Krieger
-
Posts
7 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Krieger
-
-
Just read through all of this thread and re-read (for at least the 137th time) the guidlines (guielines, not rules and regulations). Wow, you all have given the owner of this cache and the Volunteer reviewers something to go on and the rest of us something to think about. Here is my input:
1. When placing a cache and submitting the information for approval, the guidlines offer the opportunity to address any situation that may be in conflict with them.
2. If the owner of the cache does this (and it sounds like they now have some information to support their cause) and the reviewer accepts it, then the cache should stand. If the owner does not appease the reviewer, then it should be archieved (just let it go at that point).
3. The two reviewers in this case were doing the correct thing by addressing this particular cache (the guidlines tell all of us to do just that, but some of us don't.)
4. I have found this particular cache (enjoyed it), but did not bring any attention to it and perhaps I should have. I think that the cache owner should now be able to provide enough information (it wasn't previously provided) to the reviewer (permission from the land owner etc.) to keep it in place (that is up to the reviewer after they have all the information.)
5. Groundspeak provides the opportunity to appeal an archieving and that is what the owner is doing. Good on them for using that part of the guidlines.
6. Miragee is not a he or him, she is a very nice lady.
My apolgies to all for the gender bias.
-
Someone made the suggestion that I post a picture of the hide. Go to GCNPR1 for a looksee and then tell me if I violated the existing "guideline" two years ago.
Yup.
Certainly looks like a guideline violation to me. This is precisely the sort of thing guideline is meant to prohibit. Apparently a reviewer found it and agreed.
So I give this a:
Very emphatic, but rude and uncalled for. The text of your message should have been sufficient.
-
Well, Gentlemen,
I becomes clear to me that those of you who oppose my hide do so based on your own personal view of the guideline addressing digging or burying. I believe that the guideline was originally intended to prevent people from totally disturbing an area. That's point one. Point two is for those of you who supported me. We are working the words in our favor, however, as Miragee stated in one his replies, only the word "digging" was used and revised later to include the use of tools. The forum on rewording of that Guideline is going in another forum. I see that some of you are already participating in that one. Good.
With regard to the restrictions attributed to the Arizona BLM; it seems each of the offices across the U.S. take their broad direction from Washington D.C., but are given latitude to manage their own area of responsibility. in suppoort of this statement, go to the BLM Website and search for Instruction Memorandum No. 2005-092. The Carson City office of BLM has stated to me that there is nothing wrong with my hide.
Lastly, I would think that a group of people who persue a sport as complex as this one would not reduce themselves to personal attacks. One of the replies was especially egregious. I can only hope that maturity and good manners would win out over sensationlism and self-agrandisment.
So, for those of you who supported my view, thank you. And to those of you presented dissenting views, I thank you also for stimulating a healthy discussion.
My next step is to the appeal process.
With that I bid you all adieu.
-
Someone made the suggestion that I post a picture of the hide. Go to GCNPR1 for a looksee and then tell me if I violated the existing "guideline" two years ago.
-
I just visted the Bureau of Land Management in Carson City, NV to get a read on this issue. With the UTM coordinates, we determined that the site is, in fact, on BLM land. Prior to going to the BLM office, I took pictures of the site which I showed one of their representatives. I asked if this kind of hide was okay. The reply was that there was nothing wrong with it. Let's continue the discussion on the salient point of being buried. Perhaps a better stipulation in the "guidelines" should be that caches cannot be below ground level.
I'd like to let this forum go another few days, with the reviewers permission. before I submit my appeal.
-
Hello To All Geocachers,
A little over two years ago, I placed Sage One in Bureau of Land Management land just south of Carson City, NV. It is an ammo can placed in a wooden encasement that has a wooden cover. I used my hands to put this wooden encasement into the ground, leaving the top fully exposed to view. A geocacher finding this hide has only to lift the cover and extract the ammo can, make the log entry, trade goodies, replace the can into the wooen box and replace the cover. Additionally, the cache is covered with a few dead wood sticks and small stones taken from within a few feet of the hide.
One geocaher in the past two years has complained about how this cache hidden resulting in my cache being archived. If you view the logs for Sage One you will find nothing but praise for Sage One with one exception.
I'm at the start of the appeal process and the basis of that appeal is that this cache is not truly "buried" in the literal sense since it is exposed to view and doesn't require disturbing the ground to get to it.
I'm open for criticism, support, or questions.
Thanks,
Krieger
Suggested "Guideline" change
in General geocaching topics
Posted
It was my cache that started the threads dealing with this guideline. I like your wording because it covers all the salient points of the reasons for it: Pemission, allows insetting, and restricts discovery to no digging. I would suggest that the background and reasoning for the guideline be included.