private property and/or a historical landmark (which would also be a violation of federal law).

 

But you know what? I think that cache is one of the most ingenious caches I've come across in my (limited) research, and I'm not sure how many would be able to top it. I've been visiting my place of work since I was born (I'm nearly 21), and never realized that this structure was being used in a global treasure hunt game. Whoever reviewed this cache obviously thought that bending the guidelines would be suitable for this type of cache. The cache is on private property, but is "public" in a sense (to be more specific, a free admission amusement park), and it has become a park tradition to sign this structure (an original covered bridge) during your visit, regardless of the fact that the bridge is private property and a possible historic landmark.

 

My point is that the cache breakes the guidelines of Groundspeak (or whatever, not sure of the technical terms for things yet), but the reviewer saw past these guidelines, taking in the personal aspects of the location before making a decision. A cache on private property without permission and one that defaces private and historical property would surely be dismissed if described as such. But a cache described as a bridge in a free admission amusement park with the ability to sign the bridge as a log, a tradition that has been in place long before the idea of geocaching, apparantly came off as good enough for the reviewer.

 

I would think the job of the reviewer would be to analyze the caches individually and make judgements on a case by case basis. I would hope that a reviewer would be seasoned enough in the sport to appreciate the true nature of the game, (to learn about the places surrounding us, to not become jaded with your surroundings, to appreciate what the Earth has to offer), and to just become a 'rule' abiding official who has forgotten the real reason the sport exists. I think your cache sounds like a lot of fun, and one that I would very much enjoy finding if in my local area. I find it sad that you obviously have a passion for the sport, but your efforts are being denied on the grounds of a technicality that isn't even a technicality because it's not a rule.

 

Good luck with your efforts. I hope things work out for you.

 

I suspect that the cache in question may have been modified post-publishing. I find it hard to believe that a reviewer would publish a cache that relied on vandalism to log.

[+StarBrand]

I'll just quote myself but only the most important part....

 

...If your proposed hide fits nicely into the guidelines - it will get published. If not - you run the risk of hearing a "no".

 

That is all this really boils down to.........

[Motorcycle_Mama]

snip ...

 

I hope the reviewers would see the value of my cache, and I hoped someone would be able to stretch the guidelines enough to let it be approved. Yes, I totally admit that it does not satisfy the saturation guidelines, but I was hoping that someone would see the tradeoff in bringing an educational, historical, interactive (and in my opinion exciting) cache into the area.

 

... snip

The reviewers will tell you that the QUALITY (or perceived quality) of the cache does not come into play in the review process.

 

Either the cache meets the requirements/guidelines or it doesn't. They often publish caches that they don't "like" or that might be perceived "boring".

 

They don't judge the quality or lack thereof.

 

But just because you (or anyone else) thinks your cache is "special" is not a reason to not follow the guidelines. You don't have to agree with that, but that's just the way that it is.

 

It's a big, big world out there. There are LOTS of great places to hide caches. I'm sure with all the creativity you have shown with this one, you will easily come across another suitable location.

 

Good luck!

Edited April 30, 2009 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+tozainamboku]

My point is that the cache breakes the guidelines of Groundspeak (or whatever, not sure of the technical terms for things yet), but the reviewer saw past these guidelines, taking in the personal aspects of the location before making a decision. A cache on private property without permission and one that defaces private and historical property would surely be dismissed if described as such.

First of all you don't know for sure that this cache does not have the permission of the property owner and permission as well to use the unusual logging method you describe. Second, it sounds like this may be a older cache, grandfathered from before the guidelines specifically forbid defacement of property. Finally, unlike the saturation guidelines where the reviewer can easily check the distance to nearby existing caches, these other guidelines are harder to check. Most cases where a cache appears to be on private property, the reviewers will assume that you have adequate permission since you checked you read the guidelines. I'll assume the cache page states the unusual logging method, but this may have been added after the cache was approved or may have been missed by the reviewer.

 

The OPs cache sounds like something that could have possibly been granted an exception to the saturation guidelines. The problem is the OP assumed that his cache was so special that it would get a exception. Most reviewers are not in the position where they are going to decide which caches are so special that they should get an exception. Those who were around when virtual caches were allowed, remember the reviewers had to decide which virtual caches were "Wow" enough to publish. I think the reviewers don't want to be put in that position again. Instead, reviewers are going to apply the guidelines as fairly as they can to all caches regardless as to whether they think the cache is "Wow" or not. The guidelines state the following:

Note: Exceptions to the listing guidelines may occasionally be made depending on the novel nature and merits of a cache. If you have a cache idea you believe is novel, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site.

Groundspeak and not the reviewers are the ones that will grant exceptions for caches that are so special that guidelines can be ignored. And this should be negotiated with Groundspeak prior to reporting the new cache on the web site. The guidelines are guidelines, however, and reviewer are given some leeway. This is especially true of the saturation guideline where reviewers will sometime allow caches to be slightly closer together, particularly if their is a significant obstacle separating the caches.

 

Sometimes, you find the greatest place for a cache, but someone has already placed a cache (maybe in the lamppost at the parking lot) within 161 meters. There is not much you can do about this. That person's cache was placed first and no matter how good of place you found, the reviewer is not going to decide that your cache is so special it merits an exception. On the other hand, I have seen some occasions where someone has a great idea for a cool hide and has worked with the owner of an existing cache. Usually this means getting the existing cache to move, but in some cases the two cachers together are better able to convince the reviewer that the caches would not be confused by finders and perhaps that the cliff provides a separation that makes these caches effectively not in the same area. But even in these cases the issues are worked out before submitting the cache on the website.

[+keeweechris]

OK, I accept "thats the way it is", and this thread has helped me understand that. At the start, I was like "WTF??! These guys are on drugs!" but now I understand the mentality and justifications of the mature geocaching cummunity and reviewers.

 

But just because it's "the way it is" doesn't mean I agree with it. I don't think I'm alone when I say that review for this harmless game of geocaching should be on a case-by-case basis, rather than feeling like you've just landed in communist germany in 1942 ;-) If the review Guidelines were meant to be "rules" rather than "guidelines", there'd be no avenue for appeal or simple discussion with the reviewer. I'm suggesting that maybe things have been blown a little out of proportion since the Guidelines were written, or at least the reviewers responsiblity should be to review in a more compassionate way.

 

snip ...

 

I hope the reviewers would see the value of my cache, and I hoped someone would be able to stretch the guidelines enough to let it be approved. Yes, I totally admit that it does not satisfy the saturation guidelines, but I was hoping that someone would see the tradeoff in bringing an educational, historical, interactive (and in my opinion exciting) cache into the area.

 

... snip

The reviewers will tell you that the QUALITY (or perceived quality) of the cache does not come into play in the review process.

 

Either the cache meets the requirements/guidelines or it doesn't. They often publish caches that they don't "like" or that might be perceived "boring".

 

They don't judge the quality or lack thereof.

 

But just because you (or anyone else) thinks your cache is "special" is not a reason to not follow the guidelines. You don't have to agree with that, but that's just the way that it is.

 

It's a big, big world out there. There are LOTS of great places to hide caches. I'm sure with all the creativity you have shown with this one, you will easily come across another suitable location.

 

Good luck!

[+wimseyguy]

feeling like you've just landed in communist germany in 1942 ;-)

 

Keep making comments like this and watch the little bit of support you still might have in this discussion go away really really fast. BTW the Communists were across the border in Germany. It was the Nazis who ruled Germany. You also might want to look up the meaning of Godwin's Law while you are considering your next move.

 

Back OT-you've been told repeatedly that the best way to get this cache listed, is to engage your reviewer in a discussion of how to properly modify your cache in order to bring it into compliance with the guidelines. I really do hope you are doing this, as all the posting in here complaining about the situation isn't going to gain you any traction with that desired goal; assuming you still do really want to get this special cache published?

You've been given lots of helpful hints in here, but it seems that you don't really want to listen to any of it.

[+keeweechris]

Yep, I'm definately engaging with the reviewer, who has started making more constructive comments.

 

An update (so you guys don't think I'm just complaining and not taking on advice)... I found a tree yesterday above ground and 200m from any other existing waypoint. I'm trying to work with the reviewer on how I can get the player to explorer the tunnel, and find the cache under the tree, while still keeping the overall WW2 theme. The reviewer is trying hard to get the finer points of the cache sorted, after I have explained my overall cache theme.

 

Usually on the internet where you can't really guage a persons attitude from written text, things like winking smiley faces help to suggest the author was saying something in jest, and that it shouldn't be taken too seriously. I apologise if I wasn't 100% accurate, but I think you got the point I was trying to make.

 

BTW, yes, I do understand the difference between communism and facism.

 

feeling like you've just landed in communist germany in 1942 ;-)

 

Keep making comments like this and watch the little bit of support you still might have in this discussion go away really really fast. BTW the Communists were across the border in Germany. It was the Nazis who ruled Germany. You also might want to look up the meaning of Godwin's Law while you are considering your next move.

 

Back OT-you've been told repeatedly that the best way to get this cache listed, is to engage your reviewer in a discussion of how to properly modify your cache in order to bring it into compliance with the guidelines. I really do hope you are doing this, as all the posting in here complaining about the situation isn't going to gain you any traction with that desired goal; assuming you still do really want to get this special cache published?

You've been given lots of helpful hints in here, but it seems that you don't really want to listen to any of it.

[+wimseyguy]

Then you should also be aware that for some of us those times are more than just stories in history books. Some things just really are not funny no matter how many emoticons are used in the post.

[+keeweechris]

OK, point taken, sorry.

 

Then you should also be aware that for some of us those times are more than just stories in history books. Some things just really are not funny no matter how many emoticons are used in the post.

[+atmospherium]

Why doesn't Groundspeak just go ahead and make all their guidelines RULES. Then I could do something productive around the house instead of wasting my evenings giggling like a schoolgirl over threads like these.

 

Seriously: ccoutts, if the cache is that important to you, go ahead with it. Set up the cache, create your web site and post the starting coords there. Use whatever acceptable means at your disposal to advertise the cache. Just don't publish it at geocaching.com. Groundspeak doesn't own the sport of geocaching. You can maintain an independent cache if you want to. Can't you?

[+briansnat]

I hope the reviewers would see the value of my cache, and I hoped someone would be able to stretch the guidelines enough to let it be approved. Yes, I totally admit that it does not satisfy the saturation guidelines, but I was hoping that someone would see the tradeoff in bringing an educational, historical, interactive (and in my opinion exciting) cache into the area.

 

I've felt the same way about my ideas. There have been numerous times where I thought I found a great spot for a cache only to run into the .1 mile rule. Here is how I dealt with it. I said "darn!", then found another place for my cache.

 

I ran into a situation recently where another geocacher was planning an elaborate challenge series. To do it he needed the easternmost point in the state for one of his caches. It turned out that my cache blocked his and threatened his idea. He mentioned it to me and I offered to archive, or move my cache to accommodate his.

 

Ya know what happened? He didn't think it was right to aske me to move my cache, so he simply tweaked his idea. Now that's a mature way of handling things.