Caches that break the saturation rule?

November 25, 2014

Would you report caches that break the saturation rule? Perhaps you would think that it is a rare occurrence and you were glad to have this exception to the rule.

Here are logs on a couple of them that I have seen.

I have to say that this is the first time I recall seeing a situation like this. Interesting, and certainly novel in the anals of geocaching. I'm thinking we didn't update certain people on certain things... and why would you? SL, TFTH.

I had heard the story of why the two of these were so close together and was thankful for the two easy smileys

TFTC

Yay FTF. Had to see a gentleman in xxxx so took advantage to grab a quick cache. Not sure what happened here as xxxxx Puzzle final no more than 50 meters away. Coords are bang on. SL, Thanks for the cache,

November 25, 2014

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?tx=32bc9333-5e52-4957-b0f6-5a2c8fc7b257&lat=51.322083&lng=-113.603600

6.1k · November 25, 2014

Of the two that are really close together, the latest one says the spot was chosen by a 6 year old, who also made the cache, so considering that I'd let it go. It looks like the reviewer made a boob, or there may be a backstory to it, but I wouldn't let it bother me either way.

7.4k · November 25, 2014

Annals, not anals. :laughing:

2.6k · November 25, 2014

The only time it happened to me, the reviewer had already noticed it. He had logged a note basically saying he missed it and had asked the owner to move it.

If I found one close to another which had not been publicly noticed, I think I would mention it in my log, just as an observation. I wouldn't try to hide the fact. But I would not specifically report it either (i.e. raise a NA, or contact the reviewer) unless I saw some issue. Perhaps the reviewer made an exception.

The one you posted is unusual in that it is two traditionals. I would think this is more likely to happen with multis and puzzles, especially older ones.

1.6k · November 25, 2014

There are exceptions to the saturation guidelines. In order to interpret any rule/guideline/regulation you really need to understand the purpose. In the case of spacing, i believe the intent is to prevent me from finding cache A when I'm looking for cache B, then getting into a disagreeement with cache B CO because I didn't sign the log. Ultimnately it's up to the CO and the reviewer to apply the guidelines to the specific situation. I kinda figure it's none of my business, but that's just how I roll.

21.9k · November 25, 2014

The owner of the newer cache asked for an exception to the cache saturation guideline (not "rule") because they were trying to replace an archived cache in the immediate area, but needed a better spot that put it too close to an existing cache. The reviewer, who was covering for a vacationing local reviewer, focused on a few other issues and published the cache.

Exceptions used to be granted quite frequently. Threads like this one remind me why I rarely do so anymore. If I grant one exception, for whatever reason, other geocachers who did not receive an exception sometimes feel like they've been treated unfairly.

Since the abolishment of the power trail restriction in the listing guidelines, reviewers have to say "yes" to caches 529 feet apart. It follows that we can say "no" to caches 527 feet apart. It provides for an objective, bright line test -- albeit a somewhat arbitrary one.

1.2k · November 25, 2014

Yes, back in the olden days my reviewer allowed a 14 foot deviation to the guidelines for one of mine. There were extenuating circumstances which may or may not hold water today.

21.9k · November 25, 2014

cheech gang, my PayPal address has not changed.

Nice of you to call it "extenuating circumstances," though.

November 25, 2014

................

I have to say that this is the first time I recall seeing a situation like this. Interesting, and certainly novel in the anals of geocaching. I'm thinking we didn't update certain people on certain things... and why would you? SL, TFTH.

......................

Annals, not anals.

Yep you are correct. I simply copied the log from the cache page.

I kinda like what is being said in the log. There are rules that should be followed, but once in a while it is interesting to have a little exception. Makes for an interesting conversation at the monthly caching breakfast.

November 25, 2014

Annals, not anals.

Just a simple N can make something entirely different

7.5k · November 25, 2014

Would you report caches that break the saturation rule?

