Caches Unique to the Gocaching Australia Site [closed]

EuDes · Post by **EuDes** » 05 March 05 11:57 pm

I am writing this out of frustration. There seems to be something drastically wrong with this site/system/way of doing things. 

Basically, I am concerned as to why the "A Simpsons Cache 5" is not available on the main Geocaching site. In correspondence with Team Crackers (who I don't know and have never met), they have advised that it can't go on the main site because it is within 160 metres of another cache ("A Lovely Little Park").

If this is the case, I would draw everyone's attention to the guidelines dated 14/2/05, which state:

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

Please note the use of the terms "rule of thumb", "arbitrary", "may" and "just a guideline". These are not "mandatory" terms and, in fact, I know of at least two caches in Oz, including 1 in Melbourne, that are each within 150 m of 2 other caches. 

This whole Oz site logging is unnecessarily difficult (I have applied for my caching name twice now) and the cache records kept by the Oz site are totally inaccurate. They do not include OS cache finds, Directionless Caches and, in at least one instance, a FTF that I know of. 

The OZ site is a terrific idea but we need to keep it in perspective. It is not, nor should it ever be, a replacement for the main site. Let's keep our heads and keep that in mind. Please let the "A Simpsons Cache 5" on the main site so that it can be logged with ease and get on with the fun of caching and not the frustration associated with which of the million names that we have to use to log a cache!!! 

Regards 

EuDes

ideology · Post by **ideology** » 06 March 05 12:54 am

sorry you are so frustrated. we have no say in gc.com guidelines or what caches get listed there. we suggest you ask team crackers why they didn't list their cache there.

yes, we got your requests for cacher name. sorry, we can't get to everyone as soon as you would have liked. we promise in the faq that we we usually do them within "a day or so." we've just done it for you.

we would like to improve the quality of the data here. we have a log import facility but it broke with the last revisions of the gc.com site, so it's on our list to fix.

Team Piggy · Post by **Team Piggy** » 06 March 05 1:26 am

Maybe you need to write a nice post to the "main" site forums asking if it can be approved?

EuDes · Post by **EuDes** » 06 March 05 1:24 pm

Thanks for that. I have now been able to log it. 

Many apologies if I have offended people with my posting. I wrote to Team Crackers about the Simpsons 5 cache and this is the response that they supplied:

The approver ... put up 4 of the series and sent us an e-mail saying we were 150m from another cache and could not accept this one unless we moved it 10m further away.

TC's correspondence also noted that:

... he (the approver) sugested (sic) we make it available on the Australian site as that only needs to be 100m from another cache ...

As I mentioned, I do not know Team Crackers nor have I ever met them but I do think it strange to use this reasoning for not posting the cache on the main site for the points outlined in my earlier posting. I hadn't really intended on "going in to bat" for TC on this issue but I am concerned as to where such an interpretation of the posting guidelines could lead. 

I sincerely believe that if we start having caches that are unique to the Oz site, then we are risking a "breakaway" form of the game with different rules. 

Regards 

EuDes

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 06 March 05 3:00 pm

It always intriques me how information changes as it is passed from person to person.

The approver ... put up 4 of the series and sent us an e-mail saying we were 150m from another cache and could not accept this one unless we moved it 10m further away.

The first 4 caches were within the (gc.com) guidelines. The last cache was not. The caches were not all submitted for listing at the same time.

TC received an email notifying them the cache was too close to an existing traditional. They replied that thay had read on the reviewers lounge on this site that the min distance was 100 metres. They were informed that the thread they had read was a discussion on proposed guidelines for this site, but after a number of people objected the guidelines were dropped and there was no minimum distance imposed for listing on gca.

TC's correspondence also noted that:
Quote:
... he (the approver) sugested (sic) we make it available on the Australian site as that only needs to be 100m from another cache ...

As some of the caches in the series had already been found they asked for suggestions. One was to disable the series, move the lot and resubmit. Listing as they did means the caches as placed stayed and avoided any cry, now or in the future, of lack of consistancy.

Now to the 'listing requirements/guidelines'

Whenever you want to begin a sentence about the guidelines with 'I know of ....' read paragraph 3 of the guidelines first.

As a lot of cachers know, guideline can be American for 'rule' and in this case the intrepretation of the 160 Metre distance (remembering that this is great circle distance, waypoint to waypoint) has some flexibility to allow for the cases where there are two caches on opposite sides of a river or other feature that stops you from travelling directly from one to the other. One could be in a valley and the other on top of a 200ft high cliff. etc.
It also allows for the occasion where a traditional is within 160 metres of a waypoint on a multi and the owner of the multi gives approval for the traditional to be placed.

I sincerely believe that if we start having caches that are unique to the Oz site, then we are risking a "breakaway" form of the game with different rules.

Are we not a different country with a smaller population, less caches, fewer cachers and different rules? Do you think the whole world should play the American version of 'Football'?

Mix · Post by **Mix** » 06 March 05 3:08 pm

EuDes wrote:
I sincerely believe that if we start having caches that are unique to the Oz site, then we are risking a "breakaway" form of the game with different rules.

Ã‚â€œMr Chicken meet Mr Egg IÃ‚â€™ll let you decide which of you was here first.Ã‚â€

EuDes · Post by **EuDes** » 06 March 05 8:43 pm

Thanks for all that and I do take your point. Ultimately, this is not really my "battle" and I was expressing my opinion, which is what forums are all about and they should remain so. 

On your point about para 3 though, and at the risk of getting into a massive debate on the subject, it says:

[quote]First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache. If a cache has been posted and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be Ã‚â€œgrandfatheredÃ‚â€

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 06 March 05 8:56 pm

There has been a partial breakaway, some of us no longer list our caches on gc.com, prefering instead to list them with the local site. GCA doesn't have the same "restrictions" in place as GC.COM. However this doesn't mean that we are totally ignoring the gc.com site. It is all about personal choice. I was dissatisified with gc.com so I have moved my caches to a different provider of a similar service. Consumers do this all the time, If you don't like brand X, you change over to brand Y...

EuDes · Post by **EuDes** » 06 March 05 9:06 pm

Wow, thanks for that swampgecko. I'll be interested to see how it pans out. I hadn't personally found any major problems with the main site but I agree that if it isn't providing the service that the majority want, we should move on. 

EuDes

Scout · Post by **Scout** » 07 March 05 1:35 pm

riblit wrote:As a lot of cachers know, guideline can be American for 'rule'

Don't assume one Web site is representative of all Americans.

riblit wrote:Do you think the whole world should play the American version of 'Football'?

Here's one American vote for Australian Rules Football as the best designed football game in the world.

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 07 March 05 1:42 pm

Scout wrote:
Don't assume one Web site is representative of all Americans.

I'm not doing that - take it in context.

Scout wrote:
Here's one American vote for Australian Rules Football as the best designed football game in the world.

Aerial ping pong? - strange game played by Mexicans.

TEAM LANDCRUISER · Post by **TEAM LANDCRUISER** » 09 March 05 11:21 am

Scout wrote:
Here's one American vote for Australian Rules Football as the best designed football game in the world.

Aerial ping pong? - strange game played by Mexicans.[/quote]I think you need to get out a little more Riblit those approvals snowing you under?

Aussie rules is exactly that and played in every state in Australia not just Mexico, are you one of those league fans that are about to get steamrolled by the union wave.

EuDes · Post by **EuDes** » 10 March 05 10:51 am

Obviously the approvers haven taken note of my postings. The approval of BT I Ã‚â€“ Under the Clocks on 7 March 2005, which is only 120 m from FedCam, shows a return to sensible cache approving. The other option of a "non-level playing field" approach to approving caches is too onerous to think about. 

Many thanks to the approvers for the change of heart

. 

I have alerted Team Crackers so I guess this means that we'll see the Simpson's 5 cache on the main site soon. 

Regards 

EuDes

Geof · Post by **Geof** » 10 March 05 3:22 pm

EuDes some of us share your frustration. However I understand that the site is non commercial and funded/run by volanteers so I choose to take it as I find it and make comment re improvements

.
</serious>

- strange game played by Mexicans.

So what is that state to the north?

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 10 March 05 4:20 pm

EuDes wrote:Obviously the approvers haven taken note of my postings. The approval of BT I Ã‚â€“ Under the Clocks on 7 March 2005, which is only 120 m from FedCam, shows a return to sensible cache approving. The other option of a "non-level playing field" approach to approving caches is too onerous to think about. 

Many thanks to the approvers for the change of heart . 

I have alerted Team Crackers so I guess this means that we'll see the Simpson's 5 cache on the main site soon. 

Regards 

EuDes

Not so - the cache in question is a multi. When you find it, check the location of the cache with respect to nearby caches. The location of the start point is not an issue.

Your alerting of Team Crackers is in vain, the circumstances are different.