Should a vertical offset of 528 ft be allowed?

[+Sapper 1-6]

This may already be allowed, but if not I think a vertical offset of 528 ft should be allowed.

My example is this: I was looking forward to finding a cache at the St Louis Gateway Arch awhile back. However I was disappointed to discover that a challenge cache is placed at the Arch site, involving a cache find in every county of a certain region or some similar requirement. Nothing against this challenge cache, but unfortunately it prevents the average cacher or tourist cacher from finding a cool St Louis Arch cache.

Anyway, I was wondering if a cache could be allowed involving the Arch observatory in some way, which is offset vertically by 630 ft from the challenge cache. This new cache would allow tourists to actually have a cool cache find at this historic monument.

Question is: does a qualifying vertical offset qualify as meeting the density requirement of a tenth of a mile? If so, awesome. If not, I think it should.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

The governing body for the Gateway Arch is the National Park Service.

 

You will more than likely have a bit of trouble putting a cache there.

 

 

But, it is a fair question, if the Arch is not a part of it.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+BruceS]

The challenge cache showing on the Gateway Arch grounds is not actually on the Gateway Arch grounds. It is an older challenge cache that is grandfathered and is at another location the owner will provide. The only cache on the Gateway Arch grounds is a virtual. As has been pointed out the Gateway Arch grounds are National Park Service property and not one that allows caches.

Edited May 20, 2015 by BruceS

[+TriciaG]

But in general, forgetting the Arch, vertical offsets aren't allowed. I think the problem is that they'd be too hard to verify. Reviewers and cachers can determine the distance between two coordinates using the coordinates, but there's nothing in the system that can calculate the altitude.

[+wmpastor]

Vertical offsets: a good idea, but impractical because of the measurement difficulty.

[+K13]

The geocaching map is flat. It doesn't allow for vertical differences, like one cache on the sidewalk at the base of the Freedom Tower and another 1xxx feet up in the observation area of the building.

[+speakers-corner]

The geocaching map is flat. It doesn't allow for vertical differences, like one cache on the sidewalk at the base of the Freedom Tower and another 1xxx feet up in the observation area of the building.

I know of three caches that are above each other. They are in Ulm in Germany (GCJ7DQ, GCJ7DW and GCJ7E0) and have been there since 2004. They have been placed in the tallest church tower in the world.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The challenge cache showing on the Gateway Arch grounds is not actually on the Gateway Arch grounds. It is an older challenge cache that is grandfathered and is at another location the owner will provide. The only cache on the Gateway Arch grounds is a virtual. As has been pointed out the Gateway Arch grounds are National Park Service property and not one that allows caches.

 

The virtual at the gateway arch is, if I recall, used to be partially in the museum under the arch. The whole area is under construction now and the arch virtual is now much easier to "find". There is actually a challenge cache with published coordinate at almost the same coordinates but the final is elsewhere There were two traditional caches that I found that are on the same park like grounds as arch but both have archived (not because of permission issues...they had explicit permission from park rangers).

 

From what I've read altitude measurements using a GPS are not very accurate.

 

 

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The arch would be one of the rare places where two points could have the exact same coordinates but be separated by altitude. More practical examples that have been published are a cache at the top of a cliff and another at the bottom. The coordinates are very close together but due to the elevation distance and no direct (easy) path between them allows an exception to the 528 foot guideline.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Team GPSaxophone

[+NeverSummer]

The geocaching map is flat. It doesn't allow for vertical differences, like one cache on the sidewalk at the base of the Freedom Tower and another 1xxx feet up in the observation area of the building.

I know of three caches that are above each other. They are in Ulm in Germany (GCJ7DQ, GCJ7DW and GCJ7E0) and have been there since 2004. They have been placed in the tallest church tower in the world.

Exceptions exist, and these represent a few of them. Plus, as you said, they were placed in 2004.

 

Guidelines have changed and clarified through the years. "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is."

 

Also, note that there are more proximity issues than you've listed. Many were published more recently than 2004. Unknown, Multi, Wherigo, Letterbox hybrid, Traditional... 8 caches within 0.1 miles of the next, and many of them physical caches. the 2004 placements likely meet guidelines from grandfathering, but the others are...interesting. Greetings from Germany?

Edited May 20, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+jellis]

But in general, forgetting the Arch, vertical offsets aren't allowed. I think the problem is that they'd be too hard to verify. Reviewers and cachers can determine the distance between two coordinates using the coordinates, but there's nothing in the system that can calculate the altitude.

Unless things have changed Vertical caches were allowed when I had one get approved. I believe the reviewer checked with the GS and they allowed it. One cache was inside a tunnel and mine was on the top of the hill right above it.

edit to add. Many GPSs have elevations. You can record the elevation on the lower level and then go above and record the other elevation.

Edited May 21, 2015 by jellis

[+jellis]

The geocaching map is flat. It doesn't allow for vertical differences, like one cache on the sidewalk at the base of the Freedom Tower and another 1xxx feet up in the observation area of the building.

I know of three caches that are above each other. They are in Ulm in Germany (GCJ7DQ, GCJ7DW and GCJ7E0) and have been there since 2004. They have been placed in the tallest church tower in the world.

Exceptions exist, and these represent a few of them. Plus, as you said, they were placed in 2004.

 

Guidelines have changed and clarified through the years. "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is."

 

Also, note that there are more proximity issues than you've listed. Many were published more recently than 2004. Unknown, Multi, Wherigo, Letterbox hybrid, Traditional... 8 caches within 0.1 miles of the next, and many of them physical caches. the 2004 placements likely meet guidelines from grandfathering, but the others are...interesting. Greetings from Germany?

That is true but has anyone found the guideline that says vertical placements are NOT allowed.