No, I wouldn't report it unless it was causing a specific problem. Once I filed an NA because there was an old puzzle cache that didn't have its waypoints filed, and a new cache was published so close to one of the stages that I was afraid people would find the puzzle cache stage while looking for the new traditional, so I filed an NA on the new cache. It ended up with the owner of the old cache deciding to archive it, so I came to regret being so annal about it.

November 26, 2014

Would you report caches that break the saturation rule?

No, I wouldn't report it unless it was causing a specific problem. Once I filed an NA because there was an old puzzle cache that didn't have its waypoints filed, and a new cache was published so close to one of the stages that I was afraid people would find the puzzle cache stage while looking for the new traditional, so I filed an NA on the new cache. It ended up with the owner of the old cache deciding to archive it, so I came to regret being so annal about it.

LOL

7.8k · November 26, 2014

Would you report caches that break the saturation rule?

No, I wouldn't report it unless it was causing a specific problem. Once I filed an NA because there was an old puzzle cache that didn't have its waypoints filed, and a new cache was published so close to one of the stages that I was afraid people would find the puzzle cache stage while looking for the new traditional, so I filed an NA on the new cache. It ended up with the owner of the old cache deciding to archive it, so I came to regret being so annal about it.

10.1k · November 26, 2014

I've run across a few. But they were pretty old, and the guidelines were different. Traditional 78 feet from the first stage of a multi.

And a new cache placed 2" from the final of a multi. But in those days, the multi did not have the final coords listed for the reviewers. The traditional was archived.

7.4k · November 26, 2014

I don't think I'd even notice unless it was close enough to cause a problem. I know of some caches that are practically on top of each other because of errors in the additional waypoints.

7.5k · November 26, 2014

LOL

Glad you liked it. I was afraid it was too clumsy to be considered funny.

15.3k · November 26, 2014

I once found a new cache that was just a couple hundred feet from an older puzzle cache. I sent the reviewer who published it email. He hadn't been aware of the proximity (the older puzzle cache did not have a waypoint for its final location), but he wasn't concerned about it either.

7.5k · November 26, 2014

I once found a new cache that was just a couple hundred feet from an older puzzle cache. I sent the reviewer who published it email. He hadn't been aware of the proximity (the older puzzle cache did not have a waypoint for its final location), but he wasn't concerned about it either.

I found an old puzzle cache final about 30' from a new cache. The punchline was that the last 12 signatures in the old cache's log were people that thought they'd found the new cache.

November 26, 2014

I won't post any complaints about this fact. There are caches placed on our national website which are very close to those already published at geocaching.com. We talked recently about an example of two traditional caches in Norway where boxes are only 7 metres from each other. This could be a trouble (for .com users). 150 m (instead of 161 m) won't be a trouble to me as a visitor especially if locations are different. Not a question of life and death.

3.3k · November 26, 2014

I won't post any complaints about this fact. There are caches placed on our national website which are very close to those already published at geocaching.com. We talked recently about an example of two traditional caches in Norway where boxes are only 7 metres from each other. This could be a trouble (for .com users). 150 m (instead of 161 m) won't be a trouble to me as a visitor especially if locations are different. Not a question of life and death.

What would you guess the percent of cacher in your area are on geocaching.com vs. your national website?

There are other websites here as well, but no one uses them.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Andronicus

November 26, 2014

I won't post any complaints about this fact. There are caches placed on our national website which are very close to those already published at geocaching.com. We talked recently about an example of two traditional caches in Norway where boxes are only 7 metres from each other. This could be a trouble (for .com users). 150 m (instead of 161 m) won't be a trouble to me as a visitor especially if locations are different. Not a question of life and death.

What would you guess the percent of cacher in your area are on geocaching.com vs. your national website?

There are other websites here as well, but no one uses them.

Can't speak for CJ and the Russian website (which I hear is quite popular due to allowing submissions in the local language) but I do know that geocaching.com.au claim to have 20% of Australian caches listed exclusively on their site, looking at their map (they list both their own caches AND GC caches) it appears that in certain parts of my state the proportion of GCA caches is pushing 50%.

November 26, 2014

What would you guess the percent of cacher in your area are on geocaching.com vs. your national website?

