Is the first stage of a multi a virtual location?

22 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

It's my understanding that all stages of a multi must meet the 528' rule.  A traditional cache has been approved that lies directly on top of the first stage of my Into the Wild Black Yonder cache.  I asked prime reviewer about it and he calls it a virtual stage and so another cache can be located there.  ??

 

My cache: http://coord.info/GC11Q9R

The recently approved cache: http://coord.info/GC58E73

Edited by Thot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

juleed asked me this same question this morning after I found the new cache.  I wondered if it was acceptable since the final was not in the same location??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

From the cache placement guidelines:

 

Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

A physical stage is defined as any waypoint that contains a physical element placed by the cache owner, such as a container or a tag with the next set of coordinates. Non-physical caches or stages, including reference points, trail-head/parking coordinates and/or a virtual stage waypoints, are exempt from this guideline. Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements. The graphic below shows a few examples of what is and is not acceptable in terms of cache saturation. EarthCaches are exempt from this guideline as they do not have physical waypoints.

 

 

Cache Saturation Examples

 

This is acceptable because the stages of a single cache with multiple physical elements may be less than 528 feet (161 m) apart.

pass_example1.png

 

 

This is unacceptable because physical locations of the two separate caches are less than 528 feet (161 m) apart.

fail_example1.png

 

 

This is acceptable because all physical locations of the two separate caches are more than 528 feet (161 m) part. The blue waypoint can be closer than 528 feet because there is nothing physically placed at the location.

pass_example2.png

 

 

This is unacceptable because physical locations of the two separate caches are less than 528 feet (161 m) apart.

fail_example2.png

Edited by HoustonControl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Still didn't stop PR from approving a BaytownBert traditional cache 350' from the final of one of my puzzle caches.... or another BaytownBert traditional less than 100' from the final of a Muddy Buddies multicache.  :coolsmiley:

Edited by HoustonControl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So is that how "Talon Trouble" (GC58E73) can sit right next to "into the Wild Black Yonder" (GC11qr9) multi.  Was wondering how that happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Non-physical caches or stages, including reference points, trail-head/parking coordinates and/or a virtual stage waypoints, are exempt from this guideline.

 

 

That definition doesn't clarify anything.  What is a non-physical stage?  What is a virtual stage?  I thought these were locations where there was no part of a cache, such as the fake coordinates of a puzzle.
Edited by Thot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Just to add to this confusion, I had a microcache at that location and prime reviewer forced me to archive it (or archived it himself) because it was on "NASA property."  That's how it became a multi in the first place.  And now he has approved another micro in the same location that he forced an archive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

A non-physical stage means there is nothing there hidden by the cache owner -- no container, tag, sticker, magnet, etc.  In your case, there is a plaque or marker placed by NASA that you get the info off of.

 

I remember when PR made you archive the cache.  He is certainly consistent with his inconsistency!

amberita13 and green-eyed like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Still didn't stop PR from approving a BaytownBert traditional cache 350' from the final of one of my puzzle caches.... or another BaytownBert traditional less than 100' from the final of a Muddy Buddies multicache.  :coolsmiley:

 

Shhh....  Ya wanna bring in the cache cops?    :police:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Here's prime reviewer's answer to the fact that I originally had a cache here, was forced to archive it and would like my cache location back:

 

We're not using maps from 9 years ago. The maps have been refined in the intermediate years, and no longer show this location as being a restricted area. We use the tools we have available at the time. This is one of the reasons why Guideline #1 is "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache."

I would interpret that to mean 'Other circumstances being equal, just because you once had a cache in a given location doesn't give you special rights to the location'

 

But, in this case there are other circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

That is the reason I rarely place any more caches as PR is sometime a pain to work with but I understand he approves the whole state of Texas but that is by his own choice. A example of the inconsistency was the text in the FTF cache. I put it in there to get mine approved. Years later he asked me why I put that text in there. It is not an easy job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 It is not an easy job.

 

I agree with that, but he seems to be a person who's unwilling to admit when he makes a mistake and correct it.  Everybody makes mistakes but his  unwillingness to own up to and correct his mistakes makes him not suited for the job. 

FamilieRyan likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Out of curiosity (and perhaps it is idle curiosity)--is anyone willing to volunteer to take over Prime Reviewer's job for Texas?  I know that I don't have the time to do so.  Once I have the time (we're talking about many years in the future after I retire), I'm not sure if I would have the inclination, but I certainly believe in service to others--so I might.  But definitely not now.

 

Perhaps Texas is large enough that it would be best if it were broken into regions with reviewers for each of those regions.  However, before that can happen I would think that there would have to be enough people willing to take on the task.  I am under the impression (but I don't really remember why) that PR is in the Dallas area, so if Texas were split into two regions--a northern and southern--there could be two people to review.

 

So the question remains--is anyone willing to volunteer to take the job?

 

It seems like I have seen many resources hinted at in these various posts, so I think there are those among us who might have an idea of just how many caches have to be approved per year in the state of Texas.  I wonder how many per day PR needs to deal with.  I would think and hope that Groundspeak would be more than willing to lighten PR's load.  You know it has increased since he started.

 

So--is anyone willing to volunteer to take the job?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

We've discussed this ad nauseum but the bottom line is PR doesn't want any help and seems to use his influence to keep it that way.

 

My feeling is there are loads of people who would be willing to volunteer.  Whether they would stick with it or do as good a job as PR is up for debate.  I would even consider it if I were asked -- though I would have more interest in policing missing and abandoned caches than in reviewing and publishing new ones.  It would also severely cut into my free time. :laugh:

 

That said, the way it works, I'm told, is Groundspeak asks YOU if you are interested, not the other way around.  I've heard that the easiest way to guarantee you will never be asked to become a reviewer is to volunteer for it!

Edited by HoustonControl
Baytown Bert likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

On Groundspeak's splash page for volunteers (http://www.geocaching.com/volunteers/) it says that the way you can become a volunteer is "If you are interested in becoming a volunteer and there is a need in your region, you may be nominated by another volunteer.

 

That certainly makes it seem like if PR doesn't want any help, he isn't likely to get any (since from the map it doesn't look like there are any volunteers in the state of Texas besides PR) no matter how much everyone else might want him to.

HoustonControl likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So, if one wanted to volunteer, one could ask the West Texas Reviewer for a nomination... :angel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

So, if one wanted to volunteer, one could ask the West Texas Reviewer for a nomination... :angel:

Probably not.  Just like when I protested to groundspeak about a cache of mine was arcived by PR before he ever published it.  GC told me   " Good luck in turning over Prime Reviewers decision."  I say it is because He has wrote most of GC.com's programs.  So he has them by the you know whats.  SO they do what he wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I've always assumed the reviewer system is voluntarily.  If so, Jerremy's annual mulit-million dollar company depends almost entirely on these reviewers.  He has to back them almost whatever they do.  Without the volunteers his system would crash and burn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now