Colocation

[sandvika]

I have an all-weather site, with excellent parking, picnic and barbecue facilities, and landowner backing.

I want to create several multi-cache routes that start and end at this facility however the usual cache proximity guidelines and size of the site preclude this owing to the confusion it might create.

My proposed solution is to place multiple locked and labelled cache containers within a single large container, removing any confusion, the true challenge on each cache route being to locate a micro-cache containing the unique key prior to logging the find in the corresponding container at the colocated end point. Each route has unique waypoints, all fully compliant with the proximity guidelines.

In your opinion, is this solution acceptable for the sake of expediency, or are the guidelines paramount and the proposal a tabboo?

This poll is to gauge your initial reaction. When the poll is closed I would like to open up the discussion.

[KathyXB]

I am a bit confused as to what the poll question means - are you saying 2 different caches ending in the same location, or one cache with several alternate approaches? I have not voted as I don't know what you are asking.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I like the idea, but I don't think it would meet the guidelines. If I understand you correctly, you would in essence have a number of final multi containers at the same spot, and if you tried to list each as a separate cache gc.com wouldn't allow that. For that reason I've voted "No". If I've misunderstood you then perhaps you could clarify your idea.

[keehotee]

I like the idea, but I don't think it would meet the guidelines.

But they are, after all, guidelines only - not hard and fast rules.
If you explained the concept well enough, and got a reviewer onside, it could well get published (?????)
I had a similar idea a while ago - one cache, but 3 separate "inner " caches - with an option to do the cache a variety of different ways (puzzle, multi, or traditional) - but I haven't put it into practise yet....!

[The Wombles]

Yes for me on the basis that you stated you would comply with the guidelines. In this case, that would mean the final cache(s) and all other steps are separated by 0.1 mile - shouldn't be too much of a problem assuming that there is a large clearing around the barbeque as a fire break.

[nobbynobbs]

no for me as i am not sure if i fully understand.

here's my suggestion:
starting at the same place is not a problem as long as there is not more than one container in place. just have them all start at the parking co-ords for the first cache.
then take people on the various walks away from this location, i presume in different directions to see different things. as long as any waypoints are more than the required distance apart ( not a problem if in different directions) then the easiest option is for them to find the caches at the furthest away point, not when they come back.
they then walk back to the start point after doing the cache to start the next one/ have a bbq etc.

that way you can have as many as you want as long as they are on a seperate path for each cache.

hope that helps.

[keehotee]

as any waypoints are more than the required distance apart
The distance rule (161 metres) only applies to caches - this is from the GC Listing Requirement for new caches...
Within a single multicache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between waypoints.

[sandvika]

Hi, thanks all for your feedback. I think the poll has stalled basically because you are not sure what I proposed.

For the record (as voting is still open), as it stands, 3 people (including me) think the principle is OK, 5 think it is tabboo.

I can be very specific now as two of the proposed caches have been published, the third is unavoidably delayed as it is dependent on another project that I have not been involved in being completed. Maybe I'll have the opportunity to help the other project along and thus being the cache to fruition sooner than would otherwise be possible....if that's what cachers would like.

The two caches that have been published are "Around Cabbage Hill" (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1454N) (GC1454N) and "Nuptown" (https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC14598) (GC14598). The third, not yet out of the starting blocks, is "Warfield Heritage" (would be GC1459A).

What the three multi-cache routes share is a common start point (Frost Folly Car Park)
and a common end point (a large ammo box). Within the large ammo box are three small locked cash boxes. In order to gain access to log books, exchange items, trackable items etc. you have to complete the route of your chosen cache, calculate the coordinates for and find the micro-cache that contains the key for the corresponding cash box in the ammo box. All waypoints for each route are totally independent, the keys are sited more than 0.1 miles apart and only one of them is intended to be within 0.1 miles of the final (because it's a super hiding place!)

In essence, you can't complete the cache without the key. The way I'd look at it is that the key caches are essentially the final locations, because the large ammo box is an easy find (as such large caches usually are!) and has been placed with full consent of the land owner. Unfortunately, the site with consent for the ammo box is too small to accommodate more than one final location, otherwise this would not be a discussion point at all!

This presents some possible variations on conventional geocaching. For example, for an event (such as a birthday party), two teams of cachers could each take one of the routes, the winners being the ones who complete their route first (the multi-cache waypoints have been chosen deliberately to make the caches roughly equivalent in difficulty), or for an all-day event, two teams of cachers would each complete both caches, one starting with GC1454N, the other with GC1459A, the winners being the team that signed the second log book first.

As you'll see from the two cache listings, they have involved a lot of preparation - and repair after the floods, however before even the second one had been published, someone had complained to me and to the reviewers claiming a conflict with the guidelines. That's what prompted me to create the poll. I did not set out to cause conflict and I'm happy to follow the majority view. If the majority don't like the idea, it will mean scrapping the third and final cache in the series and finding an alternative endpoint for the Nuptown cache.

However, following the publishing of the second cache, the complainant carried out their threat to escalate their complaint to Groundspeak. The current outcome is that all three proposed caches could stand as planned, but my concept has not been accepted and could not be replicated by others.

To be frank, what bothers me most at this point is that a precedent not to allow this concept to be repeated by others has been set on the basis of one complaint, which has essentially arisen through an accident of geography. I personally believe very strongly in the democratic process (which is indeed why I'm a Parish Councillor) and not in dictat. Thus, the outcome, even though I have approval to complete the series, is in your hands through your votes.

After all, the discussion point is around guidelines, not rules or laws. We enjoy a young hobby and in my view, it should be capable of adaptation, if that's what the participants want. To quote George Bernard Shaw: The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

I hope this clarifies the matter and I look forward to your votes and opinions.

Regards, Roderick Parks (Sandvika)

[Bill D (wwh)]

As I said earlier, I liked the idea but I didn't think it would get approved. I also wasn't sure whether I'd understood the conception properly.

Having read your full explanation, and given that gc.com have approved the caches, I take back my earlier objection. If I hadn't already voted, I would now vote in favour. Best of luck with the third one, and I hope the complaint to gc.com doesn't result in approval being withdrawn or the third cache not being accepted. :)

[Brenin Tegeingl]

Originally posted by Bill D (wwh)@Aug 17 2007, 03:35 PM
As I said earlier, I liked the idea but I didn't think it would get approved. I also wasn't sure whether I'd understood the conception properly.

Having read your full explanation, and given that gc.com have approved the caches, I take back my earlier objection. If I hadn't already voted, I would now vote in favour. Best of luck with the third one, and I hope the complaint to gc.com doesn't result in approval being withdrawn or the third cache not being accepted. :)
Bill Groundspeak after discussing everything with Eckington,Lactodorum and myself, agreed that the 2 published caches will remain active and that the 3rd may be published and the complaint is now closed. however it is Groundspeaks decision that this concept may not be repeated.

As one of the persons involved in the publication and subsequent complaint about these caches. I have refrained from voting in the poll.

[Lactodorum]

Obviously I haven't voted, nor will I. Obviously there has been a problem with the current guidelines and the caches needed the specific say so from Groundspeak to remain in place as planned. That is all history.

However I think this poll would be a useful indicator of how people feel in principle about such caches.

[Mongoose39uk]

OK, I have to say I cannot see a problem with it in principle.

Knowing that it has been approved and complained about, can I ask will any further caches of this kind be allowed?

Hmm, thinking about a recent thread on the GC forum it does not take a leap of the imagination to guess who.

[keehotee]

I think it'd be a real shame if the idea was vetoed and not allowed again - this could be an ideal workaround for areas large enough to hold multiple caches, without having to also have multiple hidey holes large enough for a decent cache. It could also be argued that this was environmentally kinder too - especially if the common final was in an "erosion resistant" area.
Imagine the possibilities for an urban series......a whole load of nasty urban nano's - but with the opportunity to have a central (or otherwise) repository full of pigeon-hole caches for swaps....

[nobbynobbs]

yeah i understand this one better now and happily say that i'd be happy with this concept being repeated. :D

[sandvika]

Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Aug 17 2007, 06:31 PM
OK, I have to say I cannot see a problem with it in principle.

Knowing that it has been approved and complained about, can I ask will any further caches of this kind be allowed?

Hmm, thinking about a recent thread on the GC forum it does not take a leap of the imagination to guess who.
As it stands at the moment, the concept could not be repeated by others.

If the eventual outcome of the poll shows a majority in favour of the concept, then I would simply present the results to Groundspeak and ask them to accept the result of the democratic vote as the precedent.

I don't think it's helpful to personalise who might have complained. I don't take the complaint personally, I am sure they would have complained if anyone else had attempted the same. Thus, there's no ill feeling on my part. In fact, in support of the democratic process, I'll invite them to vote and participate in the discussion if they so wish.

Regards, Roderick Parks (Sandvika)

[nobbynobbs]

the only problem with democratic rights ie votes is that every time you get someone knocked back by the approvers they will want to start a poll.

the forums will rapidly fill up with polls and people wont reply to them. then you get spurious positive polls because so few post.

i personally think it is better to let the approvers decide and stick with their decision.

[sandvika]

Originally posted by nobbynobbs@Aug 21 2007, 06:00 AM
the only problem with democratic rights ie votes is that every time you get someone knocked back by the approvers they will want to start a poll.

That might have been the case previously however:

1 - I started this poll as soon as I became aware that it was considered to be a contentious issue, before it was taken to Groundspeak.

2 - My proposal for 3 caches has been approved so I have nothing to gain from the poll being carried, merely to challenge the precedent that has been set by one objection so that others with similar plans will not be constrained on this basis.

I hope that makes the matter unambiguous.

Cheers, Roderick (Sandvika)

[nobbynobbs]

i never meant to imply that this poll shouldn't have been started but i think that groundspeak will want to not start a precedent of accepting a majority vote as any basis of deciding which caches to allow or not.

it's always interesting to get other peoples opinion and from that approach and discuss with the approvers but just because we all want something doesn't mean we'll get it :(

otherwise i'd be posting this from my private island in the med. enjoying the sunshine and other trappings of the rich and shameless! :lol:

[keehotee]

If somebody worded the concept carefully (see beginning of this thread) and posted on the main forum, inviting people to vote, we might get a wider spread of opinion. It would then be down to the reviewers to either act, or hold in abeyance (have you ANY idea how long I've waited to use that expression in a sentence) on the outcome. Opinion needn't lead to any change in the rules, but could influence future approval (or denial).

If all else fails, there's always Terracaching (hush my mouth, soap & water, etc......)