Getting a cache published

[+Jumpedin2it]

Good day to all

 

I recently placed a new cache in the hope of getting it published. It is a strip of magnetic numbers and letters that I have stuck onto a steel power pole near a new Community Centre in my home town. There is a waterproof paper log stuck to the back side of the magnetic strip.

 

The publisher is refusing to publish the cache as it does not have a container, which is a breach of the Geocaching Guidelines. His comments are cut and pasted below:

 

"In the section about traditional caches, the original cache type and the one that spawned all others. The section begins "This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook"

 

All caches have to meet the guidelines for a traditional cache as well as any additional requirements for the specific cache type.

 

also, in the section headed Guidelines that Apply to all Cache Types you will find:

"For all physical caches and waypoints, think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public."

 

reiterating the need for a container.

 

Are you telling me you didn't read and don't understand the guidelines?

 

Just because you bought something from a store doesn't make it suitable.

 

As for other caches, I don't know of any others that use magnetic numbers, and if there are, they may be covered by the phrase near the top of the guidelines:

"there is no precedent for placing caches."

 

I totally understand the need to have containers for trackables and swaps but nano and micro caches are not suitable for swaps. He mentions that all new caches have to meet the guidelines for a traditional cache as well as any additional requirements for the specific cache type Why? Where is the scope for different and unusual caches? Virtual Caches don't have containers. In this instance there appears to be no flexibility given to release my new cache.

 

The Guidelines also mention that I can post a message on these forums to see what the wider caching community thinks about my issue. Please post your thoughts and if most people think that my magnetic strip cache may be suitable I may be able to have the decision reviewed.

 

Thanks

Jumpedin2it (1172 finds, 12 hidden)

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Virtual Caches don't have containers.

Virtual caches haven't been published in a few years. Might want to use a different argument.

 

That said, the magnetic strip is the "container" and you've already described it has a log. It might be better if the log were in a plastic baggie, but if it is as described it is publishable.

[+M 5]

I've actually seen several of these. I have seen it mentioned on here, but didn't follow the thread very close. I will be interested in the discussion on this one. On a related note about those same guidelines. I wonder about the minimum requirement of a container and logbook. Since it is often said in here (I dont agree) that you don't need to sign the log. This will devolve into no logbook or container needed. All virts.

[+StarBrand]

Another similar thread very recently mentioned that such a hide would not qualify as a cache unless the magnet held in place some kind of container with the log. Taken strictly - that is exactly what the guideline says - so I for one have to agree with the reviewer.

[+succotash]

We have found several caches that were flat magnetic sheets (including strips of letters and numbers). In all cases there was a logsheet inside a baggie behind the magnet.

[+Jumpedin2it]

Team GPSaxophone thanks for the reply.

 

My mistake on my original post. I meant to say Earth Caches do not have a container.

 

Cheers

Jumpedin2it

[+wimseyguy]

Go retrieve your magnetic strip. Fashion a pouch out of a plastic ziploc baggie and place your logsheet inside the bag. Now your not so novel cache idea will actually be a container in that the log is contained within the object and not merely glued to the back of the object.

 

Don't try and compare traditional caches with Earthcaches. It's like comparing Vegimate and something edible.

[+moose61]

We have found several caches that were flat magnetic sheets (including strips of letters and numbers). In all cases there was a logsheet inside a baggie behind the magnet.

 

That's correct. I found simular hides. Although the requirement specifies a cache container there are no specification which a cache container must meet.

 

I agree, sometimes from hiding point of view a cache container might not be needed, it is a requirement. So take the easy way and put it in a baggie also.

 

Regards, Moose61

[+skraeling]

Another similar thread very recently mentioned that such a hide would not qualify as a cache unless the magnet held in place some kind of container with the log. Taken strictly - that is exactly what the guideline says - so I for one have to agree with the reviewer.

 

The reviewers better get busy archiving caches then - there are tons of that type out here in the wild wild west.

[cmaille]

We have one like that locally, and let me tell you, it was a toughie for me and my son when we searched for it! The one locally does NOT have a log *sheet* per-se, but the strip of vinyl magnet is the log *and* the container rolled into one. People sign the back of the magnet proper and place it back where it was stuck. When the magnet is full, someone logs a need maint. and the CO is pretty prompt at replacing it. This one was approved, and I have heard stories of several others just like it. So, even if there are no precedents for caches, there are others out there, approved and active, without having to have a log sheet in a baggie.

[+Harry Dolphin]

When Geocaching makes a change such as this, the older caches, which were permitted when approved, are grandfathered. It has been several months (maybe a year?) since 'sign the back of the magnetic strip' has been permitted. It appears that a ZipLock bag attached to the back of the magnetic strip qualifies as 'a container'. You may wish to ask your approver. Unfortunately, that does not make as good a cache. There's a lump! Oh, well. Makes 'em easier to find...

Just because something has been permitted in the past, that does not mean that it is acceptable now. No! You may not hide a 'moving cache', as an example. The old ones are grandfathered. New ones are not acceptable.

[Keystone]

Another similar thread very recently mentioned that such a hide would not qualify as a cache unless the magnet held in place some kind of container with the log. Taken strictly - that is exactly what the guideline says - so I for one have to agree with the reviewer.

 

The reviewers better get busy archiving caches then - there are tons of that type out here in the wild wild west.

I am sure I've published caches like this, without realizing it. If you'd like to add more bureaucracy to the review process, we could require a picture or detailed description of every container to be given privately to the reviewer. Or, we can trust folks to use a real container to enclose their log.

 

When Geocaching makes a change such as this, the older caches, which were permitted when approved, are grandfathered. It has been several months (maybe a year?) since 'sign the back of the magnetic strip' has been permitted. It appears that a ZipLock bag attached to the back of the magnetic strip qualifies as 'a container'. You may wish to ask your approver. Unfortunately, that does not make as good a cache. There's a lump! Oh, well. Makes 'em easier to find...

Just because something has been permitted in the past, that does not mean that it is acceptable now. No! You may not hide a 'moving cache', as an example. The old ones are grandfathered. New ones are not acceptable.

Great post, but your calendar moves at a different speed than mine. "Magnet only" caches being frowned upon, and the "container must enclose the log" standard, are concepts that have been in effect since 2008. See, for example, this post by a wise old sage from way back then.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Keystone

[+lamoracke]

seen over 10 of these type of caches, easy, maybe almost 20. Have seen some in British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. I have seen caches where the final is a piece of paper on a community board. They will be busy archiving. The reality is, never had a reviewer ask a question what type of container it is...ever, so how would they know not to publish it? Well, at least around here, they have never asked to the best of my knowledge in my time period. Dont see any reason why a nano container is any more of a "container" than a magnetic strip. They both hold a log sheet and thats all that matters I would think.

Edited January 29, 2011 by lamoracke

[+Team Shiney]

The only magnetic strip I have seen used was for the first stage of a multi that led to a traditional container. A micro/log only container in fact. You could make it a stage of a multi. Can't have any complaints about that.

 

Still I see nothing wrong with some waterproof paper on the backside of a magnetic sheet. No leaky baggy needed. A larger sheet will hold alot more room for logs then the nanos I find. Oh make it really big then call it a micro since it is "log only". Did I not see a picture of a warning or no trespassing sign with the log on the back somewere? Seems much the same. Lets see more creative caches folks, not fewer.

 

Steven of Team Shiney

[+Tsnake]

"In the section about traditional caches, the original cache type and the one that spawned all others. The section begins "This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook"

 

All caches have to meet the guidelines for a traditional cache as well as any additional requirements for the specific cache type.

 

also, in the section headed Guidelines that Apply to all Cache Types you will find:

"For all physical caches and waypoints, think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public."

 

reiterating the need for a container.

 

Are you telling me you didn't read and don't understand the guidelines?

 

Just because you bought something from a store doesn't make it suitable.

 

As for other caches, I don't know of any others that use magnetic numbers, and if there are, they may be covered by the phrase near the top of the guidelines:

"there is no precedent for placing caches."

 

Kidda sounds like you reviewer is not a very nice person "Are you telling me you didn't read and don't understand the guidelines?

". Seems to me that could have been stated in a different manner.

 

A container is "an object used for or capable of holding, esp for transport or storage, such as a carton, box, etc ". So, your magnetic strip covers the log strip from the front, the pole covers it from the back, and the lines where they meet cover the top, bottom, left and right. Thus, a container. Especially if the log sheet is waterproof, you elimate damage to the log.

 

In my area GC1B9H0 hidden in 2008 and GC13GZ5 hidden in 2007. So there is a precendent, but as the moderator said, it may have been phased out in 2008.

[Keystone]

Kidda sounds like you reviewer is not a very nice person "Are you telling me you didn't read and don't understand the guidelines?

". Seems to me that could have been stated in a different manner.

One can make a poor choice of words, or become upset, and still be a nice person.

 

It would help here for readers to know that the quoted note was the reviewer's third communication to the cache owner about the very same point. His frustration is evident in his choice of words.

[+Cardinal Red]

Go retrieve your magnetic strip. Fashion a pouch out of a plastic ziploc baggie and place your logsheet inside the bag. Now your not so novel cache idea will actually be a container in that the log is contained within the object and not merely glued to the back of the object.

Well that explains the soggy log in a cheap baggie I found on a magnetic strip recently. I think it's a great idea to now mandate a container that is guaranteed to NOT be weatherproof. That's progress for you.

[+TerraViators]

Another similar thread very recently mentioned that such a hide would not qualify as a cache unless the magnet held in place some kind of container with the log. Taken strictly - that is exactly what the guideline says - so I for one have to agree with the reviewer.

 

The reviewers better get busy archiving caches then - there are tons of that type out here in the wild wild west.

Yep, have seen several in my area.

[+TerraViators]

I would be willing to provide photos of my cache containers.

[+TerraViators]

Kidda sounds like you reviewer is not a very nice person "Are you telling me you didn't read and don't understand the guidelines?

". Seems to me that could have been stated in a different manner.

One can make a poor choice of words, or become upset, and still be a nice person.

 

It would help here for readers to know that the quoted note was the reviewer's third communication to the cache owner about the very same point. His frustration is evident in his choice of words.

Agreed, yet still not acceptable. The more accurate post would have been, "Kinda sounds like you reviewer wasn't being a very nice person"

Edited January 31, 2011 by TerraViators

[+Tazicon]

Most people just list the container as unknown then they get published.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Team GPSaxophone thanks for the reply.

 

My mistake on my original post. I meant to say Earth Caches do not have a container.

 

Cheers

Jumpedin2it

...either way...you are comparing apples and bananas...

 

To be on-topic...I would agree with the Reviewer.