MnGCA

Moe the Sleaze · Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:58 am Post subject:

Now that it's officially derailed...

My biggest problem with NC is their apparent rubber-stamp attitude to approval (and I'm well aware of the fact that this is what some people like about them).
_________________
"Hi, I'm Moe, or as the women know me - Hey! You in the bushes."
-Moe, The Simpsons

towlebooth · Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:07 am Post subject:

Thanks for the split SB, I was just going to do that.

Pear Head · Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:45 am Post subject:

Since there is now this great discussion, I may as well chime in with why I don't use NC. There are a number of reasons, some already brought up:

The rubber-stamp approvals. I learned at one time a while ago that they approved a cache in the middle of the BWCAW. I emailed them and was told that they would remove the listing. That's great and all, but it never should have been approved in the first place.

The other main reason is that I'm happy with gc.com. There are more caches on gc than I can handle. I haven't (yet) run out of caches to find that are on gc.com.

The last time I looked (which has been a while now), there were very few caches listed on nc that weren't also listed on gc.com. Maybe it has changed now..

My point is that while I don't agree with everything on gc.com, it's not worth my time to go look for caches to find on nc and then try and keep straight between the two sites what I've done and what I haven't. I have my hands full just trying to do stuff off the gc.com site.

I've had my problems with getting caches approved on gc.com. I've had two denied in the approx 30 I've had approved. One (a virtual a long time ago) I let slide. The second, a webcam (a different one than the one I have now), I argued (or shall I say discussed) with mtn-man for a few days. In the end I agreed with his decision.

I think the approval process is actually good. Granted they don't go over your listing with a fine-tooth comb, but it sometimes helps to weed out stuff that shouldn't be there, especially from a dos and don'ts point of view (where you can place and where you can't), and to keep the density of caches down. Personally I find 500' to be too close for caches, but it's not often that you find them that close. Even in major cities they are usually spread out by a 1/4 mile or more...