I woudn't give you any numbers. At the moment the national website is obviously more popular in the local community with larger number of caches. As for the saturation issue, we (.com COs) know quite well about two websites and don't allow our caches to be placed near existing ones. Folks from the national website usually don't care. So, it may happen that you find a container quite close to the existing cache at geocaching.com outside of Russia. Folks from the international website surely don't know about such possibility. My point was that comparing to this a slighly shorter distance between two physical hides (say, 150 m instead of 161 m) with these two caches published on the same website would not be a saturation issue to me and if I run into such situation I won't post any notes about the problem.

Edited November 26, 2014 by -CJ-

1.3k · November 27, 2014

Probably and off subject question but what if a cache was placed and then another placed 540 feet VERTICALLY above the other cache. but would have almost identical coordinates. Would that make an exception????

1.8k · November 27, 2014

Probably and off subject question but what if a cache was placed and then another placed 540 feet VERTICALLY above the other cache. but would have almost identical coordinates. Would that make an exception????

SNNOOOOOOOOORRRRRTTTTT ... now I have to clean the nose goo off my computer screen.

7.5k · November 27, 2014

Probably and off subject question but what if a cache was placed and then another placed 540 feet VERTICALLY above the other cache. but would have almost identical coordinates. Would that make an exception????

Not normally, but I've run into a couple cases the reviewers thought were worthy of exceptions, although I don't think any were actually an entire 528 feet apart. (I'm still kicking myself for not checking for caches in Ulm when I was within a few feet of three different caches, all with the same coordinates...)

2.3k · November 27, 2014

Probably and off subject question but what if a cache was placed and then another placed 540 feet VERTICALLY above the other cache. but would have almost identical coordinates. Would that make an exception????

A few months ago, in my area, a cacher hid a new traditional cache and got it published. After publication, using a series of 50 and 100 foot moves, all in the same direction, he managed to move the cache location to the bottom of an abandoned tower. Which already had an active cache more than a hundred feet up the tower. The reviewer caught the subterfuge (which was even bragged about in the cache description), and promptly archive the new cache. So, no, verticality doesn't count.

--Larry

November 27, 2014

I found a couple a few years back that had identical coordinates but one (a mystery) was placed in a tunnel below the other. Directions to find it were in the first cache and you needed to drive 2.5km and walk another 1km to get to the location. They were placed in 2010 and were great fun.

November 28, 2014

I really appreciate this thread. I am new, but in my general area there is what I consider to be a dearth of active caches, particularly non-traditionals, so I've been solving that by placing some myself. I had two caches publish yesterday that had a related question. [spoiler alert for the locals...]

It's sort of a PNG- type traditional nano at the entrance to a cemetery, and a two-stage multi (both smalls) farther inside. I cache with my Android only (gasp! ah, at least, thus far!) The way I measured the distance from the PNG, it came out to something like 544 feet. The actual terrain would make it farther, but I knew the straight-line coords distance would be what counted. I hoped my measurements were accurate, and told the reviewer so, but I also wondered if this wouldn't be granted some leniency because the cache types were so obviously different. I guess my measurements were OK, though (or else the leniency was granted with no comment), because I got no reviewer feedback and both caches published.

And as far as the moving them goes, I will wait to see how many people comment on the accuracy of the coordinates. To me, the maps look like the PNG are in the middle of the road, but I get those coordinates with every check. But maybe they won't comment on it because it's so obvious what IS the right location? If I have to adjust them very far, by my measurements I've only got 15 feet of wiggle-room.

(I'd love to read others' opinions about this)

November 29, 2014

Well, I have a cache that is 522 feet away from another, so you can say that I'm bad to the bone

November 29, 2014

I accidentally posted something twice so

Edited November 29, 2014 by crazypig88

1.2k · November 29, 2014

I accidentally posted something twice so

So you are bad to the bone.

3.6k · November 29, 2014

We found a puzzle cache that was within 528ft from 3 different caches. They got away with it because the puzzle gave the correct location of the final cache but the reviewers didn't know that the coords posted for waypoint were faked to make it look like it was legit. That got archived.

