Lostby7

Big surprise. What is your deal? I ask a legit question and you've posted nothing but snarky dross... Pot meet kettle.

It was archived due to a user being banned...AFAIK, there's no permission issues. So this thread is just a way to bring up the CavScout issue again? My thought as well. For some doing this just never seems to get old. I question the rational for logging his caches... If it's archived, leave it alone. *EDIT for rethinking my comments. Just because I assume things doesn't mean I need to post them.

I haven't seen this so much, but rather there seems to be a shift back towards keeping the Listings focused on Geology, as it should be, and not so much on unrelated information that does not contribute to the Earth Science lesson. Likewise, I see fewer Listings with Logging Requirements that focus on plaques/signs and the like, which are unrelated to the "lesson" (e.g. "....email me the third word in the second paragraph of the interpretive sign at these coordinates...."). I find that unfortunate. While one can skim (or not read at all) the cache page, if you are asked to get information from a sign (presumably one which talks about the feature) you are forced to read or at least skim the material and actually learn something.

I would be hard pressed to point you to specific threads...many of these conversations took place within threads of different topics...for this reason I think it is a good thing to readdress the situation. I do agree that it is up to the cacher to do or not do a cache and as a cacher I'd love to see many, many more ECs....that said, it is quite time consuming for the reviewers to review ECs. Reviewing several of the same topic near to one another can seriously slow the reviewers down and waits of a few days for a review of a submission could turn into a few weeks...and for what, the same information at two nearby locations? Don't get me wrong, ECs are generally my favorite type of cache to find...but there is additional work behind the scenes on these and few reviewers to do the work. I'm not sure what the answer is....but I'd like to see it discussed again.

Great post. This has been hashed out many times but one more time wouldn't hurt (much). Frankly I would agree that perhaps there should be a published (to us) radius around a cache which dictates when a similar cache could be placed; perhaps have differing distances: Cave EC (assuming you could get one published): 75 miles Spring EC: 100 miles Erratic EC: 150 miles Oxbow Lake EC: 200 miles But....there are so many types of caches this could get difficult to manage as even the same feature might be approached in a different way; a spring which talks about the water purity vs one which talks about the unique formation of the spring itself or a cave which was formed by a shift in the Earth vs a cave which was formed by carbonic acid dissolving the limestone. There would be lots of what-ifs involved in a blanket radius scheme(s). I'd be interested to see if there is any new thought on this matter from the powers.

With my experience, yes. This account has had this issue with an ECO abusing their powers, but in both cases with the support of GSA and appeals the issues were corrected, and only envolved one ECO. Well said Manville. That's why we say IT"S A GAME! Don't let it go to your head. It sort of reminds me of what a very good friend, who us retired military, once said, "there is nothing worse than a private with a clipboard!" Unfortunately, in our GAME, there are a few of those privates. There are two sides to every story...some folks have entitlement issues.

I cannot say I'm surprised by this. I think it's human nature to grant more leeway to those we can align ourselves with. Rocking his EC boat was likely enough to make your answers a little less than acceptable. I'd say that you learned more about human nature than about the EarthCache you visited.

Ok, I dont handout in this thread much, so is this a touchy topic? Axe-grinding occurs here fairly often and EC owners are often portrayed as elitist and unbending. My apologies if I misconstrued the intent of your post.

I can see this thread headed in a bad direction already. I'll just answer, no, I have not run into this...ever. * EDIT for spelling.

Now on to that 500 EC find puzzle cache...I believe that is in Michigan? Sorry I missed seeing that #500...not sure how we didn't cross paths at the WB event.

That's a toughie I need another 4 states to go double up...Not an easy task.

A review of the reqs: Earthcache Master levels: Bronze PinBronze Earthcache Master Visit and log three (3) or more Earthcaches in two (2) or more states/countries. Silver PinSilver Earthcache Master Visit and log six (6) or more Earthcaches in three (3) or more states/countries and have developed one (1) or more Earthcaches. Gold PinGold Earthcache Master Visit and log twelve (12) or more Earthcaches in four (4) or more states/countries and have developed two (2) or more Earthcaches. Platinum PinPlatinum Earthcache Master Visit and log twenty (20) or more Earthcaches in five (5) or more states/countries and have developed three (3) or more Earthcaches.

I had the exact same thing happen at one of my locations a few years ago...and the required picture was also shot in the dark. I allowed the log to stand but clearly they did not visit as intended nor did they likely get anything more than a smile out of the visit.

