1 geocache, multiple containers with logbook, 1 set of coordinates

[+JPreto]

In another Topic about Throwdowns myself, "tozainamboku" and "cezanne" started to talk about this possibility:

 

The comment by JPreto that he plans to number his containers in the future, made me remember that I even considered to leave for a certain cache two final containers at trees nearby. I used this approach successfully already for intermediary stages of a multi cache nearby. If the same coordinates can be used and if one accepts finds in both containers, the only issue that might arise is that trackables might easier get stuck.

If any reviewer knew about this he would probably disable the cache and ask you to remove one of the containers. 2 containers in the same coordinates and you can sign any of them?!?!?

Really?

 

I understand that according to the help center article on throwdowns "multiple or inconsistent containers can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place." I'm not aware of any guideline that says you can't have two containers and allow logs in either of them.

 

Just to resume, these are the conditions:

 

- 1 geocache

- multiple ending containers (each one with it´s own logbook)

- 1 set of coordinates

 

Is this possible according to the GeoCaching.com Guidelines, Help Center articles and GeoCaching 101?

[+GeoBain]

In another Topic about Throwdowns myself, "tozainamboku" and "cezanne" started to talk about this possibility:

 

The comment by JPreto that he plans to number his containers in the future, made me remember that I even considered to leave for a certain cache two final containers at trees nearby. I used this approach successfully already for intermediary stages of a multi cache nearby. If the same coordinates can be used and if one accepts finds in both containers, the only issue that might arise is that trackables might easier get stuck.

If any reviewer knew about this he would probably disable the cache and ask you to remove one of the containers. 2 containers in the same coordinates and you can sign any of them?!?!?

Really?

 

I understand that according to the help center article on throwdowns "multiple or inconsistent containers can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place." I'm not aware of any guideline that says you can't have two containers and allow logs in either of them.

 

Just to resume, these are the conditions:

 

- 1 geocache

- multiple ending containers (each one with it´s own logbook)

- 1 set of coordinates

 

Is this possible according to the GeoCaching.com Guidelines, Help Center articles and GeoCaching 101?

 

Do you see a prohibition against it?

 

While "multiple or inconsistent containers can often be a sign that a maintenance visit by the geocache owner has not taken place", it is not a guarantee that maintenance has not taken place; especially if the cache was designed that way from the beginning.

[Keystone]

It would be impossible for every conceivable cache design to be covered explicitly by the Listing Requirements/Guidelines, the Help Center and the Geocaching 101 information. Otherwise the requirements for hiding a cache would look like the US Tax Code. And reviewers would not like having to enforce guidelines which are that detailed.

 

 

The reviewer would likely ask for more information about the owner's intentions and the cache design details.

 

 

Doesn't the second reviewer look intrigued, and willing to work with a serious cache owner with a good plan?

[+wmpastor]

What I'm hearing Keystone say is that it's not prohibited and is therefore a possibility. However, be prepared to explain what the "h" you're doing!

 

It would seem difficulty would go way, way down with several logs at the same coords.

[+niraD]

- 1 geocache

- multiple ending containers (each one with it´s own logbook)

- 1 set of coordinates

 

Is this possible according to the GeoCaching.com Guidelines, Help Center articles and GeoCaching 101?

I don't see why not. And yes, I've seen caches that fit that description. Some had acquired throwdowns. Some had acquired owner-supplied replacement containers, when the owner just DNFed his/her own cache. And some were intentionally designed with multiple containers, as part of the owner's unusual cache concept.

[+Roman!]

- The primary location has been replaced (again on 10Aug12), just STOP and smell the roses. In aaddition, I've scattered some extras up and down the street.

 

- There is also a magnetic tube: N37 48.123 W122 25.171

 

- There is a hanger just down about 70 feet or so from the top on the right hand side in a bush/tree: N37 48.130 W122 25.158

 

- Another "attractive" tube at N37 48.123 W122 25.145 at the base of the post supporting the sprinkler

 

Feel free to find and log any one of these.

 

Like this?

 

 

Oddly enough I DNFed every single one of the locations.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Roman!

[+Roman!]

 

Oddly enough I DNFed every single one of the locations.

 

Seems I'm not the only one but there should not be any DNFs.

[+WarNinjas]

We have out a cache with a couple of containers. It is not intentional. I can't find our original and it needs maintenance. I go and place a obvious one but somehow cachers find the original that I can't find.

[+nosynellies]

This makes an idea I've been throwing around for a while sound much more possible. I have a lot of work to do.

[cezanne]

It would seem difficulty would go way, way down with several logs at the same coords.

 

Not necessarily.

 

I know several cases where finding the container up in the tree and the container down at the base is

of comparable difficulty (both hideouts obvious) and the idea of having two containers is to make the final available also to those who cannot climb up the tree. I have seen this both for puzzle caches where the cache was not about the climbing challenge (just an additional option) and for traditionals (one example I remember is a memorial cache for a cacher who died in an accident and has been an avid climber - the cache should be available however also to cachers who cannot climb). The climbers among the visitors of the memorial cache and in particular friends of the late cacher to whom the memorial cache is dedicated are happy that they can recall nice climbing adventures with their friend when climbing up to the cache and others who cannot climb get their chance too.

 

All the example caches of this type clearly state in the description that there are two containers and where and why and the caches work well without any conflicts.

 

I agree however with you that it can reduce the difficulty rating to provide two containers.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 28, 2014 by cezanne

[+Ben0w]

Groundspeak as a private company owns the database and thus is totally free in accepting or rejecting cache listings there. For a good customer relationship this freedom should be taken responsible and in a reliable manner. Therefore "guidelines" are an instrument to communicate, what Groundspeak may find acceptable to list or not. How THEY apply those guidelines is totally up to them and their enlisted helpers (reviewers). You simply don't have any right to be treated equally as long as it's not against business laws - Groundspeak is not a democratic entity nor has to be. If you're not satisfied with their service, you can quit the contract. No problem here - and there are other listing services available.

 

On the other hand, if something isn't covered in the guidelines or even against them, Groundspeak (represented by reviewers) may be negotiated into accepting the idea, if it somehow fits in their business model. You can try to convince them, that your idea is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread. But still it's their choice. Your choice is to accept that (or not) by using (or not) their database.

 

Sometimes I think that isn't understood well. It's just business. Nothing bad with that.

[cezanne]

How THEY apply those guidelines is totally up to them and their enlisted helpers (reviewers). You simply don't have any right to be treated equally as long as it's not against business laws - Groundspeak is not a democratic entity nor has to be. If you're not satisfied with their service, you can quit the contract. No problem here - and there are other listing services available.

 

On the other hand, if something isn't covered in the guidelines or even against them, Groundspeak (represented by reviewers) may be negotiated into accepting the idea, if it somehow fits in their business model. You can try to convince them, that your idea is the best thing since the invention of sliced bread. But still it's their choice. Your choice is to accept that (or not) by using (or not) their database.

 

Of course, it's Groundspeak's and the handling reviewer's decision which caches are accepted and this decision needs to be respected by geocachers if it is definite. In cases where the guidelines are not specific, I wonder however what makes individual cachers believe that they are the guardians of geocaching and accuse others of breaking the guidelines in cases where the guidelines do not say something specific

Why should a cacher object against two containers, one up at a tree and one at the base if Groundspeak and the reviewers don't?

[+Ben0w]

Why should a cacher object against two containers, one up at a tree and one at the base if Groundspeak and the reviewers don't?

Sometimes it isn't that clear if the reviewer was aware of the exact situation on scene. If another cacher finds a cache questionable, it is OK to express this. Then a reviewer may have a closer look to this and decide again.

 

That gives a lot of freedom, better than beeing bound to an all exact law book. It needs negotiation skills, though.

 

What's not acceptable is to play tricks during reviewing process, i.e. directly betraying the reviewer or trying to knowingly expand the rules to the very extent (and maybe beyond) without involving the reviewer. However, this is sort of a sport for some people. That's not what I call creative.

 

EDIT: BTW, I'm totally fine with a good (!) cache having two containers as long as the reviewer is aware of that and has it knowingly published. That's not a critical "game killer".

Edited August 28, 2014 by Ben0w

[cezanne]

Why should a cacher object against two containers, one up at a tree and one at the base if Groundspeak and the reviewers don't?

Sometimes it isn't that clear if the reviewer was aware of the exact situation on scene. If another cacher finds a cache questionable, it is OK to express this. Then a reviewer may have a closer look to this and decide again.

 

Along the same lines I could start to question cache containers with a blue lid or Harry Potter theme caches etc.

If someone wonders whether a cache might have a legal issue or might harm geocaching or might collide with a specific statement of the guidelines (e.g. the everlasting debate what makes a container), I can understand what makes someone to regard a cache as questionable.

 

 

BTW, I'm totally fine with a good (!) cache having two containers as long as the reviewer is aware of that and has it knowingly published. That's not a critical "game killer".

 

Why shouldn't a bad cache have two containers too? That's not a question of quality.

 

There is not a single statement somewhere in the guidelines, help center etc that excludes caches with say one container up a tree and one at the base of the tree and this is not a matter of quality.

Otherwise, most powertrails would need to be rejected due to lacking quality.

[+wmpastor]

 

Oddly enough I DNFed every single one of the locations.

 

Seems I'm not the only one but there should not be any DNFs.

Amazing! The CO *invites* throwdowns and will add them to the roster of possible caches to find.

 

A good cache for groups - everyone can find a separate container!

[+DeepButi]

I cannot see all phisical stages marked as such ... so it has now "missing" important information and would not pass any review process ... Not a good example to bring here!

[cezanne]

I cannot see all phisical stages marked as such ... so it has now "missing" important information and would not pass any review process ... Not a good example to bring here!

 

The original question was referring to two containers at the same coordinates and both are mentioned in the cache description and everyone can choose the one he/she want to log.

I know cases where cachers had entered two or more final coordinate waypoints and this resulted in objections by a reviewer, but that's not the case when the coordinates stay the same.

[+JL_HSTRE]

If there are multiple containers it seems they should all be more or less at the coords. "Backup" hundreds of feet away or evenacross street even doesn't seem appropriat.

 

I have seen a listing for at least one multicache where each STAGE had a backup container with the next coords, but there was only one final.

 

Having an alternate container at the base of a tree climber is inappropriate because one of those caches will have incorrect attributes and D/T. Also, you either want people to experience climbing the tree or you don't. If they are physically incapable of climbing do what most cachers do: bring a friend who can climb for you.

[cezanne]

Having an alternate container at the base of a tree climber is inappropriate because one of those caches will have incorrect attributes and D/T. Also, you either want people to experience climbing the tree or you don't.

 

You can easily have both at the same time. D could be the same and as T is regarded, one easily could use the higher rating and mention in the description that for the alternative container a lower rating applies.

Those who climb, get the proper rating. Those who do not climb, can either ignore the cache or can log the alternative container. Those who care about whether they deserve the T-rating are still in a better situation than if someone else is doing the climb and they have not reached the log sheet on their own.

 

Alternatively one could also design the container down at the base as the standard container and write in the cache description that those who like a greater challenge can log the container up the tree.

 

If they are physically incapable of climbing do what most cachers do: bring a friend who can climb for you.

 

I never would want to log a cache that way. I prefer by far if a cache owner explicitly offers two options. Then I do not feel like a cheater.

[+JPreto]

 

Oddly enough I DNFed every single one of the locations.

 

Seems I'm not the only one but there should not be any DNFs.

Amazing! The CO *invites* throwdowns and will add them to the roster of possible caches to find.

 

A good cache for groups - everyone can find a separate container!

 

Yes, this was funny... a geocacher promoting Throwdowns!!! WOW!!!! No wonder the count that he has... 104,323 Finds!

[+JPreto]

It would be impossible for every conceivable cache design to be covered explicitly by the Listing Requirements/Guidelines, the Help Center and the Geocaching 101 information. Otherwise the requirements for hiding a cache would look like the US Tax Code. And reviewers would not like having to enforce guidelines which are that detailed.

 

The reviewer would likely ask for more information about the owner's intentions and the cache design details.

 

Doesn't the second reviewer look intrigued, and willing to work with a serious cache owner with a good plan?

 

So, my interpretation is that everything is possible if you clearly explain what you are doing to the reviewer?

 

And is this particular case, presented in the first topic, would you accept the geocache listing?

 

As pointed out, the explanation is simple: "multiple ending containers in the same coordinates so anybody can log their find."

 

Imagine a tree, covered with 35mm film cans each one of them carrying a logbook inside! Nice artistic cache!!!!

 

[+wmpastor]

It would be impossible for every conceivable cache design to be covered explicitly by the Listing Requirements/Guidelines, the Help Center and the Geocaching 101 information. Otherwise the requirements for hiding a cache would look like the US Tax Code. And reviewers would not like having to enforce guidelines which are that detailed.

 

The reviewer would likely ask for more information about the owner's intentions and the cache design details.

 

Doesn't the second reviewer look intrigued, and willing to work with a serious cache owner with a good plan?

 

So, my interpretation is that everything is possible if you clearly explain what you are doing to the reviewer?

 

And is this particular case, presented in the first topic, would you accept the geocache listing?

 

As pointed out, the explanation is simple: "multiple ending containers in the same coordinates so anybody can log their find."

