MnGCA Home MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   User listUser list   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

MN cache reviewing
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bflentje
Geocacher


Joined: 29 May 2006

Posts: 4050

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

King Boreas wrote:
A film canister/test strip container is tucked into the "groove" of a standard signpost. The top of the container is at, or very near ground level. It has minimal local camo material covering it.

Is this cache "buried" Question


Not in my opinion but my opinion doesn't count.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

King Boreas wrote:
A film canister/test strip container is tucked into the "groove" of a standard signpost. The top of the container is at, or very near ground level. It has minimal local camo material covering it.

Is this cache "buried" Question


Not if you didn't break ground to put it there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dornole
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Apr 2006

Posts: 463

PostPosted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've seen several caches where it looked like ground was broken and the lid is level with the ground. I know technically that's burying but as long as "I" don't have to dig to find it feels like fair game to me. Assuming it's not falling into the defacing public or private property category.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just a note that Groundspeak now requires caches with a terrain rating of 1 star to have the wheelchair accessible attribute set to yes.

In the past we'd simply post an advisory note on the cache page if your terrain was set to 1 and you didn't have the attribute set. Now it will hold up publication of the cache.

If you don't want to hold up the publishing of your cache (and generate additional work for all involved), please set the terrain to at least 1.5 stars or add the wheelchair accessible attribute. I believe the new form will set it automatically for you (from what I've been told) if the terrain is 1, but I also know you can change it down the road...

Thanks!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
andrewmcc
Past MnGCA Board


Joined: 29 Jul 2007

Posts: 996

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2012 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MN.Fruitcake wrote:
Just a note that Groundspeak now requires caches with a terrain rating of 1 star to have the wheelchair accessible attribute set to yes.

In the past we'd simply post an advisory note on the cache page if your terrain was set to 1 and you didn't have the attribute set. Now it will hold up publication of the cache.

If you don't want to hold up the publishing of your cache (and generate additional work for all involved), please set the terrain to at least 1.5 stars or add the wheelchair accessible attribute. I believe the new form will set it automatically for you (from what I've been told) if the terrain is 1, but I also know you can change it down the road...

Thanks!

Good move!
_________________
Dinnae fash yersel (don't worry yourself)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
navychief98
Geocacher


Joined: 11 Sep 2011

Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MN.Fruitcake wrote:
King Boreas wrote:
A film canister/test strip container is tucked into the "groove" of a standard signpost. The top of the container is at, or very near ground level. It has minimal local camo material covering it.

Is this cache "buried" Question


Not if you didn't break ground to put it there.



What about the "ant hill" caches I'm hearing so much about? Buried or not?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5703

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

navychief98 wrote:
MN.Fruitcake wrote:
King Boreas wrote:
A film canister/test strip container is tucked into the "groove" of a standard signpost. The top of the container is at, or very near ground level. It has minimal local camo material covering it.

Is this cache "buried" Question


Not if you didn't break ground to put it there.



What about the "ant hill" caches I'm hearing so much about? Buried or not?


I've never heard of this. What is it?
_________________
Hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
navychief98
Geocacher


Joined: 11 Sep 2011

Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 7:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pear Head wrote:
navychief98 wrote:
MN.Fruitcake wrote:
King Boreas wrote:
A film canister/test strip container is tucked into the "groove" of a standard signpost. The top of the container is at, or very near ground level. It has minimal local camo material covering it.

Is this cache "buried" Question


Not if you didn't break ground to put it there.



What about the "ant hill" caches I'm hearing so much about? Buried or not?


I've never heard of this. What is it?




The best (and largest) anthill cache I've seen. If there's no lip showing, you have no easy way to tell it isn't real. There's a "small" container underneath, embedded in a plaster-like core.

[img]http://db.tt/6ISBy9eU[/img]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
King Boreas
Geocacher


Joined: 16 Dec 2002

Posts: 2441

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President


Joined: 04 Apr 2004

Posts: 5703

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And that whole container just sits on top of the ground? So it's basically a container and camo that looks like an ant hill, that you just place on the ground where appropriate?
_________________
Hmm...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
timewellspent
Geocacher


Joined: 19 Mar 2008

Posts: 706

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MN.Fruitcake wrote:
At this point I'm not prepared to discuss HOW we're splitting the reviewing up as we're not sure exactly how it's going to work either (we're playing with a system right now to make it as random as possible).


Are you ready now to discuss this?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

timewellspent wrote:
MN.Fruitcake wrote:
At this point I'm not prepared to discuss HOW we're splitting the reviewing up as we're not sure exactly how it's going to work either (we're playing with a system right now to make it as random as possible).


Are you ready now to discuss this?


Partially.

We each do roughly 50% of the new cache reviewing, although we're not in favor of telling people how that works. The reason being that, although we try and remain as consistent as possible both individually and as a team (and we do try very hard to remain consistent), we also understand that there are difference between us. For that and other reasons we'd rather not have people 'picking' their reviewer.

I handle caches that have been disabled for a long (usually 3+ months) period of time.

Gat R Done handles Need Archived logs and other issues concerning cache maintenance.

We both respond to emails from concerned cachers about particular listings. Depending on the circumstances we may forward the email to the opposite reviewer for resolution, but cachers can approach either of us with concerns. Usually it works best for newer listings to approach the reviewer that published the cache, although it's also not necessary.

We also both handle emails from cachers about questions, etc. If the question is regarding a perceived gray area in the guidelines (and how we'd interpret a yet-to-be-placed cache in that gray area) then we'll normally confer before answering and/or cc: the other person in the answer.

Like reviewing caches, we try and maintain consistency. That isn't to say that the answers don't change over time - there are times when our answer may have been different a year ago, based on guideline changes, feedback we get from other reviewers, Groundspeak, other cachers, or even our own personal experiences.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It may be helpful to also mention that caches are typically published based on the 'last edit' date. If you continue to edit your cache page then it will keep dropping to the bottom of the queue.

The majority of days we're able to review all of the caches submitted so it's not an issue, but there are odd times (this holiday week being one of them) where I can't make it through the entire queue in one sitting. In those times I publish starting at the oldest caches first.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
timewellspent
Geocacher


Joined: 19 Mar 2008

Posts: 706

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MN.Fruitcake wrote:
timewellspent wrote:
MN.Fruitcake wrote:
At this point I'm not prepared to discuss HOW we're splitting the reviewing up as we're not sure exactly how it's going to work either (we're playing with a system right now to make it as random as possible).


Are you ready now to discuss this?


Partially.

We each do roughly 50% of the new cache reviewing, although we're not in favor of telling people how that works. The reason being that, although we try and remain as consistent as possible both individually and as a team (and we do try very hard to remain consistent), we also understand that there are difference between us. For that and other reasons we'd rather not have people 'picking' their reviewer.


I'm still confused by the each of you doing 50% of new cache reviewing. So say 10 caches come in/at/around the same time and say one of you are on vacation or just busy. Does the "free" reviewer just take every other cache to review and lets the others sit for whenever the "busy" reviewer becomes free or does the free reviewer take the first 5 in queue and the next 5 sit waiting?

I am starting to get the feeling the 50% reviewing is being broken down by the cache owners and not really a true 50% split of what is coming in which really doesn't seem fair to the CO's as they see other caches being published while their caches seem to be bypassed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MN.Fruitcake
Minnesota Reviewer


Joined: 18 Oct 2010

Posts: 34

PostPosted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

timewellspent wrote:
I'm still confused by the each of you doing 50% of new cache reviewing. So say 10 caches come in/at/around the same time and say one of you are on vacation or just busy. Does the "free" reviewer just take every other cache to review and lets the others sit for whenever the "busy" reviewer becomes free or does the free reviewer take the first 5 in queue and the next 5 sit waiting?


Vacations are different than normal days. If I'm on vacation then Gat R Done handles all of the caches (and visa versa).

Normal days:

Caches and designated to one reviewer or the other as soon as they're submitted for review. In a series of 10, for example, 5 could go to one and 5 to the other, or it could be more lopsided, or all 10 could go to one. It's not random, but as close as we can get to it.

Quote:
I am starting to get the feeling the 50% reviewing is being broken down by the cache owners and not really a true 50% split of what is coming in which really doesn't seem fair to the CO's as they see other caches being published while their caches seem to be bypassed.


The split isn't based on the CO. This is really evident for cachers that submit large number of caches at one time. For example, if KB submits 20 in a state forest at once then you'll find, on average, that Gat R Done publishes half and I publish half.

While I understand your concerns I believe they wouldn't be alleviated regardless of how the reviewing was split. If the reviewing were done based on the reviewer's free time then you'd still have the same issues - the reviewer would stop reviewing at some point (like when their free time ran out) and you'd end up burning out one reviewer pretty quickly.

There are pros and cons to every method of splitting the reviewing - we've tried to make it as fair as possible, but there's still naturally some cons to it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission.