It was always going to happen

Postman Pat · Post by **Postman Pat** » 01 February 06 5:50 pm

This is for the programers.Is there a way of getting the cache placment page to do a check to find out if another cache is within a certin distance when you log the cords yes I relise it would also show a result on a muliti but it would warn the hidder that their is another cache close by

wheather they act on it is up to them.It gives them the chance to contact the other owner to see if they object

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 01 February 06 6:32 pm

There are easy ways to check cache placements but the problem is get cacher to use them. gc.com has the 'nearest caches' feature but we all know it only works for gc.com caches. (Incidentally, from what I have read, it appears the american reviewers don't check for nearby navicache or terracaching caches)

For cachers who want to check their own caches, I use the google earth network link from this site. I have a greasemonkey script that opens google earth at the new cache coordinates and flags it. The network link shows the nearby caches (both GC and GCA).

Common sense would dictate that a cacher not put a cache near another one, however they first need to know that others are around.
Doing a check for nearby caches when the page is written is one way out, however the option to check is already available on this site by clicking on the 'nearby' link under 'other caches' on the cache page.

Some more information on placing a cache could be written but then, no matter what is written, some won't bother reading it.

For the benefit of some of the newer members, the matter of reviewing caches for listing here was discussed at length nearly 12 months ago. Plans were laid and discussions took place. A number of members here were very vocal in their objection to having listings reviewed. A poll was presented and the idea quashed by 'popular opinion'.

The option is still available if people want to take advantage of it.

Postman Pat · Post by **Postman Pat** » 01 February 06 7:18 pm

Thanks Riblit I had not relised that there was a way of checking when you where loging a new cache. Pryor to this I was doing it the hard way.

as I had only hidden 3 with a 4th in the works and none hidden localy before I started I did not need to do it.

Facitman · Post by **Facitman** » 01 February 06 7:53 pm

You would have to assume in the first instance that this is a simple "error" where the second cacher was unaware of the existing gc.com cache.

Having GSAK loaded with all Victorian caches, gc.com and gc.com.au, makes confirming an area free of existing caches much easier. For those less "automated" a warning on gca cache listing would be a good step forward (assuming the coding team can do it easily)

Partic · Post by **Partic** » 01 February 06 9:37 pm

Darth F. has been asked a few times now to improve their interaction on the site through:
<ul>
<li>Adjusting their name as this is a family sport</li>
<li>Correcting their cache size on their first cache in the listing</li>
</ul>
In addition, it's now probably time for DF to consider the fact that they should possibly:
<ul>
<li>Link to a GC profile so that if they are out finding GC caches they can show they're actually participating in playing the game</li>
<li>Alternatively go out and log some GCA finds to participate in the game</li>
<li>Not aim to be flamed in every forum posting they leave (10 out of 10
postings to date are not particularly helpful comments)</li>
</ul>

There's no need to be rude, unhelpful or sarcastic on the forums, and I think there is no real reason to have the cache where it is. A simple search of Nearby Caches should have flagged this even on GCA.
<P>
In my opinion, DF should move their cache to another location a bit further than 8m away, in addition to taking the time to play the game as above. There are plenty of other locations nearby with similar views of the city, and the confusion with mixing it with C@W's clever cache is going to be possible.

I look forward to DF constructively accepting these comments.

GIN51E · Post by **GIN51E** » 01 February 06 10:35 pm

Partic wrote:<li>Not aim to be flamed in every forum posting they leave (10 out of 10
postings to date are not particularly helpful comments)</li>
</ul>

There is always one in every crowd

ideology · Post by **ideology** » 02 February 06 9:14 am

we've never put a high priority on plotting nearby caches when adding a new cache because we thought that it would be too late: the person had already gone out and placed the cache. but we can put that in if people think it will help

our personal view is that we need a kind of rating system which allows people to indicate and post some, err constructive criticism to particular caches. we floated that in the cache rating debate some time ago but most people didn't seem to like it.

df's email is bouncing so probably won't know about this discussion.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 02 February 06 9:18 am

I PM'd DF and he did respond to indicate he didn't know about my cache.

I have asked whether it can be relocated to the other end of the bridge but haven't had a response. He may be otherwise occupied.

As I've mentioned above I don't really have a problem with the two caches so close. It's the potential for mislogging the caches that is the concern.

If the logging gets out of hand then I'll retire my cache or move it to the other end of the bridge with the help of a GC reviewer.

We're all in the same sandpit, we should all play nice

Damo. · Post by **Damo.** » 11 February 06 1:54 pm

I just had a similar thing happen to one of my caches which I had listed on GCA last October.
A GC.com cache has just been approved placed 77m away. I'm not too bothered about the distance but it's a shame the placer chose the same name I gave my cache! (Well, it differs by a "the" in front!)
It's a cacher who looks like they have been out of the game for 3 years or so and obviously was unaware of developments over the past year.

As the title says it was always going to happen...

Maybe I should rename mine with a "The Original and the Best" preface.

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 11 February 06 5:41 pm

Damo. wrote: A GC.com cache has just been approved placed 77m away.

This can be a problem when the cache is reviewed by a reviewer not familiar with the local conditions - as was this one. gc.com does not officially recognise any other site but I know i,riblit now uses the network feed from this site with google earth to check cache locations and will alert the hider if he sees a close existing gca cache. However he can't disallow a listing on that.

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 13 February 06 10:28 am

It might be worth running an exception report to highlight proximity problems (this is one we can fix programatically). Implementing this somehow on all new listings (as a cautionary note) would probably help too.

On the rating/review front, since we colloquially have logs that are smileys and frownies (finds and DNFs respectively), maybe we should add a "fuzzy" where people can log their concerns about a cache, they don't even have to be local if the problem is obvious. Of course, this is going to be a contentious issue, but there needs to be some way of dealing with the small fraction of new players who place caches that don't sit well with everyone else, in a friendly way.

- Rog

Mr Walker · Post by **Mr Walker** » 20 February 06 11:22 am

I am not really sure why the close proximity of caches should be seen as a problem. In many places you could place 10 interesting caches, all well hidden, within a 100 metre radius. This is even more true in an urban environment, where you have the aspect of elevation to take into account. Certainly if these caches evolved over time that would be O.K. but i think an unusual event cache could be trying to find 10 such caches hidden within a limited area, by some of the more devious hiders in our midst. There are so very few GCA caches in most areas (none within hundreds of kilometres of my home town) that the issue of overlap Between GC and GCA caches does not arise. People do need to be careful to accurately identify and log whatever cache they find, no matter how close it is to another.

Post by **caughtatwork** » 20 February 06 4:12 pm

Mr Walker wrote:People do need to be careful to accurately identify and log whatever cache they find, no matter how close it is to another.

Correct and this is my main concern. With the two only 8m apart, who knows whether someone will check which one they found carefully before they log it.

Mr Walker · Post by **Mr Walker** » 21 February 06 1:45 pm

Aaah. and ain't our society wonderful. We create rules to regulate the lowest common denominator; in this case the lazy, and/or incompetent, thereby placing a whole heap of restraints on everyone else, who probably doesn't require them, and possibly finds them, well, er, restraining. I guess if I want to place a group of unique and individually challenging caches in one interesting location, I will just have to do it on GCA. No one will probably ever come looking for them in my part of Australia, let alone find them, but it would be a fun exercise.

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 21 February 06 7:44 pm

Mr Walker wrote:I am not really sure why the close proximity of caches should be seen as a problem. In many places you could place 10 interesting caches, all well hidden, within a 100 metre radius. This is even more true in an urban environment, where you have the aspect of elevation to take into account. Certainly if these caches evolved over time that would be O.K. but i think an unusual event cache could be trying to find 10 such caches hidden within a limited area, by some of the more devious hiders in our midst. There are so very few GCA caches in most areas (none within hundreds of kilometres of my home town) that the issue of overlap Between GC and GCA caches does not arise. People do need to be careful to accurately identify and log whatever cache they find, no matter how close it is to another.

I disagree. It doesn't have to be a problem to be a silly idea. Geocaching is (mostly) about the journey and hopefully an interesting location. Having more than 1 cache to be found at a given location, at the end of a particular journey, is entirely unnecessary. Accidental placements are acceptable, but some are also doing it deliberately. I'd like to hear their justification.

If you place a group of unique and individually challenging caches in one interesting location, I'll eat my hat.

- Rog

Geocaching Australia

It was always going to happen

It shouldn't have happened...

Re: It shouldn't have happened...