After visiting the virtual cache "Holly Shrine" on Aug. 11, 2002, I've kept it on my watch list. I'm always interested in the comments that cachers write about this place. The experience seems to have a significant impact on most of them. It's also very interesting to view the gallery of photos that have been uploaded to the cache page. The time of the year makes a profound difference in how the location looks. When I was there on a hot August day, the place was like a jungle with tall corn all around. Contrast that with the winter photos, where it appears you can see the cache from half a mile away.
If you haven't yet been to this spot, I recommend it, especially on a warm and quiet early morning in July or August.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Are you sure you want to say that?
Over the years, I have seen many cache owners add a statement like this to their cache page descriptions: "Please put the cache back exactly as you found it." However, it's been my experience that that's not the best way to keep a cache hidden the way you originally placed it. Consider what happens when a critter drags a container out of position. (It happens!) Also, it only takes one geocacher to leave a cache out in the open or slightly exposed. If all the subsequent geocachers put the cache back exactly the same way, the container remains out in the open until the owner eventually goes back for a maintenance check.
Here's a better way: prominently place a note inside the cache (such as on a laminated card) that describes exactly how the cache should be hidden. For example, you might write: "Please make sure the cache is concealed entirely inside the hollow tree and completely covered with pieces of bark." That way, each geocacher knows exactly the intent of the cache owner.
Here's a better way: prominently place a note inside the cache (such as on a laminated card) that describes exactly how the cache should be hidden. For example, you might write: "Please make sure the cache is concealed entirely inside the hollow tree and completely covered with pieces of bark." That way, each geocacher knows exactly the intent of the cache owner.
Monday, March 13, 2006
Not so much
Well, Windchill and I both overestimated how many new caches might be submitted yesterday. The grand total was
(drumroll, please)
0.
That's right, zero. I guess the weather or at least the threat of weather made people more inclined to activities other than submitting new caches yesterday. I'm not complaining, just observing. I'm sure the pace will pick up again.
(drumroll, please)
0.
That's right, zero. I guess the weather or at least the threat of weather made people more inclined to activities other than submitting new caches yesterday. I'm not complaining, just observing. I'm sure the pace will pick up again.
Sunday, March 12, 2006
A day for hides?
Looks like snow and rain over the western half of the state today, but there may be geocaching activity in the east because of milder temperatures and (so far) no rain, so it's hard to predict how many new geocaches may show up in the Iowa queue today. Just for fun, I'll predict there will be four new caches submitted today. Check back to see how close my guess is.
Monday, March 06, 2006
Further clarification on the 528-ft rule
Hydee (from Groundspeak) recently posted a clarification for reviewers about applying the 528 ft. spacing rule for waypoints of multicaches and grandfathered virtual caches. I thought I would post it here to share what we reviewers are being told:
---------
I am seeing some confusion and being asked a few questions. Let me see if I can clear it up with a few examples.
If you are reviewing a single stage cache and it is placed 200 feet from a grandfathered virtual cache does the saturation guideline apply? NO, we do not care where grandfathered virts or webcams are.
BUT...If you are reviewing a multi stage cache and stage two is a virtual stage and it is placed 200 feet from an existing cache does it matter? Yes. All new virtual stages and Webcam stages must meet existing requirements, but we ignore those that are grandfathered.
AND... If there is an existing multicache with a virtual stage, and someone hides a new cache 200 feet from that virtual stage, does it matter? Yes. The existing multicache's stages should be respected for the cache saturation guideline.
------------------
P.S. We just got back from Arizona about 90 minutes ago. Had a great time finding a few geocaches while there. From the air, I could see there's no snow cover over most of Iowa; just some in the NE corner.
---------
I am seeing some confusion and being asked a few questions. Let me see if I can clear it up with a few examples.
If you are reviewing a single stage cache and it is placed 200 feet from a grandfathered virtual cache does the saturation guideline apply? NO, we do not care where grandfathered virts or webcams are.
BUT...If you are reviewing a multi stage cache and stage two is a virtual stage and it is placed 200 feet from an existing cache does it matter? Yes. All new virtual stages and Webcam stages must meet existing requirements, but we ignore those that are grandfathered.
AND... If there is an existing multicache with a virtual stage, and someone hides a new cache 200 feet from that virtual stage, does it matter? Yes. The existing multicache's stages should be respected for the cache saturation guideline.
------------------
P.S. We just got back from Arizona about 90 minutes ago. Had a great time finding a few geocaches while there. From the air, I could see there's no snow cover over most of Iowa; just some in the NE corner.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
Greetings from Tucson
Greetings from sunny Tucson, where we're spending a few days geocaching and rock climbing. I just spent the past hour reviewing Iowa caches at a local coffee shop here that has free WiFi. Technology is cool.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
2 strikes: cemetary vacation cache
There was a cache submitted for review this week that had two strikes against it -- either one of which was enough to disqualify it from being listed, and either one of which could be resolved if the owners so choose. The cache description says the owners were visiting Iowa for a funeral and decided to place a cache in the cemetary "to bring people there." They didn't state whether they received permission from the cemetary owners or caretakers (required for cemetary caches) or how they would maintain the cache (required for so-called vacation caches). I added a reviewer's note to ask them these questions. So far, no response.
P.S. We're leaving for a brief vacation to Tucson tomorrow. I have the PDA and GPS loaded with Tucson-area geocaches so we're set for a fun weekend. We also plan to do some rock climbing. I'll be checking the Iowa queue at times throughout the weekend, but maybe not as frequently as normal.
P.S. We're leaving for a brief vacation to Tucson tomorrow. I have the PDA and GPS loaded with Tucson-area geocaches so we're set for a fun weekend. We also plan to do some rock climbing. I'll be checking the Iowa queue at times throughout the weekend, but maybe not as frequently as normal.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Geocaching Event Guidelines
My thanks to a fellow geocaching.com reviewer, WGA (from Wisconsin, aka GrouseTales) for posting this in the WGA forums. The information is timely and helpful, so I thought I'd post it here.
----------------------
I hate archiving caches or events, so here is a little info to consider when planing any events/classes. It seems like a timely reminder since spring is coming soon, I hope :-).
Main points to consider:
# Geocache events are open to all geocachers AND organized by geocachers.
# Fees charged for events need to be justified and close to actual costs. You can't charge a fee unless it costs money to host the event.
# You can't charge a fee that would be used as a forced donation. If you want to ask for voluntary donations, feel free to pass the hat. In that case, don't list a fee on the cache page.
quote:
Event Caches
Event caches are gatherings that are open to all geocachers and which are organized by geocachers. After the event has passed, the event cache should be archived by the organizer within four weeks. While a music concert, a garage sale, a ham radio field day or town’s fireworks display might be of interest to a large percentage of geocachers, such events are not suitable for submission as event caches because the organizers and the primary attendees are not geocachers. In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.
For geocaching events that involve several components, such as a day-long group cache hunt that also involves a seminar and dinner, only a single event cache covering all components should be submitted.
Event caches should be submitted no less than two weeks prior to the date of the event, so that potential attendees will have sufficient notice to make their plans. Events are generally listed no more than three months prior to the date of the event, to avoid having the listing appear for a prolonged period of time on the nearest caches page and in the weekly e-mail notification of new caches. Exceptions are sometimes made for events that are designed to attract a regional, national or international group of geocachers. Contact your reviewer if you wish to set up such an event, which may be listed up to six months in advance.
Commercial Caches / Caches that Solicit
Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services.
Charging a fee for an event may fall under "caches that solicit", if somone is making profit off of the geocaching.com website. Even if those profiting are not a "commercial" business.
Example A:
Geocacher organizes a pizza social. Fee of $8.00 is charged to cover the actual cost of food. No probem.
Example B: Geocachers organizes a pizza social and charges $20.00 a head. $10.00 for actual cost of food, and $10.00 will be donated to the WGA. This event could not be approved. It's using the GC.com to solicit money. The event could still be held, just not published on the internet.
Example C:
GrouseTales hosts a "Printing on Paper geocaching class". He gets a room free at the library, but charges each person $10.00 to attend. All money collected will be donated to the friends of the library foundation. No Dice! This event can't be listed because it uses the GC.com to solicit (money for the library).
Example D: (similar to C)
GrouseTales holds the Printing on Paper class at a local restaurant. It costs $50.00 to reserve the meeting room. Printing costs are $20.00. Is it allowed to charge people money to attend? Yes. You would be able to charge enough money to recover the costs of the event. $7.00 a head would cover the cost if 10 people attended. Say 3 people show up, should you charge them $23 each to attend. Probably not. If you cant afford to take the loss, you probably shouldn't be organizing the class to begin with.
Example E:
GrouseTale's Hummer dealership is going to give a class on geocaching. No fee's charged. Can this event be listed? No. Events are open to all geocachers, and ARE ORGANIZED BY GEOCACHERS. Fee or no fee, events are are organized by geocachers.
There seems to be a lot of grey area with the events. No one is trying to discourage having events, but they are mostly designed to be social events. Some classes and other events fall into a grey area. Other times when fees seem excessive, the event will need the OK from the powers at groundspeak.
I see many reviewers around the country are having some questionable events submitted. Hopefully some of the info here might might help event organizers with future planning.
----------------------
I hate archiving caches or events, so here is a little info to consider when planing any events/classes. It seems like a timely reminder since spring is coming soon, I hope :-).
Main points to consider:
# Geocache events are open to all geocachers AND organized by geocachers.
# Fees charged for events need to be justified and close to actual costs. You can't charge a fee unless it costs money to host the event.
# You can't charge a fee that would be used as a forced donation. If you want to ask for voluntary donations, feel free to pass the hat. In that case, don't list a fee on the cache page.
quote:
Event Caches
Event caches are gatherings that are open to all geocachers and which are organized by geocachers. After the event has passed, the event cache should be archived by the organizer within four weeks. While a music concert, a garage sale, a ham radio field day or town’s fireworks display might be of interest to a large percentage of geocachers, such events are not suitable for submission as event caches because the organizers and the primary attendees are not geocachers. In addition, an event cache should not be set up for the sole purpose of drawing together cachers for an organized hunt of another cache or caches. Such group hunts are best organized using the forums or an email distribution list.
For geocaching events that involve several components, such as a day-long group cache hunt that also involves a seminar and dinner, only a single event cache covering all components should be submitted.
Event caches should be submitted no less than two weeks prior to the date of the event, so that potential attendees will have sufficient notice to make their plans. Events are generally listed no more than three months prior to the date of the event, to avoid having the listing appear for a prolonged period of time on the nearest caches page and in the weekly e-mail notification of new caches. Exceptions are sometimes made for events that are designed to attract a regional, national or international group of geocachers. Contact your reviewer if you wish to set up such an event, which may be listed up to six months in advance.
Commercial Caches / Caches that Solicit
Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services.
Charging a fee for an event may fall under "caches that solicit", if somone is making profit off of the geocaching.com website. Even if those profiting are not a "commercial" business.
Example A:
Geocacher organizes a pizza social. Fee of $8.00 is charged to cover the actual cost of food. No probem.
Example B: Geocachers organizes a pizza social and charges $20.00 a head. $10.00 for actual cost of food, and $10.00 will be donated to the WGA. This event could not be approved. It's using the GC.com to solicit money. The event could still be held, just not published on the internet.
Example C:
GrouseTales hosts a "Printing on Paper geocaching class". He gets a room free at the library, but charges each person $10.00 to attend. All money collected will be donated to the friends of the library foundation. No Dice! This event can't be listed because it uses the GC.com to solicit (money for the library).
Example D: (similar to C)
GrouseTales holds the Printing on Paper class at a local restaurant. It costs $50.00 to reserve the meeting room. Printing costs are $20.00. Is it allowed to charge people money to attend? Yes. You would be able to charge enough money to recover the costs of the event. $7.00 a head would cover the cost if 10 people attended. Say 3 people show up, should you charge them $23 each to attend. Probably not. If you cant afford to take the loss, you probably shouldn't be organizing the class to begin with.
Example E:
GrouseTale's Hummer dealership is going to give a class on geocaching. No fee's charged. Can this event be listed? No. Events are open to all geocachers, and ARE ORGANIZED BY GEOCACHERS. Fee or no fee, events are are organized by geocachers.
There seems to be a lot of grey area with the events. No one is trying to discourage having events, but they are mostly designed to be social events. Some classes and other events fall into a grey area. Other times when fees seem excessive, the event will need the OK from the powers at groundspeak.
I see many reviewers around the country are having some questionable events submitted. Hopefully some of the info here might might help event organizers with future planning.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Creativity in Iowa
Last October I had an out-of-state geocacher launch a personal attack against me because I didn't approve a listing for a cache they placed in Iowa (magnetic sign on an electric utility box). I politely wrote why I could not approve it because of safety concerns for geocachers who might grow accustomed to searching around dangerous areas for caches if they were to fin this one. Anyway, the geocacher (from Texas) accused me of being on a power trip and claimed I was the reason there were no creative geocaches in Iowa. Well, I have to say that I would put the creativity of Iowa geocachers up against anyone. The latest example of that is this one by Iowa Tom that just got listed. It's caches like these that make this a great state to go geocaching. Don't believe it when anyone tries to say otherwise.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
How to use the Additional Waypoints feature
One of my fellow reviewers, gpsfun, posted this "cheat sheet" about how to use the new Additional Waypoints feature of the geocaching.com website.
-------
For those who cannot seem to master the entry of additional waypoints, here's a cheat sheet I created. It has been sent to one geocacher so far as a test.
Feel free to use it as-is or modified to meet your personal style. I will appreciate suggestions, clarifications, or corrections.
Recording Additional Waypoints
1. Sign in to your account on Geocaching dot Com
2. Display your cache page
3. There is a Navigation section at the top right of the cache page where a "waypoints" link will be seen; click on that link.
4. First, you may choose a waypoint type - Final Location, Parking Area, Question to Answer, Stages of a Multicache, and Trailhead.
4a. For a complex cache, you could have entries for the parking area, trailhead, questions to answer, stages of a multicache, as well as the final location.
4b. For a traditional cache, you might want to enter the parking area and/or the trailhead.
4c. For a puzzle/mystery cache or a multicache, it will be necessary to make an entry for each stage and for the final cache location.
5. After choosing a waypoint type, you may enter a name for it. This can simply be parking, stage one, stage two, final, or whatever you choose.
6. Next is an entry field for a waypoint lookup code. As it says on the Waypoint Collection page, STAGE1 or FINAL are good names for the lookup code. You may use anything you want, but each entry must be unique - you cannot have two waypoints with STAGE1 as the lookup code.
7. After that there is an entry field for a prefix code. Unless you have something special in mind, you can just use AA for the first waypoint entry, AB for the second one, etc.
8. Next are the entry fields for the waypoint coordinates, which are completed in the same manner as the coordinate entries on the edit cache page.
9. Finally, there are three choices for how the waypoint should be displayed.
9a. Show all information for this waypoint, including coordinates - this should be chosen for parking waypoints, trailheads, and in those cases where the geocacher is being sent to a location to gather information or to answer a question that may be required to determine the final cache location.
9b. Show the details of this waypoint but hide the coordinates - I do not have a good example for this choice.
9c. Hide this waypoint from view except by the owner or administrator - this should be chosen for intermediate stages of a multicache or a mystery/puzzle cache, as well as for the final cache location.
Hope this helps.
-------
For those who cannot seem to master the entry of additional waypoints, here's a cheat sheet I created. It has been sent to one geocacher so far as a test.
Feel free to use it as-is or modified to meet your personal style. I will appreciate suggestions, clarifications, or corrections.
Recording Additional Waypoints
1. Sign in to your account on Geocaching dot Com
2. Display your cache page
3. There is a Navigation section at the top right of the cache page where a "waypoints" link will be seen; click on that link.
4. First, you may choose a waypoint type - Final Location, Parking Area, Question to Answer, Stages of a Multicache, and Trailhead.
4a. For a complex cache, you could have entries for the parking area, trailhead, questions to answer, stages of a multicache, as well as the final location.
4b. For a traditional cache, you might want to enter the parking area and/or the trailhead.
4c. For a puzzle/mystery cache or a multicache, it will be necessary to make an entry for each stage and for the final cache location.
5. After choosing a waypoint type, you may enter a name for it. This can simply be parking, stage one, stage two, final, or whatever you choose.
6. Next is an entry field for a waypoint lookup code. As it says on the Waypoint Collection page, STAGE1 or FINAL are good names for the lookup code. You may use anything you want, but each entry must be unique - you cannot have two waypoints with STAGE1 as the lookup code.
7. After that there is an entry field for a prefix code. Unless you have something special in mind, you can just use AA for the first waypoint entry, AB for the second one, etc.
8. Next are the entry fields for the waypoint coordinates, which are completed in the same manner as the coordinate entries on the edit cache page.
9. Finally, there are three choices for how the waypoint should be displayed.
9a. Show all information for this waypoint, including coordinates - this should be chosen for parking waypoints, trailheads, and in those cases where the geocacher is being sent to a location to gather information or to answer a question that may be required to determine the final cache location.
9b. Show the details of this waypoint but hide the coordinates - I do not have a good example for this choice.
9c. Hide this waypoint from view except by the owner or administrator - this should be chosen for intermediate stages of a multicache or a mystery/puzzle cache, as well as for the final cache location.
Hope this helps.
Dead week
After a flurry of a geocaching activity last weekend, this has been a slow week for new cache submissions, undoubtedly because of the weather. It's usually pretty easy to predict when there will be a boat load of new caches to review -- whenever the weekend weather takes a turn for the better. Nice (or at least relatively "nicer") days always seem to spur geocachers into placing those caches they've been meaning to hide for awhile.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Busy weekend for February
A look at the activity
There was an unusually high number of caches in Iowa submitted this past weekend. Here's a look at my log of posts:
Saturday, February 11, 2006
A thank-you for a cache denial
IowaAdmin's Geocaching Blog
It's rare that a geocacher will thank a reviewer for turning down a new cache listing, but that's exactly what happened yesterday. When I recently reviewed a cached placed in the Scott Wildlife Management Area, I posted a note to the owner asking if he had received permission from the Iowa DNR. In the meantime, I archived the listing. Yesterday the cache owner emailed this to me:
"Greetings, Ken the IowaAdmin ---
This is to let you know that I did not receive permission to place my geocache in the Scott WMA. I actually had a friendly chat with the local land manager. He patiently explained the reasons for denial of permission to me. We continued talking about geocaching and he suggested a number of possible sites in western Mills County. I'll check these out. So, I withdraw my request for approval of this cache.
Thanks for keeping this geocacher out of trouble."
It's so nice when everyone helps make the process work like it's supposed to, and we all do our part to protect and promote geocaching by being courteous and respectful.
It's rare that a geocacher will thank a reviewer for turning down a new cache listing, but that's exactly what happened yesterday. When I recently reviewed a cached placed in the Scott Wildlife Management Area, I posted a note to the owner asking if he had received permission from the Iowa DNR. In the meantime, I archived the listing. Yesterday the cache owner emailed this to me:
"Greetings, Ken the IowaAdmin ---
This is to let you know that I did not receive permission to place my geocache in the Scott WMA. I actually had a friendly chat with the local land manager. He patiently explained the reasons for denial of permission to me. We continued talking about geocaching and he suggested a number of possible sites in western Mills County. I'll check these out. So, I withdraw my request for approval of this cache.
Thanks for keeping this geocacher out of trouble."
It's so nice when everyone helps make the process work like it's supposed to, and we all do our part to protect and promote geocaching by being courteous and respectful.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Before you place, make sure where nearby caches are
The 528 ft. rule
This evening I had to post a note to the owner of a cache who placed it too close to an existing cache. The geocaching.com guidelines say that new caches should be at least 528 ft. (0.1 mile) from existing caches. If it's not, the owner should let the reviewer know a pretty darn good reason why it should be allowed. For example, if one cache were on top of a bluff and the other at the bottom of the bluff, it's possible that they could be allowed to be closer than .1 mile apart.
A geocacher once asked me how much leeway I allow on the 528 ft. rule. My answer was, unless there are special circumstances that the cache owner can describe, I stick to 528 ft. Why? First of all, I don't make the rules. Second, if caches were allowed to be closer, there's a chance geocachers could find the wrong one if it's a difficult hide. Besides, if geocaching is about bringing people to new locations, what's the point of bringing them to 3 different spots in the same park that are only 200 feet apart? Also, if you are the owner of the existing cache, wouldn't you like to think that you have some "claim" over that location, as long as you maintain the cache? Otherwise, furture geocachers could hijack your coordinates and, conceivably, place theirs right next to yours.
This evening I had to post a note to the owner of a cache who placed it too close to an existing cache. The geocaching.com guidelines say that new caches should be at least 528 ft. (0.1 mile) from existing caches. If it's not, the owner should let the reviewer know a pretty darn good reason why it should be allowed. For example, if one cache were on top of a bluff and the other at the bottom of the bluff, it's possible that they could be allowed to be closer than .1 mile apart.
A geocacher once asked me how much leeway I allow on the 528 ft. rule. My answer was, unless there are special circumstances that the cache owner can describe, I stick to 528 ft. Why? First of all, I don't make the rules. Second, if caches were allowed to be closer, there's a chance geocachers could find the wrong one if it's a difficult hide. Besides, if geocaching is about bringing people to new locations, what's the point of bringing them to 3 different spots in the same park that are only 200 feet apart? Also, if you are the owner of the existing cache, wouldn't you like to think that you have some "claim" over that location, as long as you maintain the cache? Otherwise, furture geocachers could hijack your coordinates and, conceivably, place theirs right next to yours.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
Not sure? Just ask.
Geocachers ask in advance before placing and submitting.
Recently I received email from a geocacher who was wondering whether caches are allowed at Iowa welcome centers. I replied that I have not heard anywhere that the DOT does not allow them. Today I approved a new geocache (waypoint reference GCTA8P) at the Top of Iowa Welcome Center. This is a good example of how, if you're unsure of the guidelines, a simple email question before you place a cache might save us both time and frustration.
Recently I received email from a geocacher who was wondering whether caches are allowed at Iowa welcome centers. I replied that I have not heard anywhere that the DOT does not allow them. Today I approved a new geocache (waypoint reference GCTA8P) at the Top of Iowa Welcome Center. This is a good example of how, if you're unsure of the guidelines, a simple email question before you place a cache might save us both time and frustration.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Out-of-state reviewers
Question raised about Minn. reviewer
In the ' comments to one of my January 27 posts, welch asked if Minnesota has a "local" reviewer. Winchill provided a link to a post that introduces the new reviewer for Minnesota. Previously, reviewing in Minnesota was done by several different reviewers before the responsibility settled into the hands of mtn-man (who I have corresponded with several times and know to be a very conscientious and fair reviewer).
A few weeks ago, saidcache asked, in the IGO forums, if members felt the reviewer should be required to live in the state they review caches for. I was gratified to see the response. Several members responded "no." They understand that state borders don't mean much in today's online global world. There are many examples of reviewers who don't live in the state they review. And -- to put in a plug for my personal situation -- in some of those cases, reviewers don't have the close ties, proximity, or frequent visits to the states they review like I do. Yet, they still do a fine and fair job of reviewing, based on what I hear anyway. Yes, it's true I now live in Wisconsin, but Iowa will always be my "home" state.
In the ' comments to one of my January 27 posts, welch asked if Minnesota has a "local" reviewer. Winchill provided a link to a post that introduces the new reviewer for Minnesota. Previously, reviewing in Minnesota was done by several different reviewers before the responsibility settled into the hands of mtn-man (who I have corresponded with several times and know to be a very conscientious and fair reviewer).
A few weeks ago, saidcache asked, in the IGO forums, if members felt the reviewer should be required to live in the state they review caches for. I was gratified to see the response. Several members responded "no." They understand that state borders don't mean much in today's online global world. There are many examples of reviewers who don't live in the state they review. And -- to put in a plug for my personal situation -- in some of those cases, reviewers don't have the close ties, proximity, or frequent visits to the states they review like I do. Yet, they still do a fine and fair job of reviewing, based on what I hear anyway. Yes, it's true I now live in Wisconsin, but Iowa will always be my "home" state.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Sunday evening reviews
2 for 4
With less than ideal weather today, I didn't expect many caches to review on this Sunday evening. There were four in the queue since the last time I checked earlier this afternoon. Two were approvable while the other two could not be approved. One of them was too close to an existing geocache. The other was placed in a state park and the owner did not indicate that he had obtained permission from the local park manager, as required by the Iowa DNR. For each of those, I posted a note to notify the owner what they need to do to get their cache approved.
With less than ideal weather today, I didn't expect many caches to review on this Sunday evening. There were four in the queue since the last time I checked earlier this afternoon. Two were approvable while the other two could not be approved. One of them was too close to an existing geocache. The other was placed in a state park and the owner did not indicate that he had obtained permission from the local park manager, as required by the Iowa DNR. For each of those, I posted a note to notify the owner what they need to do to get their cache approved.
Friday, January 27, 2006
One at a time, please
Let's get one approved before another is submitted
Today I reviewed a second cache from a geocacher who still hasn't answered my questions about one he submitted several days ago. What's up with that? So would I approve the second cache while waiting for a response on the first one? Well, I would have, but he had problems with the second one too, so that one is also on hold. It just seems to me that if he had time to log on and fill out the form for a second geocache, he would have noticed that I posted a reviewer's note (which sends an email to his designated geocaching email account) to ask him a question about his previous submission.
Today I reviewed a second cache from a geocacher who still hasn't answered my questions about one he submitted several days ago. What's up with that? So would I approve the second cache while waiting for a response on the first one? Well, I would have, but he had problems with the second one too, so that one is also on hold. It just seems to me that if he had time to log on and fill out the form for a second geocache, he would have noticed that I posted a reviewer's note (which sends an email to his designated geocaching email account) to ask him a question about his previous submission.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Be careful with the state dropdown menu
When submitting a new cache...
Tonight I went to the Iowa review queue and saw a new cache submission. Right away I could see there was a problem when the map indicated it was in McDonough County. Hmm, I thought, last time I checked there was no such county in Iowa. Sure enough, the cache owner had filled out the hide-a-cache online form correctly, except instead of pulling the drop-down menu to Illinois, he missed it by one and accidently selected Iowa. This happens quite frequently. Not a big deal. Reviewers usually simply edit the cache listing so it shows up in the queue of the appropriate state. However, it can slow the approval process for the cache, because it may take at least an additional day for the next reviewer to check his or her state queue and find it.
Tonight I went to the Iowa review queue and saw a new cache submission. Right away I could see there was a problem when the map indicated it was in McDonough County. Hmm, I thought, last time I checked there was no such county in Iowa. Sure enough, the cache owner had filled out the hide-a-cache online form correctly, except instead of pulling the drop-down menu to Illinois, he missed it by one and accidently selected Iowa. This happens quite frequently. Not a big deal. Reviewers usually simply edit the cache listing so it shows up in the queue of the appropriate state. However, it can slow the approval process for the cache, because it may take at least an additional day for the next reviewer to check his or her state queue and find it.
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
How much time?
IowaAdmin's Geocaching Blog
fishpounder said...
Just out of curiosity- How much time do you spend out of your day doing the reviewing process, assuming you have an application in queue?
fishpounder,
My time per day probably averages 30 to 45 minutes. Of course some days are more, some are less. Summer is the busiest time. The average per day in summer exceeds an hour. The "review process" includes more than just reviewing new caches submitted. It also includes rechecking pages waiting in the queue to see if the owner has responded to my questions, correspondence with geocachers who are asking questions about their caches, reviewing "should be archived" requests and then reviewing those existing caches, reading the reviewers' forum to keep up with the latest comments from Groundspeak and other reviewers to make sure I'm aware of the latest nuances in the guidelines, such as when a new twist to a cache is submitted somewhere, keeping up with the IGO forums, and yes, even scanning the dreaded gc.com public forums every so often to see what's going on there. I also recently volunteered to be on IGO's Land Managers Relations Committee, so I'm reading email from that group and participating in those discussions. And now I’m blogging too!
Thanks for your question. You're the third and final winner in my current promotion. Email me your address and I'll send you an IowaAdmin volunteer geocoin.
fishpounder said...
Just out of curiosity- How much time do you spend out of your day doing the reviewing process, assuming you have an application in queue?
fishpounder,
My time per day probably averages 30 to 45 minutes. Of course some days are more, some are less. Summer is the busiest time. The average per day in summer exceeds an hour. The "review process" includes more than just reviewing new caches submitted. It also includes rechecking pages waiting in the queue to see if the owner has responded to my questions, correspondence with geocachers who are asking questions about their caches, reviewing "should be archived" requests and then reviewing those existing caches, reading the reviewers' forum to keep up with the latest comments from Groundspeak and other reviewers to make sure I'm aware of the latest nuances in the guidelines, such as when a new twist to a cache is submitted somewhere, keeping up with the IGO forums, and yes, even scanning the dreaded gc.com public forums every so often to see what's going on there. I also recently volunteered to be on IGO's Land Managers Relations Committee, so I'm reading email from that group and participating in those discussions. And now I’m blogging too!
Thanks for your question. You're the third and final winner in my current promotion. Email me your address and I'll send you an IowaAdmin volunteer geocoin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)