Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by cimawr

  1. As I understand it, reviewers do NOT receive notifications for "Needs Maintenance" logs; the only logs they get notifications for are "Needs Archived". Reviewers can also, as I understand it, pull up lists of caches which are disabled, and a reviewer who's doing his or her job correctly will periodically do a check for those, and archive them if the owner has had the cache disabled for too long. Our local review is good about that - when a cache has been left disabled for too long, s/he archives it with a public note saying something to the effect of "Since this cache has been disabled for so long, I'm archiving it to keep it from showing up in searches. If the owner wishes to correct the situation, please contact me." S/he is also really fair with "Needs Archived" requests due to lack of maintenance or too many DNFs - usually what happens is the reviewer disables it, and gives the CO 30 days to replace or fix it. If the CO doesn't take care of it, then it gets archived. My rule of thumb is usually if the cache needs maintenance, and there are no prior NM logs, then I post a NM and put the cache on my watchlist. If I see that another cacher (not the CO) has fixed things, or that I was mistaken, I delete my NM log. If it doesn't get fixed, but the cache is still findable, I either don't do anything more, or (if the cache is close enough to me and accessible enough) I may take care of the issue myself (replace a logbook or pencil, that sort of thing). If the NM issue was that the cache is supposed to be easy but suddenly started getting a lot of DNFs, and/or it's verifiably missing, and the CO has been on the site within, say, the past year, then I post a NM, wait a month or so to see if they respond... if they don't, THEN I'll post a NA. I won't don't a NA as my first action unless: 1) the cache appears to be missing, or has some other "fatal" issue, and CO hasn't been on the site for a couple of years - especially if s/he has other caches that have been archived due to non-responsiveness 2)the cache appears to be missing and there's a previous NM log that's been ignored for a month or more 3) the cache is placed in violation of a Groundspeak rule (for example, on the grounds of a school).
  2. Umm. Nicole may never quite fit that description, no matter how hard she tries. Erm... both males and females have gonads, yanno. More seriously, I wholeheartedly agree. I've been geocaching for around 5 years now, and I'm still surprised by how afraid people are to say something when there's an issue. For that matter, I'm frequently surprised at the lengths people will go to just to add to their numbers - parking in the middle of a 4-lane, 50-mph highway; climbing trees on the side of a busy road, right next to a bus stop; ignoring "no trespassing" signs; ignoring the fact that a cache location is actually someone's private fence or the back of someone's private residential property; walking through the middle of a large homeless encampment .... and so forth. Editing to add: re the climbing trees, it's not the climbing... it's the utter conspicuousness of the location.
  3. Sorry, but no, I didn't "bring a beef to the forums". I contributed to an already started conversation, regarding a similar/related issue to the original subject: Caches in roadway areas that have the potential to cause traffic hazards, which in turn may cause reactions on the part of LEOs and/or DOTs. And as I stated in my original post, I've not made up my mind whether to say something to the CO, drop a line to the reviewer, or leave it alone and let LEOs, the DOT, or the construction crews deal with it if they see people stopped in the middle and think they shouldn't be there. And I'm hardly "picking a fight"... just responding to questions asked. The "picking a fight" going on here isn't on my part.
  4. Erm... unless you've been caching under another name, and/or only started logging your finds when you became a premium member a couple of months ago, this cache is not one of the 20 you've found so far, nor do you even live in the same state as me. So I'm curious as to why you're so sure that you know more than I do about the cache.
  5. I like the way you think. Although it still wouldn't solve the problem that people are going there thinking it's a cache'n'dash, when in reality the only place to legally park is .38 miles up the road.
  6. My reason for not posting it is the reason I already stated, pure and simple. If you want to see how accessible it is, pm the guy who figured out the GC code.... then put your money where your mouth is and go look for the cache. The listing isn't going to tell you how accessible the cache is; only going to the location (which, as I've stated, I drive past several times a week) is really going to tell you that. And if you're comfortable with being in the middle of a highway, looking for a nano, knock yourself out. Editing to add: Shouldn't take you more than a couple of hours to drive from New Jersey to Maryland.
  7. Sigh. I'm really trying not to get snarky here, despite the attitude you're copping, but: It's quite clear from the logs that people ARE treating it as a cache'n'dash/park'n'grab. And just because one LEO didn't notice or pay attention to it doesn't mean the next one along is going to... especially since the cache is located where LEOs sometimes sit to speedtrap people coming around that curve at 70mph... namely in the middle of the highway. (Why, pray tell, do you think the cache is named the way it is?) As far as me looking for the cache... it's not going to happen. I'm not interested in parking in a commercial parking lot, crossing a 6-lane highway (with no traffic lights or stop signs for miles) on foot, walking .38 miles on a bike path, then walking into the middle of a 4-lane highway to look for a nano on a traffic sign in the median.
  8. Perhaps because I'm familiar with the actual cache location, AND with the local caching community?
  9. I've quite clearly stated that I deliberately chose NOT to post the GC code because I don't want to upset the CO; I'd appreciate it if you'd respect both me and her & refrain from posting the code.
  10. A, I don't know what you're seeing on Google Maps (assuming you do have the correct cache), but there isn't any pull-off area there, and that's true for 98% of the highway in question. I hope I never have a breakdown in that section of it, because there's no room on the side of the road to get out of the traffic lane. Some areas have grassy median strips with narrow strips of gravel on the edges that are just wide enough to get a disabled vehicle into, but that doesn't constitute legal parking for geocaching - and in order to park at the cache, you'd have to park in the landscaping, because the median there *doesn't* have the gravel strip. B, neither Google Maps nor Google Earth are particuarly accurate as to cache location- I find both to be significantly less accurate than even a low-quality GPS. I really hope you don't think that caches are located exactly where they show up on Google... C, both of my GPS units, as well as everything in the cache listing and the logs, tell me that the cache is on one of the two signs in the median. As far as "angst", none on my part... just concern that one of these days, a cacher's going to get flattened there. Oh, and I notice you didn't mention the note on the cache WRT not being able to look for it because of cops.
  11. See my replies upthread - technically speaking, it's not illegal to walk across the road, nor to be in the median strip. It's just dangerous due to the speed of traffic, the curves of the road, and that this is NOT a road where you normally EVER see pedestrians. IOW, nobody driving along here - especially at night (this road isn't lit at night, btw) - is going to be expecting people walking across the road. What's questionable is the legality of PARKING in the middle, which is what people are doing. Editing to add... my internal debate has to do not only with the fact that technically speaking, the cache itself is legal, but that I don't want to upset other cachers, including the CO who has some other hides I've really liked. (That's also, btw, why I'm not posting the cache listing; last thing I need is some exaggerated story about what I've said getting back to her.) There haven't been many finders for the cache, so I suspect quite a few others, like myself, drove to the vicinity, thought "No way in hell", and drove on by. Also, if I didn't make it clear in my first post, I'm intimately familiar with the road - I drive the entire length of it at least once a week.
  12. No, it doesn't. That's a bike path, which doesn't connect to any sidewalks for at least 5-6 miles. Just out of range of the photo, it stops, makes a right turn, and becomes an unpaved mountain bike trail. Pedestrians wouldn't be in much danger there, but the path can only be accessed either through the woods, or (as mentioned upthread) by parking nearly half a mile away, crossing a 6-lane highway, then crossing back to the median when you get close to the cache site. And that's not really an "intersection", either. In any case, my point is that the cache listing doesn't mention any of this, so what people are actually DOING is parking in the middle of the highway. And it is a highway; it's a high-speed connector road, currently with nothing along it but a few office parks, and NO stop lights for about 10 miles.
  13. Please quote where I said that? What I actually said was "no way in hell should people or cars" be in the traffic lane. (And I only said it once. ) Sorry, but you've jumped to an incorrect conclusion. That's an "official vehicles only" fire road, closed off with a gate, and it would be impossible to park there without obstructing the bike path. Decidedly NOT legal parking. There is currently construction on the *other* side of the road, but it's not legal to park there either; it's in the early stages and there's nothing but mud, gravel, and "no trespassing" signs. (One of my concerns WRT safety is that construction vehicles need to drive through the middle area where people have been parking.) The nearest legal and/or safe place to park is .36 miles away, in an office center. IOW, the cache CAN be accessed legally (technically speaking)if you park .37 miles away, walk across what is at that point a 6-lane highway, walk up the bike path, then cross the highway again. Oh, and I mis-spoke about the speed limit; it's 50, and at night people routinely go up to 70+ there. And did I mention the cache site is around a curve?
  14. Trying to remember what my house bunnies liked best... Apple Cranberry Alfalfa Shadow is very cute!
  15. Hmm. My cat tries to help out workmen (plumbers, electricians, and so forth). Then again he's a Siamese.
  16. How about a photo? The cache is located in the point of the median strip just below where the white car is. The speed limit is 40, but cars routinely go 50+ here.
  17. Yep. And it's a narrow median strip with *no* pullover space around it. The only way to access it that I can see is to either park on the side of the highway and walk into the middle, or stop in the traffic lane.
  18. Yep, nearly all the ones I've seen that are actually in guardrails have been both reasonably safe and legal. They're not on major highways, have plenty of pulloff room, and in a lot of cases are beside parking lots to parks and so forth.
  19. Had he written in the physical cache log that he'd left the TB? If so, then you should have been aware he'd recently dropped it and waited a day or so to give him time to log his find and put the TB in the cache's inventory. Even if he hadn't written it in the physical log, IMO you should have at least waited a day or so and checked the online logs to see if it popped up. However, I think his suggestion that you wait a week is over the top; 24-48 hours, yeah. A week, no. If he didn't make any notation in either log as to the fact that he'd dropped it, and/or is waiting more than 48 hours to make online logs of his finds and/or adjust his trackables inventory, he's the one at fault. Editing to add: If you knew he was the one who dropped it, AND more than 48 hours went by without it being moved to the cache's inventory, then I'd consider it appropriate to send a polite PM saying something to the effect that you picked it up, you want to move it along, and could he please let you know when he's taken care of his online log so you could place it.
  20. He didn't even "cache for a few weeks". He found ONE cache. A bit later, he hid a cache in his own yard,logged it as found (saying it was an "awesome cache"), then immediately disabled it. He's the only person who ever "found" it, although some other poor soul went looking for it. Check it out: Matts Yard=
  21. Something of a side note, but I almost fell off the couch laughing when I read the early notes and realized that the original "cache" hidden by the CO was a plastic cup full of candy, covered with Saran Wrap held on with a rubber band. And yeah, this is the sort of situation that absolutely warrants a polite public NA - it's crystal clear that it was questionable to begin with (and not just because of what was hidden), and that it's not going to be maintained.
  22. Or possibly, so close to a road.....similar to the rr track guideline. Re common sense, I shall quote my dearly departed Mamgi (grandmother): "Common sense ain't." The problem isn't the guardrail hides, per se, or even "close to a road", but caches placed in guardrails and/or on signs... or whereever - in locations where it's not legal to stop or park except in emergencies. There's a local cache here that just makes me cringe... it's on or near a sign that's in the middle of a 4-lane highway, at a spot where there's a gap to allow vehicles to cross to the far side. The ONLY way to access it is to be IN THE BLANKETY-BLANK TRAFFIC LANE... whether on foot or in a car, no way in hell should anybody be there. Yet not only did someone put a cache there, but people are parking their cars, getting out, and standing on the cars to reach the cache. It's only a matter of time until a State Trooper or County Mountie sees this, and/or somebody causes an accident. I've really been debating whether to contact the local reviewer about it.
  23. Facebook has spoiled me... I found myself looking for the "like" button for your post. More seriously, I'm in consensus with most of what's been said: if you find the cache, you should sign the log; if you don't sign it, and do a "found" log without reasonable explanation, the CO is well within their rights to delete your find. WRT "reasonable explanation" - once in a while, something prevents a person who normally signs logs from being able to do it on a legitimate find. In those cases, IMO it's acceptable to do a found log, explaining why you didn't sign, and a reasonable CO should accept it... in some cases, perhaps after exchanging private messages with the finder to verify that what they found was actually the cache. However, unreasonable and/or Puritan CO's are still within their rights - obnoxious, but within their rights - if they delete it. For example: I recently made a find of an easy microcache which is on the grounds of a college which doesn't have public parking. The CO (a student at another local college) suggests that cache seekers park in a mall garage a quarter mile away. I live nearby, and happen to know that the suggested garage is a frequent target of car thieves. Plus, I like to cache with my dogs, and walking through a 6-story parking garage with them isn't something I wanted to try doing. So, I just walked the mile or so to the cache with my dogs... not a way we normally go, since it's a commercial area & requires crossing a couple of busy roads, but doable as a one-time trip to look for the cache. Got to the location, found the cache... and found that there was no log in it, just some soggy shreds of paper that had once been a business card, plus some small "swag" items. I hunted all through my jacket and pants pockets, and had *nothing* on me that I could write on... which was unusual for me, but there you have it. I logged my find, since there was no question** that what I'd found was the correct container, with a note praising the hide method, but also noting that the interior of the container was wet and the log was missing. I also posted a NM stating the log needed replacement... didn't say so in my log, but I was going to try to get back to the cache and put a log in if the CO didn't respond, despite the hassle it is to get there. It's been 3 weeks, and he hasn't, but the next two finders brought paper with them. One of them stated what I refrained from, which is that the container isn't waterproof enough to be used for the hiding spot. I've also had a past occasion where I found a cache, found that its writing implements were missing or inoperable, AND found that somewhere along the way I'd managed to lose the pen I'd started out with. In that case, I logged my find, explaining in the log what had happened, and also said that if the CO had a question about my find, please contact me & I would describe the location, the container, etc.. **The location and hiding method of what I found, in addition to what was inside it, made it certain that it was, in fact, the cache.
  24. Ah, but then you'd take away the oldbies' fun of putting other people down! More seriously, the line about a bison tube in a bush made me chuckle; most of the hides like that in my area are put up by fairly experienced cachers.
  25. Ah, but how many of those logs are official "Needs Maintenance" notes, and how many are "found" logs? I can't 100% put the blame on the CO if nobody ever posts a NM log.
  • Create New...