[+ras_oscar]

the 528 foot rule is to prevent cache saturation in appealing locations and logging confusion. (I find cache A when I was searching for cache B. Sign paper log A and do an online log for B. CO audits paper log B and deletes my find. Flame war ensues) For any guideline there are valid exceptions. If there is sufficient separation by other than horizontal coordinates, it's best to discuss the matter with your reviewer rather than in the forums. That's what they are there for.

Edited May 21, 2015 by ras_oscar

[+NeverSummer]

The geocaching map is flat. It doesn't allow for vertical differences, like one cache on the sidewalk at the base of the Freedom Tower and another 1xxx feet up in the observation area of the building.

I know of three caches that are above each other. They are in Ulm in Germany (GCJ7DQ, GCJ7DW and GCJ7E0) and have been there since 2004. They have been placed in the tallest church tower in the world.

Exceptions exist, and these represent a few of them. Plus, as you said, they were placed in 2004.

 

Guidelines have changed and clarified through the years. "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is."

 

Also, note that there are more proximity issues than you've listed. Many were published more recently than 2004. Unknown, Multi, Wherigo, Letterbox hybrid, Traditional... 8 caches within 0.1 miles of the next, and many of them physical caches. the 2004 placements likely meet guidelines from grandfathering, but the others are...interesting. Greetings from Germany?

That is true but has anyone found the guideline that says vertical placements are NOT allowed.

I'm pretty sure this is covered by the saturation guideline. 528' is 528' is 528'. Then Reviewers are allowed to work with Groundspeak (appeals) to see if a placement can be made within the 528'. Sometimes this is an easier discussion when we include a large physical barrier such as a tunnel or cliff. But to place 3 caches stacked on top of one another at differing altitudes? I'd say that's best as a multi.

 

Then some will argue, "But I want credit for each individual waypoint, not just 1 for the multi! Waaaaah!"

[+jellis]

The geocaching map is flat. It doesn't allow for vertical differences, like one cache on the sidewalk at the base of the Freedom Tower and another 1xxx feet up in the observation area of the building.

I know of three caches that are above each other. They are in Ulm in Germany (GCJ7DQ, GCJ7DW and GCJ7E0) and have been there since 2004. They have been placed in the tallest church tower in the world.

Exceptions exist, and these represent a few of them. Plus, as you said, they were placed in 2004.

 

Guidelines have changed and clarified through the years. "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is."

 

Also, note that there are more proximity issues than you've listed. Many were published more recently than 2004. Unknown, Multi, Wherigo, Letterbox hybrid, Traditional... 8 caches within 0.1 miles of the next, and many of them physical caches. the 2004 placements likely meet guidelines from grandfathering, but the others are...interesting. Greetings from Germany?

That is true but has anyone found the guideline that says vertical placements are NOT allowed.

I'm pretty sure this is covered by the saturation guideline. 528' is 528' is 528'. Then Reviewers are allowed to work with Groundspeak (appeals) to see if a placement can be made within the 528'. Sometimes this is an easier discussion when we include a large physical barrier such as a tunnel or cliff. But to place 3 caches stacked on top of one another at differing altitudes? I'd say that's best as a multi.

 

Then some will argue, "But I want credit for each individual waypoint, not just 1 for the multi! Waaaaah!"

But it still doesn't say Vertical or Horizontal. If it is 528ft up a mountain it is still 528 ft away from the nearest no matter what angle

[+Touchstone]

But it still doesn't say Vertical or Horizontal. If it is 528ft up a mountain it is still 528 ft away from the nearest no matter what angle

 

I'm going to go with an earlier explanation that it should be easily verified on the website and the tools available to the Reviewers in order to streamline the review process as much as possible. We've been down the road of, "..I know there only 50 feet apart, but the walking distance is more than a mile...", etc.

 

The new maps available during the submission process makes it pretty black and white nowadays (aside from the hidden AW's of course). If you can't get past that step without throwing a red flag, I wouldn't expect an exception of any sort.

[+NeverSummer]

But it still doesn't say Vertical or Horizontal. If it is 528ft up a mountain it is still 528 ft away from the nearest no matter what angle

 

I'm going to go with an earlier explanation that it should be easily verified on the website and the tools available to the Reviewers in order to streamline the review process as much as possible. We've been down the road of, "..I know there only 50 feet apart, but the walking distance is more than a mile...", etc.

 

The new maps available during the submission process makes it pretty black and white nowadays (aside from the hidden AW's of course). If you can't get past that step without throwing a red flag, I wouldn't expect an exception of any sort.

And that's how every cache I've placed has been handled. I've actually appealed a cache location where it was ~500ft apart, but down a steep, steep embankment to the best possible hiding location next to a waterfall. But every other cache I've tried to place gets the "It's not the required 0.10 miles away from the next geocache or physical waypoint. Please move it..." response.

 

So, even a 528' vertical distance cache will get Reviewed, and it has more to do with 2D mapping than 3D.

[+jellis]

But it still doesn't say Vertical or Horizontal. If it is 528ft up a mountain it is still 528 ft away from the nearest no matter what angle

 

I'm going to go with an earlier explanation that it should be easily verified on the website and the tools available to the Reviewers in order to streamline the review process as much as possible. We've been down the road of, "..I know there only 50 feet apart, but the walking distance is more than a mile...", etc.

 

The new maps available during the submission process makes it pretty black and white nowadays (aside from the hidden AW's of course). If you can't get past that step without throwing a red flag, I wouldn't expect an exception of any sort.

I forgot which reviewer approved mine. Might have been the one who is .5 of our 3.5 reviewers in the Bay Area. The cache is still alive but I no longer own it.