We were involved in an accidental goof. I hid a traditional and when it went live a puzzle owner asked how I ended up it being 20ft from his final. He double checked his final coords for the waypoint and noticed they were incorrect. I archived my cache for him.

Another incident is when a newbie contacted a cacher and asked her to archive one of her caches so they can place a cache near the spot she had hers. The CO refused because it was old and didn't want to give up the spot. So the new cacher purposely put bad coords on her multi final waypoint so she could have it near the other cache. That got archived.

And another example was when a CO who placed a puzzle cache at the posted coords before they had to report their finals coords. He didn't think it was necessary cause it was at the posted coords. Years later here comes a cacher who had found the puzzle and knew it was there, places a traditional 10ft from it. The CO of the puzzle found out and updated his final waypoint and the traditional was archived.

1.6k · November 29, 2014

I really appreciate this thread. I am new, but in my general area there is what I consider to be a dearth of active caches, particularly non-traditionals, so I've been solving that by placing some myself. I had two caches publish yesterday that had a related question. [spoiler alert for the locals...]

It's sort of a PNG- type traditional nano at the entrance to a cemetery, and a two-stage multi (both smalls) farther inside. I cache with my Android only (gasp! ah, at least, thus far!) The way I measured the distance from the PNG, it came out to something like 544 feet. The actual terrain would make it farther, but I knew the straight-line coords distance would be what counted. I hoped my measurements were accurate, and told the reviewer so, but I also wondered if this wouldn't be granted some leniency because the cache types were so obviously different. I guess my measurements were OK, though (or else the leniency was granted with no comment), because I got no reviewer feedback and both caches published.

And as far as the moving them goes, I will wait to see how many people comment on the accuracy of the coordinates. To me, the maps look like the PNG are in the middle of the road, but I get those coordinates with every check. But maybe they won't comment on it because it's so obvious what IS the right location? If I have to adjust them very far, by my measurements I've only got 15 feet of wiggle-room.

(I'd love to read others' opinions about this)

Where the cache is located with respect to features on a particular map depends on many things, including the accuracy of the map. If the map you are using says its in the middle of the road and you know that's not true, and assuming you have been diligent about gathering accurate coordinates, I wouldn't worry about it. The technology we use today is far more accurate than the technology used to locate geographic features (such as roads) a few decades ago.

2.6k · December 2, 2014

Ok, it just happened to me. And I didn't report it or mention it.

It was a traditional, 264ft from another traditional. The cache was hidden in 2011; the one it was close to in 2010.

I assume the reviewer made an exception. The cache was dedicated to the cache owner's late husband. I think the location was one which had special meaning.

They were at different levels - there was a steep set of steps between them.

3.3k · December 2, 2014

Ok, it just happened to me. And I didn't report it or mention it.

It was a traditional, 264ft from another traditional. The cache was hidden in 2011; the one it was close to in 2010.

I assume the reviewer made an exception. The cache was dedicated to the cache owner's late husband. I think the location was one which had special meaning.

They were at different levels - there was a steep set of steps between them.

And the world didn't come to an end, people! The sun will rise tomorrow. Cachers will not become befuddled. Sensitive ecosystems will not be disrupted. Caching will not be given a bad name. Let it be. Legalistic-types, please remember this is a non-competitive sport, and occasionally modifying the rules for the sake of people can be a good thing. The reviewer knew the facts (including the nature of the surrounding land) and I respect the decision.

3.6k · December 10, 2014

They were at different levels - there was a steep set of steps between them.

I use to own a cache that was a little over 528ft above another cache. It was allowed after we explained it to the reviewers.

1.4k · December 10, 2014

I wouldn't worry about it. It somehow got published. Unless there was something making it a problem I would just log it and move on with my game.

5.7k · December 10, 2014

I assume for the same of argument that, when traditional caches have listed coordinates within 528 feet of each other, a reviewer has granted an exception to policy.

Not normally the case for puzzle or multi cache finals, often those are being done without the reviewer's knowledge.

6k · December 10, 2014

True if they are listed correctly. I climbed a hill in Kingman last year and after being unable to find a traditional I read the description which said go a distance on a bearing to find it. Obviously it wasn't written that way when submitted. Sure enough when I checked the new location was 400 feet from another. I never found the cache but logged it anyhow.

10.1k · December 10, 2014

True if they are listed correctly. I climbed a hill in Kingman last year and after being unable to find a traditional I read the description which said go a distance on a bearing to find it. Obviously it wasn't written that way when submitted. Sure enough when I checked the new location was 400 feet from another. I never found the cache but logged it anyhow.

You didn't find it, but logged it anyway?!?!?

6k · December 11, 2014

Yep I figure I found the spot it was supposed to be and his illegal moving to violate saturation guidelines gave some latitude. It was that or report him and I didn't want to take that time. So two wrongs do sometimes make a right.

5.2k · December 11, 2014

So two wrongs do sometimes make a right.

But not in this case. You should have logged a NA.

December 11, 2014

Yep I figure I found the spot it was supposed to be and his illegal moving to violate saturation guidelines gave some latitude. It was that or report him and I didn't want to take that time. So two wrongs do sometimes make a right.

Sounds like a false find either way you try to justify it.

Changing the drop down box from "find" to "needs archived" wouldn't have taken but an extra second.

6k · December 11, 2014

Just going along with the local community values when i travel. It was logged regularly with no mention.

December 11, 2014

Here is part of my original post starting this thread.

Here was my question. What would you do?

Would you report caches that break the saturation rule? Perhaps you would think that it is a rare occurrence and you were glad to have this exception to the rule.

Here are logs on a couple of them that I have seen.

I have to say that this is the first time I recall seeing a situation like this. Interesting, and certainly novel in the annals of geocaching. I'm thinking we didn't update certain people on certain things... and why would you? SL, TFTH.

I had heard the story of why the two of these were so close together and was thankful for the two easy smileys

TFTC

3.4k · December 11, 2014

I did report it when I found a new puzzle final only about 150 ft (don't really remember how far it was--but way too close) from an existing cache. Puzzle hider was told to move it.

3.3k · December 11, 2014

Probably and off subject question but what if a cache was placed and then another placed 540 feet VERTICALLY above the other cache. but would have almost identical coordinates. Would that make an exception????

This situation could exist at the Cliffs of Dover on the southern coast of England. Let's say one cache was on the beach below, and one cache was in the park above, near the edge of the cliff (which have no fences, by the way). The drop-off is not gradual, it's virtually straight down.

If the saturation rule was violated, IMO it would be a mistake for a reviewer not to grant an exception.

1.5k · December 12, 2014

Sometimes a Reviewer simply makes a mistake and publishes a cache too close to another. When this happens, the Reviewer has the discretion to let the mistake stand rather than "punishing" the Cache Owner and Cache Seekers by retracting the cache.

Sometimes a Reviewer does not know there the intermediate and/or final stages of a multi-cache or puzzle cache are located because the provided waypoints are intentionally or unintentionally incorrect or, if an older cache, waypoints aren't available.

Allowing an exception to the proximity guideline due to a terrain feature such as a cliff, a river, an autobahn, etc., is a slippery slope because it opens the door for arguments about what is a sufficiently steep cliff, how much of a detour is required to get to a bridge across the natural or manmade feature, etc.

14k · December 14, 2014

Probably and off subject question but what if a cache was placed and then another placed 540 feet VERTICALLY above the other cache. but would have almost identical coordinates. Would that make an exception????

This situation could exist at the Cliffs of Dover on the southern coast of England. Let's say one cache was on the beach below, and one cache was in the park above, near the edge of the cliff (which have no fences, by the way). The drop-off is not gradual, it's virtually straight down.

If the saturation rule was violated, IMO it would be a mistake for a reviewer not to grant an exception.

From what I just read the Cliffs of Dover are about 10 miles long. Seems to me that there would be plenty of spots to place a cache without having them on top of each other.

Caches that break the saturation rule?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment