160 metre rule

[Bundyrumandcoke]

Not sure what the issue is here, although that may be a result of quite a few Bundys consumed on my part tonight. I think its got something to do with waypoints of multis being placed closer than 161 metres to a traditional cache.

If I read correctly, I quote from my own experience.

A multi owned by myself, Is that rain I see coming? was up and running for quite a while. I recieved an email once from one of the Australian reviewers, asking if I MINDED if a traditional, ordinary cache (OH the serenity- now archived) was placed within 161 metres of one of the waypoints of my multi. I gave my permission for the placement.

From this I assume, its not an issue to place a traditional within 161 metres of a multi waypoint, unless of course, the rules have changed.

Cheers
Bundy

[Agent Basil]

I don't see the 160m box on the google map view either........but I do get more than my fair share of DNF !

[O319]

No boxes in the top L/H corner for me either?? Maybe a more premium version of Google maps?

[smerrall]

The 160 circle is courtesy of GCA, not GC. You need to look up a nearby cache on GCA, click the Google maps link on the right and that is the map with the proximity feature.

[gmj3191]

Use the search function in GCA to find a cache.
Across to the right hand side of the screen there are a number of hyperlinks
Click on the Google Maps one
You should see the cache on a Google map
Now look for the boxes at upper left

[stealth_ninja_penguin]

Further to this on how strict the 161 m rule is just between Geocaching.com caches from each other is as follows.

A year ago ,we had heard that some caches around Australia were permitted to be placed within 161m of each other.We know a couple of caches we had placed got rejected through the 161m rule even though they were a bout 157m apart.We requested surely 4m isnt anything,but 'The Ump" will refuse them as he explains its a rule not a target! and they were refused.

So,we emailed him on the definative answer on this.Had there ever been any caches allowed and published within 161m of each other ??

He emailed back with this response.Only 2 caches within Australia were ever allowed to be published within 161m of another cache already there.They were both similar situations .the newly listed cache was on a cliff face with a very wide fast flowing river below and the exsisting cache was on the other side also on a large cliff face.There was a large walk or drive downstream to cross and return then other side to get the other cache,thus,both caches could not be mixed up on arrival.

He didn't mention what state they were placed in!

I had a cache up for review that (I didn't know at the time) was 150 from another cache. This was around the time that C4 had his cache published 80m away from another. So, I thought if it was good enough for C4 then maybe is was OK for me and asked. I got told NO.
Rules are rules and that's fine but it's hard when those rules aren't applied equally or fairly to all. That's the hard part and you wonder why.

I have found a couple of other caches closer than 160m, like 30m apart and 60m apart near Mt Lofty (in the Adelaide hills). They were quite old caches before the 160m rule I guess so I'm sure that there are plenty others like that around the place

[O319]

Got it. Very interesting result, found heaps that are well withon 160mts of each other. Try a look around the subburb of Dickson ACT and the War Memorial...

Thanks for the lesson..

[caughtatwork]

U are Unknown caches and don't have to fit the 160m rule.
M are multi and depending on whether there is a cache or "information to be gathered" they also fit the rules.

Note that the blue circle is a 161m RADIUS.
So the blue circles can overlap, but the blue circle shouldn't overlap another MARKER.

[Damo.]

Here's a link if others didn't 'get it' yet...
http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga1486.gmap

My first cache placement was 100m from an existing cache. It was in the botannical gardens in Sydney and was in among mature trees quite separated from the nearby one which was in an open herb display. Not much chance one being found accidently while searching for the other so it was allowed at the time. That was in 2004 though.

I had a cache up for review that (I didn't know at the time) was 150 from another cache. This was around the time that C4 had his cache published 80m away from another. So, I thought if it was good enough for C4 then maybe is was OK for me and asked. I got told NO.
Rules are rules and that's fine but it's hard when those rules aren't applied equally or fairly to all. That's the hard part and you wonder why.

So you would prefer it if there were no exceptions made at all for anyone? That's likely to be the result of complaining about it.

[stealth_ninja_penguin]

My first cache placement was 100m from an existing cache. It was in the botannical gardens in Sydney and was in among mature trees quite separated from the nearby one which was in an open herb display. Not much chance one being found accidently while searching for the other so it was allowed at the time. That was in 2004 though.

I had a cache up for review that (I didn't know at the time) was 150 from another cache. This was around the time that C4 had his cache published 80m away from another. So, I thought if it was good enough for C4 then maybe is was OK for me and asked. I got told NO.
Rules are rules and that's fine but it's hard when those rules aren't applied equally or fairly to all. That's the hard part and you wonder why.

So you would prefer it if there were no exceptions made at all for anyone? That's likely to be the result of complaining about it.

Firstly: I don't believe that I was 'complaining about it'. I was simply adding to the the discussion about my experience and the difficulties in understanding on HOW the rules are applied. If you go back and read my post again you will see that I also I mention caches that I have found closer than 160m and postulate that perhaps this was more of a standard thing of the time before a 160m rule.

Secondlydly: Yes, I would prefer that there be no exception made at all for anyone. When a rule is applied equally and fairly to all then we all know where we stand. If we don't like that rule then we should lobby to change that rule and then work by that.

[grahamf72]

I assume the 161m rule only takes the horizontal distance into account. I'm considering a location that if I put it in the spot I'd like to would be within 161m of another cache horizontally, but there is about 200m vertical height between them, and would require about 3km of hiking between the 2 points (or some abseiling).

[caughtatwork]

I assume the 161m rule only takes the horizontal distance into account. I'm considering a location that if I put it in the spot I'd like to would be within 161m of another cache horizontally, but there is about 200m vertical height between them, and would require about 3km of hiking between the 2 points (or some abseiling).

Never assume. Always ask. In these cases it is better to seek permission than ask forgiveness.

[theUMP]

As mentioned above, don't forget that 'virtual' waypoints (including the bogus listed coords of mystery caches) don't count towards cache saturation, unless the owner especially chooses to treat them as physical waypoints by listing them as "stages of a multicache"

The "question to answer" waypoint type came along after the additional waypoint functionality was introduced, so there's many caches out there with waypoints labelled as "stages of a multicache" (aka SoaM) when they're really "question to answer" (aka Q2A) type. If there's a problem with a new cache and the text makes it look like the blocking waypoint is really a Q2A type, I'll ask the owner if that's what they want it to be treated as.

Of course, there's also a heap of older caches that the owners haven't added waypoints to (lazy sods!) and I can only protect the points that I know about. If I notice a nearby multi or puzzle, I do often check to see if there's any archived reviewer notes with coords and add them in myself.

You'll notice the old mealy-mouthed language of this guideline has been removed, which will save us all some trouble. I'll be happy to never see any more emails telling me that "it's only a rule of thumb and an arbitrary figure, so it shouldn't apply to MY very SPECIAL cache!" (Funny how arbitrariness only seems to go one way; imagine the screams if I arbitrarily decided that 250m was still too close...)

I'm tough to convince that a cache that's scarcely more than a stone's throw away from an existing one is a different enough place to justify breaking this guideline. A bit of bush or a hill or a road between the points won't cut it, nor will being on the other side of a building in a CBD. It's a big country, find somewhere new to take finders to!

I've been known to let the occasional just-too-close one slip through, especially if there's some really good reason for the new placement and not just one bush instead of one 20m further away. Anything less than 150m, though, and I wouldn't hold my breath...

Don't get too exact with the trigonometry and calculating the actual ground distance up a hill, etc. I walk up and down 100m steep hills most days for fun and don't consider that to be any sort of "natural barrier" to anyone not in a wheelchair. Ditto for a creek or even small rivers. Even if you'd have to get wet feet to go direct from one cache to the other, is one side of the creek really a different experience to the other side?

As always, before going to any great effort in making a camo cache or an elaborate puzzle, etc., check with me first. List the cache with a title and a note that makes it clear that you're asking if the position's OK and I'll give you a thumbs up or a hassle and disable it for you to re-enable when you're ready.

(Oh, and if you're in NSW or Qld, your caches get reviewed by i,riblit, and he's not an old softie like me! )

[waterlogged]

What check boxes?

Google maps selected form a cache page, showing the different types and found caches etc?

I thought it was on google earth, but I still can't get it working tonight either.

[Papa Bear_Left]

What check boxes?
Google maps selected form a cache page, showing the different types and found caches etc?

Are you looking at the geocaching.com.au maps or the geocaching.com maps?

This proximity information's only on the GCA maps.