Why Was This Cache Archived

[+Mopar]

<snip> and they are all as disenchanted as me with the overall direction the game hs been heading recently.

Well, I guess there's always N***C****

And navicache too!

[+VegasCacheHounds]

<snip> and they are all as disenchanted as me with the overall direction the game hs been heading recently.

Well, I guess there's always N***C****

And navicache too!

Don't forget Terracaching!

Edited January 20, 2006 by VegasCacheHounds

[Jeremy]

Yup..... and posted the email here too.

Wow. Pot meet kettle.

[+Sagefox]

This is the second topic I've read today where forum type arguements are being conducted on the cache page linked to the story.

 

My recommendation: Knock it off folks! The cache owners could and probably should delete those comments. I had that happen once over coordinate accuracy. I posted a reprimand note and then deleted all the argument related note logs.

[MapheadMike]

I got curious and did some of the research that the OP could have been doing in lieu of the war of words that she decided to fight (and fortunately lose).

 

Riverside County's GIS shows the cache on parcel 153-250-001. The owner is not listed by name online, but the mailing address goes to National Property Tax Management, Inc., a company that handles property tax matters on behalf of their client corporations. I find it unlikely that a corporation large enough to need the services of a company such as NPTMI would resort to threatening hikers with rotweillers and dobermans.

 

IMO, The steps that the cache owner should take are:

 

1. Double check to make sure the city/county really has an agreement with the true landowner to allow public recreational access, such as the horse trail. Based on the signage in the photos, I suspect that such an agreement might really exist.

 

2. Make a report of the incident to the county sheriff department. Have them serve Groundspeak for info if neccesary. Some dunderhead has threatened geocachers (and presumably hikers, horse riders, and other recreation users) with violent dogs, for accessing land that is (apparently) open to the public. That needs to be stopped regardless of the specific cache.

[Sadie]

As explained, the cache was reported by someone to be the property owner and archived because it they siad it was on thier land.

 

If it's truely on public land, then the cache owner needs to take it up with the land manager.

 

In the owner's e-mail, they admitted that they cannot control thier pets. In most places this is in violation of some sort of ordinance and again, the cache owner should taske it up with the authorites.

 

IMO there is all kinds of wrong stuff happeniong and I don't think Groundspeak should get the brunt of it just because they are here.

[+carleenp]

Well, this has been an interesting thread.

 

The way I see it, GC.com provides a listing service. Part of that is that caches on private property need permission. But the burden to get permission is on the cache owner. GC.com people are not in a good position to investigate issues. The cache owner is the person who is best able to look into such things so that burden is on the owner. So the upshot is that if a property owner writes and says there is an issue, archiving the cache is the best option for the site and for cachers who might be placed in a bad situation while seeking the cache. Then the cache is not listed to cause potential further probems and the owner can investigate and fix the problem if needed. If it turns out the cache was on OK land or can be moved to OK land, then great! It could likely be unarchived. If the initial complaint was fake or some malicious personal matter, that is between the owner and the person who complained, and again something for the owner to work out and/or notify the site about. Such things would not be good for the person who faked the complaint I would think. That seems like an obvious terms of service violation.

 

I for one think it would be bad to let a cache sit on private property when a complaint was made while an investigation happened. All sorts of bad things could go on during that time. As a cache finder, I would be rather upset if that property owner's dog came and attacked me while I looked for the cache if it could have been prevented. As an owner, I would appreciate a quick archive if it turned out a cache of mine could cause problems for others. I would rather see the quick archive and sort it out myself later.

Edited January 21, 2006 by carleenp

[+Moag Ohana]

I am sure glad that cache got archived because those dogs that were mentioned are dangerous to the almost 50 finders. They must have been so scared of the dogs around the cache that they forgot to mention the dogs in the logs!!!

First The Pug,

Now the Poet.

Who's next???

What a shame.

I don't always agree with him but I support the Poet on this point

[+Moag Ohana]

I am sure glad that cache got archived because those dogs that were mentioned are dangerous to the almost 50 finders. They must have been so scared of the dogs around the cache that they forgot to mention the dogs in the logs!!!

First The Pug,

Now the Poet.

Who's next???

What a shame.

I don't always agree with him but I support the Poet on this point

[+Mopar]

Wonder if anyone has bothered to read the logs on that cache?

Went searching for this one at 6pm, felt a little wierd like we were walking through someones back yard to get there.

I was in Norco today hitting some good and some bad caches. Since I was digging around in people's front yards, maybe I could knock on their doors and use the bathroom; I could have used that!

NOTE: This may be on private property and you might want to move it. Had to explain the whole "geocaching" thing to the owner when he came over wondering what we were doing. He was cool about it and I gave him the website to check things out but it still might be too close for comfort.

[+Zzyzx Road]

From the descriptions in this situation, if it were here in this area of California, I would think someone is "cooking up" some sort of illegal materials , on rural property with large viscious dogs guarding it...(more of those kinds of dogs can be wonderful pets - unless trained to be mean!)

 

I would be glad to have it archived instead of having some sort of law-enforcement raid...

 

I can just see some poor innocent Geocacher involved in some kind of drug bust, frantically waving his GPS over his head, "I'm only GEOCACHING!"

[+Tevis Clan]

Fishpoet has always been a faithful Geocacher. As the game has evolved to deal with the challenges of a growing sport, new rules and actions need to happen. I think FishPoet has just had a few bad experiences lately.

I once had a difficult time with some changes with the rules on power trails. Time has passed, and I got over it. I hope this passes too.

FishPoet motivated me in the game of Geocaching. It was a honor to find a few of his 200+ caches. It saddens me to see so much anger towards each other over something that could be resolved peacfully. Yes it's Jeremy's sandbox, and we all play in it, but lets not throw the sand at each other. Just my opinion.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Went searching for this one at 6pm, felt a little wierd like we were walking through someones back yard to get there.

that would have done it for me, ida been outa there

 

As i said, even if the "owner" just thinks the cache is on their land, the best thing we can do is move it or archive and forget it and move on.

 

There is nothing to gain by fighting it. Its a big sandbox.

[+JohnnyVegas]

Wow. The city is closed on Friday.

 

Anyway, did you email the reviewer who archived the cache?

That is not all the uncommon in Ca. some cities that are hard up for money close and extra day or two durring a month to save money.

 

AS far as the cache in question, I would not be surprised to find out that the person that claimed to own the property was some one who does not like the idea of seeing people walking around behind his property on public land. There are lots of selfish people in Ca. that act like they are special. Most of them are carpet baggers from out of the state.

 

Now stating that someone walking by may be attacked by his dogs may be considered to be making a terrorist threat and my be subject to arrest. Private property or not in Ca. you can not attack someone for being on your property unless you are in danger from that person. IN any case the person that made the claim to be the property owner sounds like a nut case. Instead of all the high drama finding a new place for the cache may be easier.

[+Harry Dolphin]

My Funny Valentine

Rodgers and Hart

 

Behold the way our fine feathered friend,

His virtue doth parade

Thou knowest not, my dim-witted friend

The picture thou hast made

Thy vacant brow, and thy tousled hair

Conceal thy good intent

Thou noble upright truthful sincere,

And slightly dopey gent

 

You’re my funny valentine,

Sweet comic valentine,

You make me smile with my heart.

Your looks are laughable, un-photographable,

Yet, you’re my favorite work of art.

 

Is your figure less than greek?

Is your mouth a little weak?

When you open it to speak, are you smart?

But, don’t change a hair for me.

Not if you care for me.

Stay little valentine, stay!

Each day is valentine’s day

 

Great song, and it'll always make me cry. Sometimes, people do need to change. But, that's a long and painful story.

 

Back on topic. (That was the name of the cache.)

Discretion is the better part of valor. In a case such as this, definitely archive the cache first. Then sort out the problems. If the complaintant (erstwhile homeowner) is correct, the cache must be archived. If it is shown that the complaintant was in error, then unarchive it. If, however, the complaintant does know where the cache is/was, and did remove it, replacing it would be futile.

 

Another thought entered here, however. Argumentum ad hominum is never a valid argument. The question here is the OP's argument, not whether he has put SBAs on caches that he does not like. (I hate georocks in rockpiles, or bison tubes in prickly evergreens as much as the next cacher. Then again, I wouldn't SBA them.)

[+Zzyzx Road]

...There are lots of selfish people in Ca. that act like they are special. Most of them are carpet baggers from out of the state...

...Private property or not in Ca. you can not attack someone for being on your property unless you are in danger from that person...

Amen to that! I live here, always have and take it very hard when I get judged by others' standards of what Californians are supposed to be. If I had acreage, I would cache it to the hilt (within guidelines, of course) and have y'all in for coffee after the finds!

 

Seriously, around here the people on remote properties, owned or rented, who are suspicious of visitors and have large, mean angry dogs, more than likely are up to nothing legal. And those folks do not care about posting/posted signs, wandering individuals or mistaken turns.

 

Off topic, but I have to share this for an example...

 

My cousin's son was into rockets in school. Had lots of competitions and meets, practiced a lot at home. They lived out 15 miles or so from town, so he could shoot the things off across their pasture and not have any trouble. (This kid can find trouble while sleeping!)

He was home alone one day, shot off a rocket, which landed in a dry part of the field behind his neighbor's house. It caught fire (of course) and he went in to call the fire department. When they got there (lots of volunteer folks who are also law enforcement) they noticed a strange smell coming from the house in questino. So they neded up finding/busting/confiscating a small home-based crack-cocaine factory and its workers...all becasue of a school-age rocket...

 

SO... one never knows what is out there!

[+briansnat]

As far as the archive first, ask questions later policy, I think its appropriate. If the issues are valid we don't want more geocachers causing problems while searching for the cache. If they aren't then the cache can be re-activated with the click of a button.

Its not like archiving causes the container to disintigrate or anything. Some people take that archival notification way too personally.

 

As far as whether or not this is private property, its very possible that the town, county or state negotiated an easement with a landowner to put the horse trail his property. Often these negotiated easements specify allowed uses (e.g. no mountain biking, hiking only, horses ahd hikers, etc...) and usually have clauses stating that users must stay on the trail. Any violations of the terms of the easement can jeopardize access for everyone if the owner gets ticked off. What is confusing to some people is that they see a trail and assume it must be public property. That isn't necessarily the case. I don't know that this is the case here, but I suspect it might be.

[+Renegade Knight]

This is the second topic I've read today where forum type arguements are being conducted on the cache page linked to the story.

 

My recommendation: Knock it off folks! The cache owners could and probably should delete those comments. I had that happen once over coordinate accuracy. I posted a reprimand note and then deleted all the argument related note logs.

Agreed. Those arguments are what the forums are for.

[+Team Perks]

Doug, I can understand why you're upset, but I know you can sometimes be, um....not the most tactful person, and say things that might not always be the best thing to say. I'm sure that Kerrysol could provide some emails from you that would show she felt provoked into saying what she said. And I say this as someone who considers you a friend and who holds a lot of respect for you and everything you've done to promote geocaching in Southern California and to welcome new members into the game out here. (Yes, folks, FishPOET really is a decent guy.)

 

With that in mind...If it bothered someone cared enough to contact Groundspeak and complain about a cache near them, it probably shouldn't be there, regardless of whether it really is on private property or not. I've had the neighbors complain that a cache NEAR their property. I knew the cache wasn't ON their property, but that person could have made things difficult for future cache finders. Out of respect for the neighbors, I archived it; it was the most appropriate thing I could do in that situation.

 

Sometimes you gotta just let things roll. I don't think I'd be that pleased if it was my cache either, but there are plenty more places out there to hide a replacement.

 

Don't crash and burn over this. It ain't worth it.

[+CamoCacher]

As explained, the cache was reported by someone to be the property owner and archived because it they siad it was on thier land.

 

If it's truely on public land, then the cache owner needs to take it up with the land manager.

 

In the owner's e-mail, they admitted that they cannot control thier pets. In most places this is in violation of some sort of ordinance and again, the cache owner should taske it up with the authorites.

 

IMO there is all kinds of wrong stuff happeniong and I don't think Groundspeak should get the brunt of it just because they are here.

I'm really only interested in one part of the comments and that is about control of thier pets, as a pet owner of cats, dogs (doberman to be specific) and horses....animals are unpredictable creatures and accidents happen. My dog wears a muzzle whenever out except on his property where he is chained up. The neighbors all know the dog and he is great with kids, cats, adults, males and females but absolutly HATES other dogs and is non to fond of horses. While I trust him completly I don't trust others. A kid throwing rocks at him or something of the sort, or if he felt we were threatened or there were a dog with someone and all bets would be off, no matter how many percautions we take. And the OWNER IS taking a precaution, warning people. When we moved to our current location the first thing we did was go over, introduce oursevles and our dog and warned all the other dog owners about our dogs issues. We did it to be responsible and PREVENT any issues. One neighbor still chooses to let thier dogs roam free, we've been lucky so far but one day my dog will probably get thiers on our property.

[+CamoCacher]

As far as the archive first, ask questions later policy, I think its appropriate. If the issues are valid we don't want more geocachers causing problems while searching for the cache. If they aren't then the cache can be re-activated with the click of a button.

Its not like archiving causes the container to disintigrate or anything. Some people take that archival notification way too personally.

 

As far as whether or not this is private property, its very possible that the town, county or state negotiated an easement with a landowner to put the horse trail his property. Often these negotiated easements specify allowed uses (e.g. no mountain biking, hiking only, horses ahd hikers, etc...) and usually have clauses stating that users must stay on the trail. Any violations of the terms of the easement can jeopardize access for everyone if the owner gets ticked off. What is confusing to some people is that they see a trail and assume it must be public property. That isn't necessarily the case. I don't know that this is the case here, but I suspect it might be.

BS is is very right and not all places mark the fact. I know in MN we have at least one trail which is completely boarded by provate prop and leaving the trail is ad form. Thank goodness the trail is marked with signs.

[MapheadMike]

...animals are unpredictable creatures and accidents happen. My dog wears a muzzle whenever out except on his property where he is chained up.

That's the key difference. This dog owner is not controling his dog within his own property. This dog owner is (you say "warning" - I say "threatening") that an attack may happen along a public trail. The map work I did this evening shows that the parcel in question is owned by a corporation, not a local homeowner. Even if there is something in the trail/recreational easement that would disallow a geocache (BSnat brought up this possibility), I'm quite sure that the neighbor is still wrong to threaten to sic his dogs on hikers using land that doesn't belong to him.

 

As far as the specific cache: I just looked at the local forum and the cache owner is going to pull the cache, based on the threats by the neighbor. That's a valid decision. Unfortunately, it means that the threats worked and some jerk effectively stole a 17 acre parcel/trail easement from the rest of his community.

[vagabond]

Norco is a very horsey town, they even have horse trails down the main street of town. If the cache was just off a riding trail its kind of hard to fathom vicious dogs running loose.

Just an observation

[+Cache Liberation Front]

Well, since these forums are here to add our $.02....

 

First, you can say what you want about FishPOET, but he has single-handedly made my geocaching experience an excellent one. He has gone out of his way and taken the time and money to organize a number of geocaching adventures for us SoCal'ers. Leading a group of 30 diverse geocachers in the mountains or desert to geocache takes a special person. Have YOU done that for others? I know I haven't.

 

But back to the point at hand:

 

Isn't archiving a cache on the basis of a (potentially bogus) complaint, WITHOUT EVEN CONTACTING THE CACHE OWNER, bad policy? This should be under discussion, not the ad hominem crap.

 

As has already been metioned, what's to keep a disgruntled cacher from using an IP proxy to register complaint after complaint after complaint and archiving perfectly fine caches simply because he has a bee in his/her bonnet?

 

I'd think the gc.com Powers That Be would be concerned about that, lest it be crippled into obscurity by a few bad apples.

 

Best,

Mr. Wisearse.

[+briansnat]

Isn't archiving a cache on the basis of a (potentially bogus) complaint, WITHOUT EVEN CONTACTING THE CACHE OWNER, bad policy? This should be under discussion, not the ad hominem crap.

 

No. If a cache is causing an issue the wisest way to handle it is to archive it immediately, then hash things out. If the issues are valid we don't want more geocachers exacerbating the problem.

 

The notification of archival usually contains the reason and the owner gets an e-mail copy. In other words the owner was contacted through the archival notification. If the owner feels the archival was unwarranted he can begin a dialogue. If you contact the owner first it could be days before there is a response and meanwhile the cache is there continuing to aggravate the party who complained. Not a good thing for our sport regardless if the complaint is valid (especially if its a local official, park ranger or someone who has "contacts").

 

As I mentioned before, if the owner is able to allay the concerns about the cache, all it takes is a click of the mouse to re-activate the cache. Its not like archiving the cache causes the thing to blow up. I don't understand why everyone gets in a tizzy when they see their cache archived. If everything checks out the cache can be back online in a matter of days.

Edited January 21, 2006 by briansnat

[+Quiggle]

Isn't archiving a cache on the basis of a (potentially bogus) complaint, WITHOUT EVEN CONTACTING THE CACHE OWNER, bad policy?  This should be under discussion, not the ad hominem crap.

No.

 

Let's say someone puts a tupperware container in some bushes on your property on a Thursday. You're mad about it, and contact Groundspeak on Friday when you find out. Would you rather they:

 

A ) Leave the cache page open over the weekend, waiting for someone at Groundspeak to come back into work on Monday and research the issue, allowing people to continue to come onto your property against your wishes?

 

B ) Archive the cache and contact the cache owner for verification, then relist it if the result is the location is okay?

 

What would you want done if it were your property? If the location is okay and the complaint bogus, it's a quick re-list.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Quiggle

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I am 99% sure this cache is on property owned and maintained by the City of Norco, not an individual homeowner.

 

The moment I read this, I thought, "Yep, private property."

 

After reading the logs, I definitely feel we may be encroaching on 1% territory.

 

It's probably an honest mistake that can be fixed easily. One question I had was this: Is FishPOET the cache owner? If not, why the vehement protests? And what does the cache owner have to say about it? Just wondering.

[+Celticwulf]

I'm confused...doesn't an email get sent to the cache owner when the cache is archived? From what I've seen, Groundspeak is very good at reactivating caches when it can be shown that someone was just being dumb and had an agenda...it's a little work, but easier than getting geocacher's everywhere in trouble.

 

Anyone thinking the contact owner and wait for response before archiving is fooling themselves, and a lot seem to have an agenda of their own...at least from what I've seen.

 

back to

 

Celticwulf

[+Moose Mob]

Unarchiving caches is done fairly often. It usually involves getting your local reviewer to make sure the cache is up to snuff. In situations like this, it would be easy to unarchive if the cache owner shows the complaint was bogus. From what I have seen, they haven't done that yet.

[+Cache Liberation Front]

Isn't archiving a cache on the basis of a (potentially bogus) complaint, WITHOUT EVEN CONTACTING THE CACHE OWNER, bad policy?  This should be under discussion, not the ad hominem crap.

No.

 

Huh, I guess "guilty until proven innocent" is fine by you folks.

 

How incredibly sad.

[+Shawn&Holly]

Isn't archiving a cache on the basis of a (potentially bogus) complaint, WITHOUT EVEN CONTACTING THE CACHE OWNER, bad policy?  This should be under discussion, not the ad hominem crap.

No.

 

Huh, I guess "guilty until proven innocent" is fine by you folks.

 

How incredibly sad.

Having run into a land owner and kicked off their property, I would say archival is the best policy. The cache owner is notified by the archive log immediately. In that case the cache was relocated and unarchived, we dropped off the original cache at a later date to the new location where the cache owner picked it up. To say the least, when confronted by an angry property owner is not fun. Permission was asked for and aquired when the cache had been placed, as stated on the cache page, but the property was sold and the new owners did not want cachers there at all. The cache owner did not know of the sale.

[+Quiggle]

Isn't archiving a cache on the basis of a (potentially bogus) complaint, WITHOUT EVEN CONTACTING THE CACHE OWNER, bad policy?  This should be under discussion, not the ad hominem crap.

No.

 

Huh, I guess "guilty until proven innocent" is fine by you folks.

 

How incredibly sad.

This isn't the legal system, this is a game.

 

So which is it, A or B?

[+Team Perks]

Huh, I guess "guilty until proven innocent" is fine by you folks. 

 

How incredibly sad.

So when GC.com hears that, say, the bomb squad blows up a cache, they should check with the owner first to verify that the bomb squad did in fact blow up their cache?

 

You should know as well as anybody else that there are plenty of legitimate reasons for GC.com to archive a cache without checking with the owner first.

[Sadie]

This thread is sounding like the arguement between the guy who wants peace and quiet while he sits in his home and the guy in the street with a loudspeaker saying he has the right to free speach.

 

edit: clarification

Edited January 21, 2006 by Sadie

[+briansnat]

Isn't archiving a cache on the basis of a (potentially bogus) complaint, WITHOUT EVEN CONTACTING THE CACHE OWNER, bad policy?  This should be under discussion, not the ad hominem crap.

No.

 

Huh, I guess "guilty until proven innocent" is fine by you folks.

 

How incredibly sad.

I didn't realize this was a court of law. The key is to do what is in the best interest of the sport and that is immediate archival.

 

I really don't get the issue. If the cache turns out to be OK its re-activated and back in business. Nobody's hands are being cut off, nobody is being fined, nobody is going to geo-prison. A cache is simply being taken offline until the issues are worked through .

Edited January 21, 2006 by briansnat

[+Bill & Tammy]

The expression "pick your battles" comes to mind when reviewing this thread.

[+KoosKoos]

Isn't archiving a cache on the basis of a (potentially bogus) complaint, WITHOUT EVEN CONTACTING THE CACHE OWNER, bad policy?  This should be under discussion, not the ad hominem crap.

No.

 

Huh, I guess "guilty until proven innocent" is fine by you folks.

 

How incredibly sad.

Actually, if you want to keep the legal analogy (and no, this isn't the legal system), imagine if the landowner had called the police to report geocachers on this "private" property for trespass. The responding officer MIGHT choose to not ask any questions and merely arrest the geocacher per:

 

CA PENAL CODE SECTION 602(n) [refusal to leave private property ]

provides that a person who refuses or fails to leave land not open to the general public when requested to do so by the owner, owner's agent, or a peace officer at the request of the owner or owner's agent may be arrested.

 

Later, the geocacher would appear in court to argue that the land was actually public, they weren't trespassing, etc....then, they would be proven guilty or innocent.

 

Groundspeak chooses to archive the cache immediately while guilt, if any, is decided. And I have no problems with that.

Edited January 21, 2006 by KoosKoos

[+olbluesguy]

let me get this right.

Groundspeak gets an email from an Irate property owner.{ real or not]

Then Immediatly archives the cache.

does Groundspeak reply to the email at all?

Ya know like...we're sorry we will check into it,and if it is on private property we will have it removed at once.

Then get a hold of the owner of the cache and tell him It's archived untill he straightens it out.

2c worth

[ParentsofSAM]

Would it have been better to just DISABLE the cache instead of archiving it? Archiving seems so permanent, even though it may not be. Do you think the OP is just extra upset because he was threatened with account suspenction, for questioning policy?

 

Why are people going to thier local forums and posting links over here and why are people going and digging up his notes that he wrote on other caches? That just seems to escalate the situation. A lot of us have too much time on our hands.

[+Confucius' Cat]

*music* Too much time on our hands *music* - Styx

That pertty much nails it for foruming, I think.

[+briansnat]

Would it have been better to just DISABLE the cache instead of archiving it? Archiving seems so permanent, even though it may not be. Do you think the OP is just extra upset because he was threatened with account suspenction, for questioning policy

 

First, if there is a problem you want to get it off the search lists. Disabling won't do that. Also, if you only disable it the owner can go right back and enable it.

 

There is effectively no difference between the two as far as "permanence". The only minor difference is that the admin has to reinstate an archived cache and if there is an issue the admin needs to have control over whether the cache is re-activated.

 

Do you think the OP is just extra upset because he was threatened with account suspenction, for questioning policy?

 

Nobody gets threatened with a ban simply for questioning a policy (heck I'd have been banned dozens of times if that was the case). Its how you do it. If you start calling names and otherwise violating the foum guidlelines you can get yourself banned.

The OP came here obviously in a huff and it escalated into name calling. That is not simply questioning a policy.

Edited January 21, 2006 by briansnat

[+Cache Liberation Front]

1. Interesting how so many jump to put words in my mouth when I wrote that I found it funny people still operate on the sad ole' "guilty until proven innocent" standard. I'm not talking about law at all. Did I ever swing my arms in the air and say "We have the constitutional right to yada yada yada..."? Nope. I'm talking about ethics. I simply choose to apply the "innocent until proven guilty" rubric to all forms of conflict I come across, but apparently few others do here. I suppose they're the same ones who think it's ok to throw perfectly innocent people into Guantanamo simply because of the color of their skin or the god they worship. /boggle It reminds me of the old Robin Williams schtick where he's pretending to be a cop in rural Alabama: *BANG* "Stop or I'll shoot!"

 

2. Hey Team Perks, why the mentioning of my own personal geocaching bomb scare? What's that have to do with the price of rice in China? Haven't we already established that ad hominem attacks aren't worth the time and effort? Didn't anyone ever teach you to attack the idea and not the person? I guess I just had conscientious parents and went to quality institutions of higher education where I learned that. Mentioning my bomb scare is just, well, sleazy. How is it relevant? It isn't, unless you want to consider that my bomb scare was handled between me and the Riverside PD. Geocaching.com and its admins had not ONE thing to do with it. In fact, the bomb squad did EXACTLY the opposite of what you here all advocate. They asked questions first, and would've exploded later. They found me, we talked, the situation was diffused (no pun intended), the ammo can was given back to me, and now both I and the Riverside PD are the wiser for it. It seems like if you all had your way, you'd of exploded the can, thrown me in jail, and THEN asked questions. But hey, you brought it up. Kudos for being so classy. I hear the Powers That Be need a campaign adviser for the next presidential election? Can we now get back to the issue at hand?

 

3. Between attacking FishPOET and jumping on the "shoot first, ask questions second" bandwagon, no one has taken the time to answer the very serious question FishPOET has raised: What's to keep people from maliciously ruining caches by pretending to be the property owner? What if someone started posting notes on all YOUR caches saying they were the property owners, and they took your cache, and the admins archived them all? There needs to be some thought given to the prevention of this happening. There needs to be some discussion about this at the highest level. Dismissiveness and bandwagoning, which we've seen a lot of here, isn't the way.

 

I write this because I love geocaching. It ranks amongst my top two favorite hobbies. It's a great game, and I'm critical of this "guilty before proven innocent" party line because I love the game so much, I hate to see the ramifications of sticking to this policy without giving it proper thought.

 

Best,

Mr. Wisearse.

[+BlueDeuce]

...

Edited January 22, 2006 by BlueDeuce

[+GrizzlyJohn]

I suppose they're the same ones who think it's ok to throw perfectly innocent people into Guantanamo simply because of the color of their skin or the god they worship.

I am sorry for taking this off topic but I could not let this statement go by.

 

All of those people were captured on the battfield fighting against American soldiers. And yes I am OK with that.

 

Now please go ahead back on topic.

[+Team Perks]

Hey Team Perks, why the mentioning of my own personal geocaching bomb scare? What's that have to do with the price of rice in China? Haven't we already established that ad hominem attacks aren't worth the time and effort? Didn't anyone ever teach you to attack the idea and not the person? I guess I just had conscientious parents and went to quality institutions of higher education where I learned that. Mentioning my bomb scare is just, well, sleazy. How is it relevant? It isn't, unless you want to consider that my bomb scare was handled between me and the Riverside PD. Geocaching.com and its admins had not ONE thing to do with it. In fact, the bomb squad did EXACTLY the opposite of what you here all advocate. They asked questions first, and would've exploded later. They found me, we talked, the situation was diffused (no pun intended), the ammo can was given back to me, and now both I and the Riverside PD are the wiser for it. It seems like if you all had your way, you'd of exploded the can, thrown me in jail, and THEN asked questions. But hey, you brought it up. Kudos for being so classy. I hear the Powers That Be need a campaign adviser for the next presidential election? Can we now get back to the issue at hand?

Yes. Classy. Your post goes a long way toward teaching me what classy is.

 

Here's why I brought up your experience. Had you not just happened to be passing by, your cache would have been confiscated/exploded, the squad would have determined it to be a geocache, GC.com would have been notified, and they would have immediately archived your cache. However, I'm glad your situation worked out the way it did and everyone came out OK.

 

I never suggested that the bomb squad should have blown up your cache and then asked you about it. However, had they done so, you basically suggested that GC.com should have waited to archive it until they got in touch with you.

 

As I stated before, I'm surprised that you didn't come out of that situation with a keen understanding that there are circumstances that would warrant immediate archival by TPTB. If it turns out that a non-cacher thought one of my caches was on their property or was otherwise in an inappropriate location, and they contacted GC.com directly, I'd hope that TPTB would archive it until we could figure the situation out.

 

You're right, that sure was a sleazy personal attack, wasn't it?

[+Renegade Knight]

Isn't archiving a cache on the basis of a (potentially bogus) complaint, WITHOUT EVEN CONTACTING THE CACHE OWNER, bad policy? This should be under discussion, not the ad hominem crap.

 

No. If a cache is causing an issue the wisest way to handle it is to archive it immediately, then hash things out. If the issues are valid we don't want more geocachers exacerbating the problem.

 

The notification of archival usually contains the reason and the owner gets an e-mail copy. In other words the owner was contacted through the archival notification. If the owner feels the archival was unwarranted he can begin a dialogue. If you contact the owner first it could be days before there is a response and meanwhile the cache is there continuing to aggravate the party who complained. Not a good thing for our sport regardless if the complaint is valid (especially if its a local official, park ranger or someone who has "contacts").

 

As I mentioned before, if the owner is able to allay the concerns about the cache, all it takes is a click of the mouse to re-activate the cache. Its not like archiving the cache causes the thing to blow up. I don't understand why everyone gets in a tizzy when they see their cache archived. If everything checks out the cache can be back online in a matter of days.

In general I am not a fan of the SBA log without first contacting the owner. However I agree with BrianSnat here. When the land owner gets involved it's time to archive first and sort it out later.

[+ventura_kids]

We just got back from a party event with our friend FishPOET .

 

What have you all been doing all day?....hehe

[Jeremy]

let me get this right.

Groundspeak gets an email from an Irate property owner.{ real or not]

Then Immediatly archives the cache.

does Groundspeak reply to the email at all?

Ya know like...we're sorry we will check into it,and if it is on private property we will have it removed at once.

Then get a hold of the owner of the cache and tell him It's archived untill he straightens it out.

2c worth

That is exactly how it happened. In fact, Kerrysol had to do some research via Google Earth since the owner who emailed us didn't have a GPS unit but could offer some key details about the location.

 

The archival was the notification to the owner of the listing that contained the details. Kerrysol also followed up with the initial email that asked for more information about why the listing was archived.

 

The email itself was legitimate, not sent via a proxy server, and resolved to a local ISP.

 

Some folks have to remember the quote:

 

Discretion is the better part of valor

 

In life there is no reset button. If we're informed of an apparent issue like the one that transpired, we err on the side of caution.

 

It sure is easy to stand on your soapbox and complain about the injustice of society, but would you prefer to ignore a potential issue with a listing or would you rather someone get hurt because you didn't take it seriously? How would you feel if something was ignored and you were hurt as a result? Probably not too good since you'd be hurt and all.

[+CamoCacher]

Maybe this is a dumb question and yes I think someone asked it here already but no answer was given.....

 

When a cache is reported missing by a cacher isn't it archieved until replaced? Since the email said the cache was gone wouldn't this be the same with the additional need to be sure it is not on private property?

[+Miragee]

No, a cache is not archived if it is reported missing. An owner can disable it if they want to, but many missing caches stay missing for a long time, especially if the owner is not active anymore.

 

Sometimes it takes months for an SBA on a missing cache to actaully result in archival . . .