GC.com updated guidelines

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 07 November 03 8:33 am

According to the latest weekly cache notification email from GC.com ...

In response to requests from the community, we are pleased to
announce that a revised version of the cache guidelines has now
been posted to the site. They are available for viewing at
http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Please note that there have been no new guidelines added. We have
only attempted to clarify and reorganize the current guidelines
for ease of use and better understanding.

Just an FYI, I can't really tell what's different, since I stopped paying attention to them some time ago.

I doubt this will spark much debate, our local approver does a fantastic job of keeping the "guidelines" locally relevant, IMHO.

Are there any "U.S. National Park Service maintained lands" in Aus?

- Rog

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 07 November 03 9:16 am

Mindsocket wrote:

Are there any "U.S. National Park Service maintained lands" in Aus?

Pine Gap? 

I get a 404 from the link - the end period should not be included.

tgsnoopy · Post by **tgsnoopy** » 07 November 03 9:17 am

There are no changes, they have just condensed guidelines from various locations and attempted to clarify them.

Mind Socket wrote:I stopped paying attention to them some time ago.

Noted!

In case anyone had noticed, with Embi being busier with his new job. I'll be watching your caches awaiting approval. I'll basically be leaving them for Embi in most cases. I'll look at them if they have been waiting a while, if I can see no issues I'll approve them. If there is an issue, I'll point it out, you may like to proceed down the approval path with me, or leave it for Embi. This is still Embi's patch and he has the final say. This is only to avoid Embi getting swamped and/or unwanted extended delays with approvals. Hopefully you will all be able to tolerate the occasional approval from accross the pond.

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 07 November 03 9:30 am

riblit wrote:I get a 404 from the link - the end period should not be included.

Fixed. Thanks Riblit.

tgsnoopy wrote:
Mind Socket wrote: stopped paying attention to them some time ago.
Noted!

Doesn't mean I don't abide by them, however grudgingly.

I even caved and got a premium membership recently. It's hard to stick with one's principles when the thirst for GPX data is insatiable.

- R

ToolkiT · Post by **ToolkiT** » 07 November 03 12:59 pm

<off-topic>
tgsnoopy, love your location description! you read my mind

<off-topic>

The Spindoctors · Post by **The Spindoctors** » 07 November 03 5:40 pm

I've noticed that a cache close to Canberra has been approved that BREAKS THE GUIDLINES

Understandable as it is close to the end of a multi cache. I've contacted the owner and suggested they move it.

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 07 November 03 5:49 pm

How so?

I trust the guideline being broken is actually causing a problem.

The Spindoctors · Post by **The Spindoctors** » 07 November 03 5:56 pm

Cache Saturation

The approvers 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.

The cache in question has been placed within metres of the end of a multi-cache. The person placing the second cache hasn't completed the multi-cache and therefore doesn't realise it is nearby. I've had a dig (jokingly

) to the owner of the original multicache, as he has already logged the new one - cheeky bugger.

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 07 November 03 6:27 pm

Spindoc Bob wrote:
Cache Saturation

The approvers 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.
The cache in question has been placed within metres of the end of a multi-cache. The person placing the second cache hasn't completed the multi-cache and therefore doesn't realise it is nearby. I've had a dig (jokingly ) to the owner of the original multicache, as he has already logged the new one - cheeky bugger.

This is one of my major concerns when it comes to cache placement. Even the approvers don't know where the end of a multicache is, and how close it may be to another cache. Or in the case in point a new cache has been set. The onus in this case I believe may rest with the multicache setter in contacting the traditional cache setter and coming to a mutual agreement. This is could open a major can of worms when it comes to "the guidelines"

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 07 November 03 9:44 pm

swampgecko wrote:
Spindoc Bob wrote:
Cache Saturation

The approvers 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.
The cache in question has been placed within metres of the end of a multi-cache. The person placing the second cache hasn't completed the multi-cache and therefore doesn't realise it is nearby. I've had a dig (jokingly ) to the owner of the original multicache, as he has already logged the new one - cheeky bugger.
This is one of my major concerns when it comes to cache placement. Even the approvers don't know where the end of a multicache is, and how close it may be to another cache. Or in the case in point a new cache has been set. The onus in this case I believe may rest with the multicache setter in contacting the traditional cache setter and coming to a mutual agreement. This is could open a major can of worms when it comes to "the guidelines"

Must learn to comprehend than just scan the text at times..... I just reread the guidelines and see that you NOW must supply all waypoints to the approvers in the note to reviewers section.... nice idea but will cause hassles I believe.... imagine you are the aussie approver and you have two way points for two multicaches with say 50 mts of each other... who do you ask to move their waypoint or do you ask at all? Personally I think as long as there is no major confliction all will be ok... unless as previously mentioned it is the final caches conflicting... then I would work on who submitted their cache first gets the location... unless both are already within the 160mts radius of another cache... then both should be asked to move. I have already noticed that to change a cache type you need to ask an approver to do it... my example is my own cache the parasite cache that I have at Bowan mountain... this was a multicache with one waypoint then the final cache. I had to get Embi to change it to a traditional cache for me. So that will/should stop the setting of a traditional cache that suddenly metamorphises toi a multicache

The Spindoctors · Post by **The Spindoctors** » 07 November 03 11:26 pm

My understanding is the same as yours. When placing multicaches you are meant to inform the cache approver of the final waypoint. However, this would mean that the approver will have to keep a record of final waypoints for multicaches, making their job much harder.

Personally, I feel that the person placing the later cache, should be asked to relocate or archive once the problem has been identified by the approver or another cacher. As much as I would like to log it as an easy cache find, I feel that this one is not within the spirit of the 'game'.

As mentioned earlier, I've suggested to the 'cache placer' that he should relocate it (there is another great site about 500 metres away). but, if the email is ignored, is it worth bringing to the attention of embi?

Mind Socket · Post by **Mind Socket** » 07 November 03 11:40 pm

Ummm ... is there actually a problem here? If the 2 cache placers have no issues, then surely it's a non issue. The only cause for concern would be if they're so close together that one could conceivably find one while searching for the other.

We've had caches placed fairly close (approx 150m) to waypoints of multi-caches in Sydney and apart from some amusing comments about deja vu, that was the end of it.

I believe the intent of the saturation guideline is to prevent overcrowding. 2 caches coincidentally nearby doesn't go against the intention of the guideline IMHO.

- Rog

The Spindoctors · Post by **The Spindoctors** » 08 November 03 12:03 am

Point taken. I suppose I'm coming from a 'purist angle'

, whch would like to see each cache unique enough in location that it would provide a new experience. I'll leave it at that.

On another 'soap box' topic; I'm concerned about the quality of caches being set in Canberra lately. Some are appearing without notes, just a notepad, pencils and trinkets, and no ziplock bag to protect the logbook. The location of some are also in unappealing, somewhat temporary locations (easily destroyed in a cleanup - for example, a clump of unmown grass growing out of a pile of dirt on the side of a road

). It seems that some Geocachers are more concerned about laying as many caches as possible, rather than putting some effort into setting caches that might go the distance.

Is this an issue elsewhere? Is Geocaching more than just numbers?

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 08 November 03 6:22 am

Spindoc Bob wrote:Point taken. I suppose I'm coming from a 'purist angle' , ..........

On another 'soap box' topic; I'm concerned about the quality of caches being set in Canberra lately. Some are appearing without notes, just a notepad, pencils and trinkets, and no ziplock bag to protect the logbook. The location of some are also in unappealing, somewhat temporary locations (easily destroyed in a cleanup - for example, a clump of unmown grass growing out of a pile of dirt on the side of a road ). It seems that some Geocachers are more concerned about laying as many caches as possible, rather than putting some effort into setting caches that might go the distance.

Is this an issue elsewhere? Is Geocaching more than just numbers?

Nothing wrong with being a purist.... as for the cache quality, some people do see Geocaching as a numbers game, Can I set down the most caches... can I get the most finds.... while the numbers part of it does keep the interst level up( and I reckon there isn't cacher out there who doesn't get a kick from watching their find tally rise after every outing) I have always said the cachechase is the fun of it for me.. not the swaps, thou it is nice to get a reward in the end.... As for the poor placement of caches, what seems like a good idea can turn out to be a flop... and the poor location choice can sometimes be the the stayer...