Couldn't change Cache Type

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I came across a cache that is a multi but listed as a traditional. It has "(multi cache)" in the cache name and the description starts with:

 

" * it wouldn't let me change the cache type.

cache type is wrong sorry."

 

Just seems odd that GS would publish as is instead of helping the cacher get it right. Anyone ever come across one like this?

[+Walts Hunting]

Looks like a great place for a NA log. It is true you can't change types without reviewer intervention. He needs to contact his reviewer to get it straightened out.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I seriously doubt it was published as you see it.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Isonzo Karst

[Pup Patrol]

I came across a cache that is a multi but listed as a traditional. It has "(multi cache)" in the cache name and the description starts with:

 

" * it wouldn't let me change the cache type.

cache type is wrong sorry."

 

It's necessary to involve the reviewer when attempting a "major change" to a cache listing after it's published.

 

Help Center → Geocaching → Cache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

6.11. Editing a Published Listing: Major Change.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=76

 

Just seems odd that GS would publish as is instead of helping the cacher get it right. Anyone ever come across one like this?

 

It sounds like the cache and its description were changed after it was originally published as a multicache. The reviewer wouldn't know anything about it unless it is reported to him/her via a "Needs Archived" log or attempted to find it after the change.

 

And, yes, I've seen a cache or two where the original multicache placement was changed to a single cache, without going through the proper channels. They were eventually archived.

 

 

B.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[+CanadianRockies]

It sounds to me like the cache owner accidentally selected the traditional cache type, and the reviewer published it as a traditional without catching the error. (Reviewers are human and fallible.) The owner probably discovered that they couldn't change the cache type themselves, so they changed the description to alert people that it actually is a multi-cache. They likely have no idea that a quick note to the reviewer could have straightened everything out.

Edited September 8, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[Mr.Yuck]

It sounds to me like the cache owner accidentally selected the traditional cache type, and the reviewer published it as a traditional without catching the error. (Reviewers are human and fallible.) The owner probably discovered that they couldn't change the cache type themselves, so they changed the description to alert people that it actually is a multi-cache. They likely have no idea that a quick note to the reviewer could have straightened everything out.

 

There were three 2002 placed caches in the same park that involved about a 3 mile hike in my area, that the owner, who only went on to find about 5 caches themselves, listed as Multi's, because, well, there were three of them. This went on for about 6 years before they were adopted, and the new owner asked for a change of cache type.

 

I will agree with CanadianRockies that what I'm quoting is most likely what happened. This cache owner mentioned in the OP needs to ask a reviewer to change the cache type. Yes, the reviewers are human. More recent examples in my area include a parking lot micro that was a totally blatant "vacation cache" by someone from another State (which fortunately only lasted about a month), and another "cache type" one, which was published as a Traditional, but "posted coordinates are for parking", and you need to use clues to find the cache hundreds of feet away. That one is a fiasco, with just about every finder mentioning it shouldn't be a traditional, and using other sets of posted coords by finders, along with a somewhat militant newb who refuses to get it changed. No, I'm not "reporting" him, it's fun to watch.

Edited September 8, 2012 by Mr.Yuck