View Full Version : Groundspeak's Email to me....

02-01-2010, 11:48 PM
ey Guys,

Attached is an e-mail I received this evening from Geocaching Reviewers.

This is the background to the situation. Ever since I started caching back in late April, I had attempted to find a certain cache in Wells, Maine GCVCNF Wells Rec/Hobbs Pond Cache. It was listed as a Traditional cache, and every time I tried to find it, I came up empty handed. The cache cords LISTED were in fact no the cords of the cache but cords of a "clue" that you were to find which would lead you to the actual cache location. As we all know, this is not a Traditional Cache. This should be a mystery cache, or even a multi-stage if you were looking for a first set of cords. But the listing really was vague about what you were to look for. Heck, in the listing, the cache owner even says that the listed cords are off by quite a bit!

I went back several times over the summer and each time I was unable to locate it. Finally, Marcipanek and Fjordriders both found the cache and explained to me how to find it. I finally went back in November and located the cache. But in the meantime during the time I couldn't find it, I had e-mailed the cache owner several times regarding the cache, without getting any kind of response. I finally explained that the cache was not a traditional cache, and it should be corrected so as not to confuse cachers. I knew from dicussions with other cachers, even on site who I had run into, that this was becoming a problem as they were having problems with the cache as well. I told the cache owner that if I did not hear anything back this final time, I would be contacting MainePublisher regarding the cache and how it was improperly categorized and that it should be archived and fixed. Still, I received no response from this cache owner.

So, when I finally did find the cache with the help of Marcipanek and Fjordriders, I decided to place a cache in the vicinity (but over .1 miles away from both the listed cords and the actual cache location) called A TRUE TRADITIONAL CACHE. When I placed it, suddenly, GCVCNF was archived by the cache owner. In her archive log, she stated that she would be reactivating cache as a mystery cache. This was in Novemeber. At the same time, MainePublisher also temporarily disabled my cache without publishing it saying that there was a proximity issue with an exisiting cache in the area and that I had to wait for the proximity issues to be resolved. So, to simplify here, her cache was archived and mine disabled without publishing, leaving no caches on the trail system what so ever. So I wait and wait and wait. I emailed the Keds (the cache owner) wondering when she would be activating her replacement cache. Still no response. I emailed MainePublisher after several weeks about it and was told that I had to wait until Keds activated her cache, so he could review my cache in relation to her cache (which still isn't there). So, finally this weekend I emailed Groundspeak and MainePublisher about this. It has been almost three months without Keds activating her replacement cache.

And this is the response I got from Groundspeak. Frankly, I am insulted! I am told that my cache will not be published because it is in close proximity to this woman's cache which she hasn't even activated or gotten published? She has had almost three months to activate it. MainePublisher has had almost three months to tell me that he won't be publishing my cache. And then I am told not to email Keds about this anymore? She refused to respond to ANY of my messages months and months ago concerning this issue!

It seems that whenever ANY issue arises with any of my caches, TAT pulls the plug on them IMMEDIATELY and they get archived, yet when there are issues with other's caches, it takes months t get them archived. I have seen caches get 20 DNF logs on them and many "Needs Archiving" logs and still no action by MainePublisher. Yet, mine get nailed at the first possibility of an issue.

I placed a cache several weeks ago at the trailhead of a nature preserve in Saco, Maine. Petr (Marcianek) placed a cache .25 miles down the trail in the middle of this preserve two weeks before and it was published (heck I snowshoed to FTF on it!) yet MainePublisher refuses to publish my cache saying that it is located on the property of a nature preserve that does not allow Geocaching on it's property. Yet, Marcianek's cache (3,2,1,Go!) get's published without an issue on the SAME damned preserve! Something is not right here.

Heck, look at THIS cache GCJ9AD (Cliff Cache). Marcipanek brought this one to my attention. This stuff is really allowed to continue as a cache?

I am just so frustrated with these double standards regarding cache placements. It seems everytime I go caching, I come across caches which are VERY close to rail road tracks as well. Over the summer as some of you know, I had an issue with a cache I was placing in Thomaston, Maine that was under the 150 ft minimum of distance to railroad tracks (regardless of how the cache is placed). Yet, I come across caches that were reviewed by MainePublisher AFTER the problem over the summer regarding my cache and rail road proximity, all the time. Do I make a stink about them? No. Mainly I don't because most have been placed by my friends. But regardless, he will publish those caches without problem but gives my caches the most scrutiny. I realize, yes MainePublisher is a volunteer. Yes he has published A LOT of my caches recently without problem, or complaint. I am very appreciative to him for his efforts. However, it does not excuse this type of double standard and the treatment of my cache in Wells. And to receive this type of email from Groundspeak, I feel personally insulted and singled out.

What are your opinions?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Geocaching Reviewers <>
Date: February 1, 2010 6:34:46 PM EST
Subject: [REV #LTM-609764]: GC20YWA

Dear Chadd,

I have heard back from the local Maine Reviewer, and have an update about the cache in question. As you will remember from your correspondence with us last year, you pointed out that GCVCNF functioned more like a multi-cache than a traditional cache. Subsequently the cache owner, keds, has put in place the stages of their multi and this cache will be published very soon (with a new GC code).

Your cache, if it is still in the location it was when you began writing to us, will have a proximity issue with the cache above. For your cache to be published, it will need to be moved. My best advice is to keep an eye on new caches in coming days so you can best place your cache away from any other waypoints.

Also, I would recommend changing the name of the cache before you submit is again, as it not really in keeping with the good-natured spirit of geocaching.

Lastly, I have subsequently discovered that you used to contact the cache owner keds, and that the content of these emails was less than friendly. Please do not contact this cache owner, as we cannot condone the use of our site as a medium for this type of behavior.

I understand that after a long wait this will not be the news you had hoped for. I do hope that you will be able to come up with an innovative alternative location that meets our guidelines so that we can publish your cache page soon.


Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Ticket Details
Ticket ID: LTM-609764
Department: Cache Appeals
Priority: Medium
Status: Closed

02-02-2010, 01:51 AM
No Comment!

02-02-2010, 07:29 AM
You and Tom should have a chat, not on this site or not via email. Trying to garner support for your position in this forum just won't get the problem resolved and actually might cause people to dig in even furthur.

Tom's both reasonable and knows the rules. Arrange a meeting with him or a time that's convenient for both of you to speak on the phone.

Hope that works....

02-02-2010, 07:58 AM

Your frustration seems to be consuming you here. I have a hard time believing that you are being personally targeted by MainePublisher or Groundspeak and mostly I don't see any conspiracy against you. Geocaching is a great hobby but individuals that participate all move at different speeds. Some cachers find and hide thousands of caches in a year while others find and hide a few hundred caches over 5 years. The speed at which a cacher (all cachers) moves in maintaining, placing or finding caches is a consideration here. How does MainePublisher balance the needs of all caching parties here? He is in a tough spot and your not giving him much wiggle room. Sounds like KEDS has every intention (or at least has given MainePublisher the impression) that they plan on re-activating their cache. This seems like you may need to take a different perspective and try to see this from MainePublishers point of view or even KEDS point of view. I'm not saying that your point of view is wrong or that what you are saying is wrong. What I'm saying is that you may need to take a few steps back and try to understand how these other folks perceive you and what steps may be taken to reach an acceptable solution for all.

From my perspective, from the outside looking in, you seem to be demanding that KEDS cache be disqualified and that MainePublisher is being vindictive toward you. From me being on the outside I don't see all the fine details but what I do see is that MainePublisher has published 300 of your caches and that you have run into one single problem. Let me reiterate, I don't know all the details, this is only what I see.

MainePublisher is also the publisher and not the mediator for disputes between cachers. MainePublisher has guidelines that have to be considered. Maybe MainePublisher can respond to you with how he scrutinizes all caches for review. For example, maybe he plots them on a map he has, or there is a macro he runs from GSAK, or a simple check sheet that he reads for each cache. I don't know the exact method but I'm willing to bet that MainePublisher consistently follows whatever method he uses. I'm also willing to wager that in whatever method he choses that timelines/timeframes and other cachers are not a determining factor. In other words, when MainePublisher looks at my cache to publish, my submission is hauled up, and put to some protocol; is it far enough away from another cache, is it to close to a railroad track, are the coordinates reasonable and I haven't claimed to be in Maine but the coordinates point to the Arctic Circle. I would definitely be unhappy if I thought for a second that MainePublisher was denying my cache publications because he liked another cacher more than me or if my cachers were subjected to a different set of protocols than, oh lets say, Trezurs*-r-*fun.

Your frustration is apparent. I truly hope that you get a resolution that you can accept. You are a dedicated and very focused cacher. Don't be so focused that you can't see how other may see the same situation.

Good luck and Cache on!!

Northwoods Explorer
02-02-2010, 08:10 AM
I always read but it is rare that I ever make comments or posts but in this case I had to do it. This is not the place for this type of discussion as it is an issue you have to resolve. The threads should be kept in a positive nature used to encourage others the explore the state through geocaching.

Northwoods Explorer
02-02-2010, 08:11 AM
I always read but it is rare that I ever make comments or posts but in this case I had to do it. This is not the place for this type of discussion as it is an issue you have to resolve. The threads should be kept in a positive nature used to encourage others to the explore the state through geocaching.

02-02-2010, 08:12 AM
This is not the venue for this type of conversation and IMO posting against the Geocaching Maine User Agreement (

Thread Closed

02-02-2010, 08:59 AM
Your frustration seems to be consuming you here. I have a hard time believing that you are being personally targeted by MainePublisher or Groundspeak and mostly I don't see any conspiracy against you.

Sheesh! MainePublisher ("TAT"), is one of the easiest guys to get along with. As was suggested, send him and email or PM and I'm sure he'll be glad to help.

There was an issue with a commercial link on the listing for our upcoming WWWWWW6 event, and Tom bent over backwards to explain the situation. And he sure doesn;t get anything back for the time he spends...

(And re-reading Groundspeak's message to you - I thought they were quite reasonable...)