 

Imagine a tree, covered with 35mm film cans each one of them carrying a logbook inside! Nice artistic cache!!!!

 

 

The reverse has been used also - identical containers, all but one a decoy. Nice challenge - til the cacher who didn't read the listing comes along and supplies a new logbook to a decoy.

 

Fun idea, these multiple finals, except that the difficulty level goes down to 1.0 in many cases.

[+J Grouchy]

 

Oddly enough I DNFed every single one of the locations.

 

Seems I'm not the only one but there should not be any DNFs.

Amazing! The CO *invites* throwdowns and will add them to the roster of possible caches to find.

 

A good cache for groups - everyone can find a separate container!

 

Yes, this was funny... a geocacher promoting Throwdowns!!! WOW!!!! No wonder the count that he has... 104,323 Finds!

 

So...could I just go ahead and claim a find now and the next time I'm in SF I'll toss a scrap of paper out the window as I'm driving by Lombard?

 

This cache is basically making a mockery of geocaching, completely taking away the idea of "finding" the geocache - no matter how easy it may be to find, it's completely unnecessary in order to claim it.

[Keystone]

So, my interpretation is that everything is possible if you clearly explain what you are doing to the reviewer?

I didn't say that. You can describe a buried container in exhaustive detail, complete with 8×10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was, and I still won't publish it. That's because there is a very specific guideline about that. That's not the case for a design based on "multiple containers at the same coordinates."

 

And is this particular case, presented in the first topic, would you accept the geocache listing?

I would likely ask for further information specific to the hiding technique and the owner's intentions.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

We have out a cache with a couple of containers. It is not intentional. I can't find our original and it needs maintenance. I go and place a obvious one but somehow cachers find the original that I can't find.

 

It happens a lot.....to me and others.

[+DanOCan]

Not exactly the situation described, but here was a local cache that had multiple containers at (near) the posted coordinates and could log and find different ones: Micro Trainer

[+JPreto]

So, my interpretation is that everything is possible if you clearly explain what you are doing to the reviewer?

I didn't say that. You can describe a buried container in exhaustive detail, complete with 8×10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was, and I still won't publish it. That's because there is a very specific guideline about that. That's not the case for a design based on "multiple containers at the same coordinates."

You are right, sorry... There are exceptions, like buried caches... really????

Well, if I recall correctly the guideline is that the geocache can´t be buried fully or partially so, if a geocache needs any type of ground support (lets say a pole or a wooden stake to serve as support) it wouldn´t be approved... Do you need examples, after 2012, for approved caches like this?

 

Ohh wait, I forgot! They all used already made holes... So, in day 1 they go there and dig a hole, on day 2 they go to the same exact spot, find that hole and say: "what a nice hole to place a cache". Problem solved!

 

And is this particular case, presented in the first topic, would you accept the geocache listing?

I would likely ask for further information specific to the hiding technique and the owner's intentions.

I already sent a picture of the geocache, the location of the several containers all with logbooks and my intentions are that all that visit could appreciate the beautiful work of art and be able to log a found it. The name of it is: "CACHETREE" and D1/T1 because even wheelchairs can get to the lower containers. And the nearest cache or physical step of a multi cache is 1km away! It´s in my land and I have not a single "No trespassing" sign.

 

And by the way, for future reference... I am planning to do a Power Trail of CACHETREEs and saying: "Feel free to had your own container with a signed logbook!"

Edited August 28, 2014 by JPreto

[+sbell111]

Amazing! The CO *invites* throwdowns and will add them to the roster of possible caches to find.

 

A good cache for groups - everyone can find a separate container!

Geocaching is just a game. It's OK if sometimes people get a bit silly with it.

[+sbell111]

It would be impossible for every conceivable cache design to be covered explicitly by the Listing Requirements/Guidelines, the Help Center and the Geocaching 101 information. Otherwise the requirements for hiding a cache would look like the US Tax Code. And reviewers would not like having to enforce guidelines which are that detailed.

 

The reviewer would likely ask for more information about the owner's intentions and the cache design details.

 

Doesn't the second reviewer look intrigued, and willing to work with a serious cache owner with a good plan?

So, my interpretation is that everything is possible if you clearly explain what you are doing to the reviewer?

Sure. Anything that isn't specifically verboten per the guidelines is acceptable. Why wouldn't it be?

[+sbell111]

 

Oddly enough I DNFed every single one of the locations.

 

Seems I'm not the only one but there should not be any DNFs.

Amazing! The CO *invites* throwdowns and will add them to the roster of possible caches to find.

 

A good cache for groups - everyone can find a separate container!

 

Yes, this was funny... a geocacher promoting Throwdowns!!! WOW!!!! No wonder the count that he has... 104,323 Finds!

 

So...could I just go ahead and claim a find now and the next time I'm in SF I'll toss a scrap of paper out the window as I'm driving by Lombard?

 

This cache is basically making a mockery of geocaching, completely taking away the idea of "finding" the geocache - no matter how easy it may be to find, it's completely unnecessary in order to claim it.

It's. a. game.

 

No one requires a player to find every single cache or take part in any practice that he disagrees with. Silliness involving some cache in San Francisco is not a statement on how you play the game in Georgia.

[+MKFmly]

 

As pointed out, the explanation is simple: "multiple ending containers in the same coordinates so anybody can log their find."

 

Imagine a tree, covered with 35mm film cans each one of them carrying a logbook inside! Nice artistic cache!!!!

 

Many caches employ the above concept, multiple cache containers at the final. The only fundamental difference between your sarcastic (?) suggestion, is cachers have to find the log among the many decoys... e.g. 100 film containers in a water cooler bottle one of which holds the log. 24 MISTs in the same tree with only one log. Instead of making it harder it’s not unreasonable for a cache owner to make it easier and put a log in each of the multiple containers.

[+sbell111]

So, my interpretation is that everything is possible if you clearly explain what you are doing to the reviewer?

I didn't say that. You can describe a buried container in exhaustive detail, complete with 8×10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was, and I still won't publish it. That's because there is a very specific guideline about that. That's not the case for a design based on "multiple containers at the same coordinates."

You are right, sorry... There are exceptions, like buried caches... really????

Well, if I recall correctly the guideline is that the geocache can´t be buried fully or partially so, if a geocache needs any type of ground support (lets say a pole or a wooden stake to serve as support) it wouldn´t be approved... Do you need examples, after 2012, for approved caches like this?

 

Ohh wait, I forgot! They all used already made holes... So, in day one they go there and dig a hole, on day 2 they go to the same exact spot, find that hole and say: "what a nice hole to place a cache". Problem solved!

You're doing it again.

 

The mere fact that some caches may exist that are in violation of the guidelines does not mean that Keystone shouldn't enforce the guidelines when reviewing a cache for listing.

 

And is this particular case, presented in the first topic, would you accept the geocache listing?

I would likely ask for further information specific to the hiding technique and the owner's intentions.

I already sent a picture of the geocache, the location of the several containers all with logbooks and my intentions are that all that visit could appreciate the beautiful work of art and be able to log a found it. The name of it is: "CACHETREE" and D1/T1 because even wheelchairs can get to the lower containers. And the nearest cache or physical step of a multi cache is 1km away! It´s in my land and I have not a single "No trespassing" sign.

 

And by the way, for future reference... I am planning to do a Power Trail of CACHETREEs and saying: "Feel free to had your own container with a signed logbook!"

You know that the reviewer is going to ask you how you affixed those caches to the tree and how specific your authorization from the land manager was, right?

Edited August 28, 2014 by sbell111

[+JPreto]

 

As pointed out, the explanation is simple: "multiple ending containers in the same coordinates so anybody can log their find."

 

Imagine a tree, covered with 35mm film cans each one of them carrying a logbook inside! Nice artistic cache!!!!

 

Many caches employ the above concept, multiple cache containers at the final. The only fundamental difference between your sarcastic (?) suggestion, is cachers have to find the log among the many decoys... e.g. 100 film containers in a water cooler bottle one of which holds the log. 24 MISTs in the same tree with only one log. Instead of making it harder it’s not unreasonable for a cache owner to make it easier and put a log in each of the multiple containers.

I am not talking about decoys (multiple containers, only one of them with a logbook) I am talking about multiple containers each one of them with a different logbook, all placed in the same set of coordinates.

 

I am giving a clear example of my "CACHETREE"!

[+JPreto]

You're doing it again.

 

The mere fact that some caches may exist that are in violation of the guidelines does not mean that Keystone shouldn't enforce the guidelines when reviewing a cache for listing.

One of us is not understanding the other... Keystone put out a "non-arguable" condition for a geocache placement, in this case a buried geocache, partially or fully and what I tried to show is that, even in that supposedly "non-arguable" case of a buried cache there are cases that are arguable. With this I am trying to show that: "All scenarios are possible" even tho guidelines say the opposite.

 

You know that the reviewer is going to ask you how you affixed those caches to the tree and how specific your authorization from the land manager was, right?

I am the land manager, I am placing the cache! And to be even more specific, all geocache containers, each one of them with a different logbook inside, are held to the tree with loose strings, not to harm the tree and let it grow naturally.

Edited August 28, 2014 by JPreto

[+sbell111]

I am not talking about decoys (multiple containers, only one of them with a logbook) I am talking about multiple containers each one of them with a different logbook, all placed in the same set of coordinates.

 

I am giving a clear example of my "CACHETREE"!

If a logbook gets full, would you have a problem with an additional logbook being placed in the box?

 

What if the cache started out with two logbooks in the same container? Would that be a problem for you?

 

What if there were two containers, but they were connected, like a travel salt-n-pepper container. Both sides open up, so the cache owner put a log in each? Problem?

 

How about your cache tree, but with just two containers just a few inches apart? Problem?

 

The concept of multiple logbooks (regardless of whether they are in the same container or in separate, nearby containers) seems like additional work for cache owners who need to ensure that they stay protected and can be reviewed if the need arises. It doesn't seem to be an issue with the guidelines or a problem for anyone who searches for the cache. As such, I'm failing to understand why this concept is a problem for you.

[+Ben0w]

BTW, I'm totally fine with a good (!) cache having two containers as long as the reviewer is aware of that and has it knowingly published. That's not a critical "game killer".

Why shouldn't a bad cache have two containers too? That's not a question of quality.

A bad cache should have no container & shouldn't be listed at all...

 

What i wanted to say: A bad cache won't become good by adding bells, whistles and more containers. If it's a good cache AND surprises with two containers (in which way ever), it's OK for me. Just can't imagine such a case (for several reasons that are discussed here), but it may exist.

 

There is not a single statement somewhere in the guidelines, help center etc that excludes caches with say one container up a tree and one at the base of the tree and this is not a matter of quality.

I can't dispute this and I won't. But if a reviewer and Groundspeak decides to not list a multiple container cache it is simply their right to do so. Pointing to the guidelines or to other caches won't help, Groundspeak is legally free to add exceptions as they want anytime. Reasonable arguing/negotiating with them may be more helpful.

 

Note that there may be reasons for rejecting other than we get to know. Usually the cache owner and the reviewer have a background discussion and not all facts get published in the forums.

 

Otherwise, most powertrails would need to be rejected due to lacking quality.

Yes, would be great...unfortunally, "quality" is not what Groundspeak is willing to enforce. This would need far more ressources (developing strong criterias and on site checking) than they're willing/able to spend.

[+sbell111]

You're doing it again.

 

The mere fact that some caches may exist that are in violation of the guidelines does not mean that Keystone shouldn't enforce the guidelines when reviewing a cache for listing.

One of us is not understanding the other... Keystone put out a "non-arguable" condition for a geocache placement, in this case a buried geocache, partially or fully and what I tried to show is that, even in that supposedly "non-arguable" case of a buried cache there are cases that are arguable. With this I am trying to show that: "All scenarios are possible" even tho guidelines say the opposite.

You are using a flawed argument that really just supports the answer that Keystone gave you.

 

The fact that caches have been listed when they actually violate the guidelines does not obviate the necessity for a guidelines review to be taken. It actually makes it necessary for the reviewers to take their guideline review listing responsibility seriously and ask whatever questions that they deem necessary to ensure that the cache conforms to the guidelines.

 

As such, it might be theoretically accurate to say that 'all scenarios are possible', but it isn't helpful to the conversation since in order to discuss your hypothetical cache listing submission, we have to assume that the cache owner is honest about his cache and not hiding a known guidelines violation.

 

You know that the reviewer is going to ask you how you affixed those caches to the tree and how specific your authorization from the land manager was, right?

I am the land manager, I am placing the cache! And to be even more specific, all geocache containers, each one of them with a different logbook inside, are held to the tree with loose strings, not to harm the tree and let it grow naturally.

If the cache met the guidelines, why do you imagine that it would be denied?

[+CanadianRockies]

Keystone put out a "non-arguable" condition for a geocache placement, in this case a buried geocache, partially or fully and what I tried to show is that, even in that supposedly "non-arguable" case of a buried cache there are cases that are arguable. With this I am trying to show that: "All scenarios are possible" even tho guidelines say the opposite.

I don't think Keystone said what you think he said. He didn't say no reviewer would ever publish a buried cache. He said he, personally, would not publish a buried cache if he was aware that it was buried.

 

Sometimes different reviewers interpret the guidelines differently. Sometimes, this is within their individual discretion; sometimes Groundspeak will try to bring the reviewers into various degrees of conformity.

 

Sometimes even a single reviewer will interpret the guidelines differently. Their own standards might evolve over time. Or they might simply make mistakes. Reviewers are humans.

 

Sometimes reviewers aren't aware that a cache is buried when they publish it. Not every cache owner submits 8x10 glossy photos of their hides.

 

I'm glad to see you're finally starting to realize that lots of scenarios are possible, even with the guidelines that help guide this activity.

[+sbell111]

I can't dispute this and I won't. But if a reviewer and Groundspeak decides to not list a multiple container cache it is simply their right to do so. Pointing to the guidelines or to other caches won't help, Groundspeak is legally free to add exceptions as they want anytime. Reasonable arguing/negotiating with them may be more helpful.

 

Note that there may be reasons for rejecting other than we get to know. Usually the cache owner and the reviewer have a background discussion and not all facts get published in the forums.

I think that you may be missing the point of the thread.

 

In another thread, JPreto took the position that if there were a cache with two containers and logbooks at the final location, then Groundspeak would archive it. Caches like this have been listed in the past and, as far as I know, TPTB have never denied a listing or archived a cache for this reason.

 

The OP is not trying to defend the company's right to archive such a cache. He is arguing that these caches should (must?) be archived and that requests for these caches to be listed should (must?) be denied.

[+sbell111]

Reviewers are humans.

I think that perhaps you have taken that a bit too far. Edited August 28, 2014 by sbell111

[Keystone]

Reviewers are humans.

I think that perhaps you have taken that a bit too far.

Or rather, that it's an incomplete answer. Some reviewers are humans. Many reviewers are dogs.

[+JPreto]

Sometimes different reviewers interpret the guidelines differently. Sometimes, this is within their individual discretion; sometimes Groundspeak will try to bring the reviewers into various degrees of conformity.

 

Sometimes even a single reviewer will interpret the guidelines differently. Their own standards might evolve over time. Or they might simply make mistakes. Reviewers are humans.

 

Sometimes reviewers aren't aware that a cache is buried when they publish it. Not every cache owner submits 8x10 glossy photos of their hides.

 

I'm glad to see you're finally starting to realize that lots of scenarios are possible, even with the guidelines that help guide this activity.

 

Ok, I am going to say what I said in a different topic:

 

I am starting to think all this guideline conversation is pointless because virtually, in all guidelines, there are ways to breach it and, if the reviewers want, they can use that or not. Just the simple fact that most words are "should", "may", "can" and not "has to" opens the door for interpretation.

 

And most likely because upsetting a group of geocachers would decrease the PM income... That would ruin business!

 

So reviewers can do whatever it is more appropriate to the community and let the guidelines be bent or not, according to the general community opinion. It is sad to realize this...

[Keystone]

So reviewers can do whatever it is more appropriate to the community and let the guidelines be bent or not, according to the general community opinion. It is sad to realize this...

A reviewer who reached that conclusion would quickly find themself in the doghouse, regardless of that reviewer's species.

[cezanne]

If it's a good cache AND surprises with two containers (in which way ever), it's OK for me. Just can't imagine such a case (for several reasons that are discussed here), but it may exist.

 

I see no reason why a cache with two containers is required to be surprise. I rather thought of cases where the two containers are mentioned right from the beginning in the cache description. I know numerous such examples and in none of these cases a reviewer needed to be tricked or even convinced to publish the cache.

 

Of course, Groundspeak could come up with new rules or deny publication of a certain cache of this type for certain reasons. It's their site.

I just was quite astonished about the JPreto's opinion that Groundspeak should/would instantly archive a cache if there are two containers regardless of the situation.

 

The question whether one could hide a cache with two final containers where one is at the basement of a tree and the other say 3 m up or one at 3m and another at 6m is not a question whether the cache is good or not.

Some cachers might have a preference for good caches (however you define this), but the reviewers just have to check whether a cache conforms with the guidelines.

 

It is obvious that issues like permission, how the cache container is fixed to the tree etc play a role, but this plays a role also if there is just one container.

 

I certainly did not have a situation in mind where there is a tree full of containers. That's defacement of a nice natural object for me even if some might regard it as art.

 

 

I can't dispute this and I won't. But if a reviewer and Groundspeak decides to not list a multiple container cache it is simply their right to do so. Pointing to the guidelines or to other caches won't help, Groundspeak is legally free to add exceptions as they want anytime. Reasonable arguing/negotiating with them may be more helpful.

 

We agree on this. I do not see a reason however a cache hider should have to negotiate with cachers like JPreto.

 

Note that there may be reasons for rejecting other than we get to know. Usually the cache owner and the reviewer have a background discussion and not all facts get published in the forums.

 

I'm caching since almost 12 years and for the same time I'm following this forum. So I certainly know the above. We are not dicussing a cache that got archived or rejected however in this thread, but JPreto's opinion voiced in another thread that reviewers should archive each cache which has two containers at the final.

 

Cezanne

[+JPreto]

We are not dicussing a cache that got archived or rejected however in this thread, but JPreto's opinion voiced in another thread that reviewers should archive each cache which has two containers at the final.

Should... may, will... Open for debate!!!!

 

You all win!!!! "tozainamboku" wedgie me and it has been demonstrated that all geocaches are plausible to be placed if explained to a reviewer and he agrees with your justification because most guidelines are open to this.

 

So, I feel that Groundspeak really wants their guidelines to have the possibility to be bent otherwise, why not making them clearer.

[+MKFmly]

In another Topic about Throwdowns myself, "tozainamboku" and "cezanne" started to talk about this possibility:

 

<snip>

 

Just to resume, these are the conditions:

 

- 1 geocache

- multiple ending containers (each one with it´s own logbook)

- 1 set of coordinates

 

Is this possible according to the GeoCaching.com Guidelines, Help Center articles and GeoCaching 101?

Yes, it is possible provided all the other listing requiremets are also met.

[+JPreto]

Yes, it is possible provided all the other listing requiremets are also met.

And even if they are not meet, if you explain it to the reviewer and he/she agrees with you, there is the possibility of the listing being published. So, I should never really opened this to discussion... It is pointless since there is always room for the reviewer to "look to the side" if you know what I mean.

Edited August 28, 2014 by JPreto

[+J Grouchy]

 

Oddly enough I DNFed every single one of the locations.

 

Seems I'm not the only one but there should not be any DNFs.

Amazing! The CO *invites* throwdowns and will add them to the roster of possible caches to find.

 

A good cache for groups - everyone can find a separate container!

 

Yes, this was funny... a geocacher promoting Throwdowns!!! WOW!!!! No wonder the count that he has... 104,323 Finds!

 

So...could I just go ahead and claim a find now and the next time I'm in SF I'll toss a scrap of paper out the window as I'm driving by Lombard?

 

This cache is basically making a mockery of geocaching, completely taking away the idea of "finding" the geocache - no matter how easy it may be to find, it's completely unnecessary in order to claim it.

It's. a. game.

 

No one requires a player to find every single cache or take part in any practice that he disagrees with. Silliness involving some cache in San Francisco is not a statement on how you play the game in Georgia.

 

This coming from someone who was up in arms about a log being deleted on a throwdown. Which is it? Strict adherance to an interpretation of a vague rule or a 'come what may' attitude towards logging a find?

[+GeoBain]

And even if they are not meet, if you explain it to the reviewer and he/she agrees with you, there is the possibility of the listing being published. So, I should never really opened this to discussion... It is pointless since there is always room for the reviewer to "look to the side" if you know what I mean.

 

If you mean that exceptions can be made, then you are correct. Generally they won't be made, but they can be made.

 

But then again, even police officers may give you a warning rather than a ticket if you are caught speeding. Even in the law there is wiggle room.

[+JPreto]

And even if they are not meet, if you explain it to the reviewer and he/she agrees with you, there is the possibility of the listing being published. So, I should never really opened this to discussion... It is pointless since there is always room for the reviewer to "look to the side" if you know what I mean.

 

If you mean that exceptions can be made, then you are correct. Generally they won't be made, but they can be made.

 

But then again, even police officers may give you a warning rather than a ticket if you are caught speeding. Even in the law there is wiggle room.

Not really, and I explained this is another topic.

 

If a policeman sees you breaking any law (like speeding) and doesn´t give you a ticket he is actually not respecting 2 other laws:

 

one by not applying the law (misconduct) and another by defrauding the government (collusion)

 

He can lose his policeman license (optional by enforcers of the law enforcers) but if the facts are proven he will be fined (not optional if the law is respected).

 

But maybe if he can prove it was his first time, the conditions of work were rough, he was tired... bla, bla, bla... maybe the judge will just send if off with a warning.

 

So, you are right after all... no mater if it is Law, Rule, Guideline or Recommendation... in the end, anything can happen!!!!

 

So behind this Democratic figure fact is, we all live in a balanced Anarchy!

Edited August 28, 2014 by JPreto