How hard would it be to keep a running total of the number of folks who have reached each level right on the EarthCache Discovery Awards (EDA)page at EarthCache.org? Following those stats would be really cool. Plus it looks like the approval process is automated so maybe this aspect could be as well?

I totally blew one answer this weekend on an EC and the cache owner patiently explained where I went wrong with my answer...so while I might not have learned the intended lesson at the location I did learn it from the feedback given be the cache owner. If the questions asked are subjective there needs to be a little leeway on the answers received from the finder.

Agree.

I have had them approved in as little as an hour and as long as a couple of weeks. Your odds of getting published sooner seems to be in direct correlation to the quality and completeness of your listing. Having correct permission listed on the page or as a reviewer note also lessons the chance of a delay.

You can easily appeal a decision via the EarthCache team leader (glewis@geosociety.org). I have seen this work just fine...in fact once it worked without me even making an appeal...the ringleader must have been trolling my listing and hit the publish button when I was still working with another reviewer. Each reviewer has a slightly different idea of what is acceptable...it never hurts to get a fresh perspective if you truly feel you have a valid listing. Remember folks, they WANT you to succeed and get your listing published. Unfortunately not every listing is publishable.

+1 I love days like that!

For those interested in the caches in question: *Roche-A-Cri: Grotesque Towers GC1NGD2 was archived due to issue with the stairs...and yes I know this could have been rewritten to accommodate for the stair issue but that would have weakened the point of the EarthCache and was not the desire of the park staff. *Parfrey's Glen State Natural Area (No. 1) GC1A9G5. This one has been closed twice due to unusual flooding events. Permission and cooperation has helped to keep people safe and informed. With or without the earthcache there, the people were protected because the stairs were closed to the public. The permission for the cache did nothing to protect anyone since the area is now closed to the public. John I would disagree. The permission (therefore informing the powers of the precise location of the cache) allowed them to get the cache disabled quickly. In the case of the stairs, people go around obstacles all the time. People break rules to find caches...sad but true; how many cemetery caches are found after dark? Trespassing? In the case of the second example where the park is actually closed, there are other trails into the (closed) park. My getting permission there allowed them to know that there was a cache in their now closed and potentially hazardous park. Disabling the listing discourages folks from trying to break the rules to log the cache...and trust me there have been no logs while the cache has been disabled...back-dated or otherwise...

For those interested in the caches in question: *Roche-A-Cri: Grotesque Towers GC1NGD2 was archived due to issue with the stairs...and yes I know this could have been rewritten to accommodate for the stair issue but that would have weakened the point of the EarthCache and was not the desire of the park staff. *Parfrey's Glen State Natural Area (No. 1) GC1A9G5. This one has been closed twice due to unusual flooding events. Permission and cooperation has helped to keep people safe and informed.

There was a wooden series of steps to the top of the feature....they were deemed unsafe and in need of repair...eventually they will be rebuilt. So, did the park close the stairs to everyone or just have the cache archived. If they closed the stairs while repairing them, then there was no need to archive the cache. John The stairs were made off limits to all while the park itself has remained open. They asked that the listing be archived and their wishes were respected. Once the stairs are rebuilt I have no doubt that a new listing will take it's place. Coincidentally, I have an EC which has been disabled more over the past three years than it has been active due to two flood of the century events...one of which caused the emptying of an entire lake when it burst it's banks. This EC is also in a special "get two sets of permissions" location. Here they have not asked for an archive while the park is closed for rebuilding (trails and boardwalks destroyed) so the cache remains disabled.

There was a wooden series of steps to the top of the feature....they were deemed unsafe and in need of repair...eventually they will be rebuilt.

I created three EarthCaches for a state park. All required permission (as we know), one of the three needed additional permissions due to it being in a sensitive area. After about a year one of the three (the one requiring additional permission) needed to be archived as the area had become unsafe. The parks folks knew about the listings and where they were located so they were able to contact the owner of the listing which took folks to a place which became unsafe. Permission in this case was instrumental in keeping folks from going to what became an unsafe area. I know folks get lazy about permissions for many traditionals out there, and I sometimes grumble about HAVING to get permission, but in the long run gaining permission could just save folks from getting injured.

I do agree with you that the self learning is the best part.I have learned oodles form the listings I have created...and putting what I have learned in my own words to show others on the page makes the learning that much more rewarding.