A note about "notes to the reviewer"

Today I had emails from two different geocachers -- mostly routine stuff about getting their caches ready to list -- and both of them asked me to delete my "note to the reviewer" so that geocachers don't see it once the cache is approved and listed. So, I thought I'd offer here a little insight about how "notes to the reviewer" work. When a cache is published and goes online, notes to the reviewer are automatically erased from view. However, they are still viewable to the reviewers if we click on a link called "view archived logs." This is a handy feature because it allows reviewers to save correspondence from the owner on the cache page, such as notes about how the cache is hidden, or the contact information for the park manager who granted approval, etc.

More discussion about electric box geocaches

Yesterday I enjoyed an email discussion with a geocacher who
asked me to clarify and discuss further why her geocache that is made out of a former electric utility box (but is no longer hooked up) could not be approved. In my response, I sent her this link to a forum post by a geocacher who works for a power utility. It's expert advice from someone who knows firsthand the dangers of conditioning geocachers to look inside or around electric equipment. Quoting from his post:

I am asking in behalf as a Safety Professional and Geocacher please not to hide caches on or around electrical equipment and not to even look for a cache that may be on or around any electrical equipment. If you believe that it is in a hazardous zone please contact the person who placed the geocache. If that is not a successful route please contact the person who approved it. Most of the time the approver of a geocache is not aware that it is in a dangerous zone. Let’s look out for each other.

For these reasons and others mentioned previously in this blog, these types of caches are not a good idea. I know some have been approved in other states, but I don't know why because it's doubtful that the business or utility company that owns the electrical equipment granted permission for the cache to be there.

Here's the reply from the geocacher with whom I was having the email discussion:

Thanks for the reply. I understand completely. It is good to get an explanation sometimes.

Those Jeep travel bugs

Windchill wrote to me today and suggested that I post an update on what I know about this summer's Jeep travel bug distribution. So, here's what I know. Groundspeak (the company that runs geocaching.com) has posted a note in the Reviewer's forum saying that any reviewer who wants to distribute Jeeps to geocachers in their areas should let them know. I didn't see the post until recently so I put in a request for about 60 to 80 Jeeps because that's what I received in past years. Another more recent post says that the first round of shipments have been mailed out, with another round coming soon.

Additionally, this year there was a mail-in request form process to give everyone an equal chance to receive a Jeep Travel Bug directly from Groundspeak. All you had to do was fill out a form and mail it in. Anyone who did so within the first two weeks (approx) of the sign-up period "will definitely get one" according to Groundspeak (despite what the form says). I've heard that some individual geocachers are already receiving theirs directly from Groundspeak.

If I wasn't too late to get me request in and I do get a shipment this year, I'll forward them to IGO board members for distribution to Iowa geocachers.

Another nice note

I received this nice note from an Iowa geocacher. Thanks. Comments like this serve as a reminder that the purpose of reviewing geocaches is a service -- to keep the sport fun for the most people possible.
-------------------
Good Grief! Ref: Kaboom That was quick!
Thanks a lot. You do such a great job for all of us out here in cache land. We really appreciate you!
LoBri

Our Canadian experience

A friend and fellow geocaching "old-timer," jvechinski, wrote that I should blog about my recent trip to Whistler, British Columbia, where I bagged a few geocaches (of course) in addition to doing zip lines, white water rafting, mountain biking, hiking, dancing and dining... (lots of dining). So by popular request, and even though they have nothing to do with reviewing geocaches, here are some photos. (Yikes, this is awful layout design. Oh well.)

A nice trip followed by kind words

This past weekend my wife and I and two other couples rented a houseboat out of McGregor, IA and boated the Mississippi River for 3 days. It was great! I was planning to take my laptop along and find wifi hotspots to review caches a couple of times, but at the last minute I decided to "disconnect" for the weekend. I thought this might cause a few geocachers to wonder if their new caches were EVER going to be reviewed. My apologies to those of you who waited patiently. I guess not everyone is ticked off, because here's a very nice email received today.
------------------------

IowaAdmin:

Hi! We are relatively new to geocaching & have recently placed 3 caches in the Ames area (all of which were approved quickly).

Just wanted to take a minute & thank you for the time you spend reviewing & publishing caches. I'm sure it's very time consuming & we appreciate your volunteer spirit!

Thanks also for your blog, I just took some time & read through all the past posts & they were very informative. Lots of good information for placing future caches.

Thanks again for your time & dedication!
Angie B
RedheadBasset
Ames, IA

People are different

The answer to this question may be obvious, but have you ever noticed how different people can be? Case in point: For the past couple of months I've been asking geocachers whose caches I review and who have additional waypoints for multicaches, to use the "add/edit waypoints" feature on the edit page to enter their coordinates. To my way of thinking, it's a fairly straightforward request and not that hard to do. Most geocachers see it that way. Most will say "OK, I didn't know about that feature," and they do it without whining. Then there are other geocachers who say something like "This is the final straw. I've had it!" and they proceed to let me know how this is the worst thing that has ever happened to them. Yup, people are different, all right. Sometimes that difference makes you appreciate the nice guys even more.

Think before creating a useless hint

I just posted this note to the owner of a new geocache:

"The only recommendation I will make is that you delete the text you placed in the hint field, since you're not actually giving a hint. It can be frustrating for some geocachers who spend the time at ground zero to decrypt a hint only to find there is no hint."

I try to post a note to the owner similar to this every time I see a hint like "No hint necessary." If no hint is necessary, why frustrate geocachers by making them decrypt the text you place there? The purpose of the hint is to give geocachers a final resort whenever they decide they have looked long enough and can't find the cache. If you think this through and put yourself in the geocache hunter's situation, it's easy to see why you shouldn't post a hint that says "No hint necessary." I know... there's nothing in the guidelines about this. But to me it's a matter of courtesy.

A correction/clarification about the 528' rule

In a comment I posted here on May 31 I wrote:
"My understanding of the guidelines (and if you have better info from Groundspeak, please let me know) is that individual waypoints of multis need to be at least 528' from each other and from other caches. Finals for mystery caches also need the proper spacing. So, yes, individual parts of a multicache need to be at least .1 mile apart."

Well, a couple of geocachers DID let me know that they had better information from Groundspeak, so I want to thank them. Turns out that individual waypoints of your own multi don't need to be at least .1 mile from each other. The reference cited from groundspeak was a note posted in the "Getting Started" forum which reads, in part:

This guideline applies to all stages of a multi-stage cache, which must be .1 miles distant from any other cache. Within a multicache, the guideline doesn't apply - you can place stages of your own multi 250 feet apart, for example.

I have to admit, I missed that one. However, there have only been a couple of geocaches submitted where I asked the owners to space their waypoints futher apart. Now that I stand corrected, I won't be making this a requirement from now on. Thanks for the feedback!

How long can you hold a cache location?

This past week a geocacher (cary1952) posted a couple of "Should be archived" notes for a few geocaches that had been placed by a pair of geocachers from Texas. My thanks to Cary1952, because he called to my attention several caches the Texas tandem had placed in the Iowa Great Lakes area and then disabled last summer. (Originally they explained that they have relatives in the area who would maintain the caches, so that's why I approved them even though they don't live in that area.) However, as I said, they subsequently disabled their caches and said they would relist them "next spring." Well, spring came and is now nearly gone, so rather than keeping these spots reserved with their "temporarily" disabled caches, I archived them. It's not fair to hold these locations, especially when they're along such a nice bike trail in one of the most popular tourist destination areas in Iowa. It would have been OK for them to keep the caches active, provided the relatives who live in the area were willing and able to maintain them. But with creative local geocachers like davyduck hiding caches in the area, it's not like these were the only caches available in the Okoboji area.

Requesting archives

I just checked email and see that I have 11 messages for "Should be archived" notices on caches -- and they're all from the same geocacher. I know this person probably has good intentions, but it's just kind of frustrating to see one person post so many at one time. I'll look at each one, but I also like to wait a few days before taking any action to see if the cache owners take it upon themselves to reply to the request, either by archiving the cache themselves or by posting a note that they will perform maintenance.

A reminder about adding waypoints

Greetings from sunny (and breezy) Okoboji! I'm logged on to check the cache queue. I was able to approve a couple new ones just now, but for four others I had to post a note to the owners asking them to use the "add/edit waypoint" feature on the edit page to enter the additional waypoints for their multicaches. I know it may take some time for all geocachers to become aware of this new feature, so I'll keep plugging away to get the message out.

Okoboji meet and greet?

We'll be joining my extended family for our annual Okoboji Memorial Day reunion next weekend. If there's any interest in a geocachers' meet-n-greet -- say on Sunday morning for breakfast -- maybe we can organize something. It's too late to list an official event cache on geocaching.com, but let me know if you're interested and we can publicize it on this blog and in the IGO forums.

A reminder: "add/edit waypoints" feature

For the past few weeks I've been asking cache owners who submit new caches and who have not used the "add/edit waypoints" feature to go back and edit the cache page to add waypoints (if they originally listed additional waypoints in their description). And so far, the system seems to be working well. Everyone has been complying nicely. My thanks to everyone for doing this. It makes reviewing more efficient and it gives us a better way to document where the additional waypoints are for multicaches, which helps maintain the .1 separation.

Cemetary caches: What's the policy?

I received a suggestion today from Iowa geocacher Windchill, who suggested I link to a post in the IGO forums about an e-mail that fellow geocacher Iowa Tom received. It's a very moving story from the parents of a baby who died more than 40 years ago when the parents lived in the Waterloo area. If you're a parent or have ever wanted to be a parent, you should read the post.

Then Windchill went on to say: "With the strong feelings that this topic brings out, I thought I'd mention it and ask if you would share the official Groundspeak position, and your personal position, on cemetery caches."

There is no universal guideline for all areas of the world about cemetary caches. I understand that in Europe, it's no big deal to geocache in a cemetary. However, in some areas of the U.S., it is highly discouraged.

To answer Windchill's question about the official Groundspeak position, the closest that the guidelines come to a position on cemetaries is this:

"For all cache types please be sensible when choosing your location for cache placement. Please be aware of what may be a perceived to a non geocacher as dangerous or questionable behavior. For example, suspicious looking characters wandering about near an elementary school. The land may be public property, but keep in mind what is on the other side of that property line."

The way I interpret this guideline is to ask the geocache owner to obtain permission from the cemetary owner or caretaker. I feel it's important that the cemetary caretakers know ahead of time that geocachers may be visiting the cemetary, and why, and that they approve of the cache placement.

I also request that the cache owner consider including a note in the description to tell hunters not to geocache after dark, don't hunt for the cache if there are mourners in the area, and in general to be respectful at all times, including not posting photos of themselves next to a gravestone, for example.

To sum it up: If you get permission, you can place a geocache in a cemetary. But please don't place it on or around a gravestone.

Polk County permit required

For geocachers in Polk County who may not be aware, the county now requires a permit be obtained before placing a geocache in county parks. I have already approved a couple of geocaches since March, when the Polk County policy went into effect. Those geocache owners stated in their descriptions that they had obtained the proper permit. You can read more about the Polk County policy at this site. Click on Policies>Facility Policies>then click on search by Facility and go to Polk County.

Shining Happy People

If you haven't read the geocaching.com profile for the Texas approver, Prime Approver, it's worth checking out. I love his description of what it takes to be one of the shining happy geocachers. (And I quote from Prime Approver's profile and borrow the image he has posted):



Why are the people above shining and happy? Their cache was approved, because they read and followed the Cache Placement Guidelines before they placed their cache. Thus, they received the golden orb of approval happiness.

The people above would never place a cache that's closer then 1/10 of a mile to another cache. If they're placing a multi-cache, they would check that each stage also follows this rule. Everyone deserves a little space.

The shining happy people would never place a cache within 150 feet of a railroad track, because they know that area belongs to the railroad company, and they get grumpy if things are placed in their right-of-way.

The people above know that they would never receive the golden orb if they submitted a physical cache that didn't have a log book. Trying to submit a "code-word" cache is the path to darkness, and will not be allowed.

The shining happy people know that when they submit a multi-cache, or any cache where the actual location is not the one posted, they should submit a reviewer note informing the approver where the actual locations are, including all the stages of a multi-cache. That way, they know they're following the golden path to quick approval.

[And for Iowa geocaches, I'm asking that all multi waypoint coordinates be listed with the "add waypoints" feature, and not merely in a note to the reviewer.]

The shining happy people know that virtual caches are no longer being published on geocaching.com. If you've found something really special, and can't make it part of a physical cache, see if there's a place for it over on waymarking.com.

The shining happy people know that sometimes, bad things happen to good caches. But they also know that disabling a cache is meant to be a temporary measure. If you can't get your cache repaired in a timely manner, you should archive it, so that it will stop showing up in search lists. It's also not fair when your disabled cache prevents others from placing a cache in the same area. Remember, geocaching is about finding caches, and they can't be found if they're not there.

If a cache has been disabled for too long, and a reviewer archives it, the shining happy people know not to get upset about it. When your cache has been repaired, it can always be un-archived (as long as it still follows the current guidelines).

Nice words

I received this email from a geocacher today. He gave me permission to post it here. Thanks, AB!
-----

Hi Ken,

This is AB of AB-n-AP, and I just wanted to say your blog is very informative! I went back and read through all your posts since January, and learned a lot about the way you prefer new caches to be submitted and also how you go through the whole approving process. In addition to being informative, it's also very interesting to read your updates and the Q&A segments you have had. Thanks for giving geocachers a great place for valuable geocaching information.

All Beef

Volunteer geocoins

I'm enjoying reading about the travels of my IowaAdmin Geocoins that are traveling around the state. Most of the coins that are circulating have a goal to move from cache to cache in Iowa. A few of them have been allowed to travel outside the state. You can see a list of them here.

Additional waypoints -- please use this feature

Back on January 21st I posted some tips about how to use the additional waypoint feature at geocaching.com. Now that this system has been around for several months, it seems to have most of the bugs worked out. I encourage each of you to use this feature when you submit new geocaches. It will be especially helpful for reviewers as we have more multicaches out there if everyone submits all their multicache waypoints using this feature. That way, I'll be able to see quickly if any of the multicache waypoints intrude on each other's 528 ft. rule for cache separation. From now on, if new caches are submitted without using the additional waypoint coordinates feature, I'm going to ask the owner to edit the cache page to include the additional waypoints for multicaches -- and for parking (for those who choose to include parking coordinates in their description). For those who want to go back to their existing cache pages and use this feature -- well, that would be great, too. If the cache is a simple traditional cache with no parking coordinates or no multiple waypoints, then, of course, you won't need to use the additional waypoints feature.