Reviewers Getting Lax?

[+Crusso]

Hunted a cache today which probably shouldn't have been approved. Now I don't know what the hider told the reviewer, but in part, this is what his cache description said: "this is also a quick find for you to boost your numbers" & "barely have to get out of your car to get this one".

Cache was hidden by simply driving to the back end of a shopping center and sticking a hide a key to the guardrail. I know the owner of the dept store didn't grant permission for this. There is no scenery or anything else to be seen from the site. Looking around this area is likely to bring attention from the cops as it is basically the loading area/non general parking area of the lot. There are several parks within a 2 block radius of this site where any number of caches could be hidden. I know this probably fits the general guidelines but surely we can do better than this.

[+Marbig's Woodenheads]

Hunted a cache today which probably shouldn't have been approved.

I know this probably fits the general guidelines but surely we can do better than this.

Then why did you bother hunting this one? Edited July 12, 2006 by Marbig's Woodenheads

[+briansnat]

Then why did you bother hunting this one?

 

Probably the reason I wind up hunting these, because he had no idea what it involved until he got there.

 

Anyway, these caches are pretty common in many parts of the country. Consider yourself lucky to live in an area where something like this raises eyebrows.

 

As far as the reviewers getting lax, they are not meant to be arbiters of cache quality. If the cache conforms to the guidelines it will be published.

[Keystone]

When I see those words in a cache description, instead of "enjoy the beautiful view from here," I hold my nose shut while I press the "publish" button.

 

Like briansnat said, if the cache fits the guidelines I am obligated to publish it.

 

So why would you blame the reviewer rather than the cache owner? I would be happy to edit the topic of your thread to read "cache owners getting lax." It would be far more accurate.

[+sbell111]

Hunted a cache today which probably shouldn't have been approved. ...

I'm sorry, but I have no pity for your plight.

 

You hunted a 1/1 micro with the name Express Cache. That was clearly showed on the map to be right next to the interstate. Further, this is the complete description:

 

Since we enjoy finding caches during our long drives, we thought other cachers who are passing through would like a break from driving and getting a cache along the way to their destination. For those who live in the area, this is also a quick find for you to boost your numbers and get a "caching fix" if your schedule is too busy to hike through the woods. You barely have to get out of your car to get this one, but you do have to get off the highway and find your way along local roads. Do not attempt cache while on the highway or exit ramp. Please bring your own pen or pencil to sign the log and beware of muggles.

 

What, exactly, did you expect to find?

[+TEAM 360]

Cache was hidden by simply driving to the back end of a shopping center and sticking a hide a key to the guardrail.

 

There is no scenery or anything else to be seen from the site.

 

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Micros.

[Tahosa and Sons]

You made the choice to look for it, so what is your beef.

 

I was in AZ recently and that area seems to have a lot of what you just found. When its over 100° a smiley from an air conditioned car is not all that bad.

[+Tharagleb]

Please check any that apply:

 

[x] - Reviewer bashing thread

[x] - Micro bashing thread

[ ] - Bring back the Virts

[ ] - Bring back locationless

[ ] - Waymarking stinks

[ ] - Garmin vs. Magellan

[ ] - Geocoin woes

[ ] - GC.com stinks

[ ] - Let's rate caches

[+briansnat]

Hunted a cache today which probably shouldn't have been approved. ...

I'm sorry, but I have no pity for your plight.

 

You hunted a 1/1 micro with the name Express Cache. That was clearly showed on the map to be right next to the interstate. Further, this is the complete description:

 

Since we enjoy finding caches during our long drives, we thought other cachers who are passing through would like a break from driving and getting a cache along the way to their destination. For those who live in the area, this is also a quick find for you to boost your numbers and get a "caching fix" if your schedule is too busy to hike through the woods. You barely have to get out of your car to get this one, but you do have to get off the highway and find your way along local roads. Do not attempt cache while on the highway or exit ramp. Please bring your own pen or pencil to sign the log and beware of muggles.

 

What, exactly, did you expect to find?

 

As one who has found a number of very nice, or interesting 1/1 park n grab micros, I assume the best when I see a cache like that. I don't automatically assume the cache is next to a dept. store loading dock. When I do encounter one I think I have the right to be disappointed.

[+sbell111]

As one who has found a number of very nice, or interesting 1/1 park n grab micros, I assume the best when I see a cache like that. I don't automatically assume the cache is next to a dept. store loading dock. When I do encounter one I think I have the right to be disappointed.

That can be said about every cache hunt for every type of cache. Some people clearly appreciated this one. Crusso did not. That's not enough reason for the rest of us to get all balled up.

 

I'm sorry, but you are not 'Right On', this time.

Edited July 12, 2006 by sbell111

[+Mudfrog]

"this is also a quick find for you to boost your numbers" & "barely have to get out of your car to get this one".

 

Hhmmmmmm, i'd say that this one is pretty easy to figure out. There should be no angst here since he tells you right there in the description what this cache is all about.

[+Yamahammer]

Please check any that apply:

 

[x] - Reviewer bashing thread

[x] - Micro bashing thread

[ ] - Bring back the Virts

[ ] - Bring back locationless

[ ] - Waymarking stinks

[ ] - Garmin vs. Magellan

[ ] - Geocoin woes

[ ] - GC.com stinks

[ ] - Let's rate caches

You forgot - Membership v. Premium Membership.

[+Crusso]

Don't get your panties in a wad guys! sheesh!

I wasn't bashing anyone, I was trying to open up a dialogue/discussion about cache quality. I hunted it because it comes up on my "Nearest caches" page which I like to clean out from time to time. I load a bunch of points then go hunt them and don't always have the cache page with me.

 

My point was simply that it's NOT always the reviewer's responsibilty to ensure the cache has a worthy view/site, etc BUT there were some things in the description which should "have raised an eyebrow".

As one who has found a number of very nice, or interesting 1/1 park n grab micros, I assume the best when I see a cache like that. I don't automatically assume the cache is next to a dept. store loading dock. When I do encounter one I think I have the right to be disappointed.

Thank you!

 

And as far as micro bashing goes - If you check my stats you'll se I have hunted a fair number of micros.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Crusso

[+Yamahammer]

Don't get your panties in a wad guys! sheesh!

A wedgie!!!

[+Quiggle]

My point was simply that it's NOT always the reviewer's responsibilty to ensure the cache has a worthy view/site, etc BUT there were some things in the description which should "have raised an eyebrow".

 

What guideline covers cache quality (other than permanence, should someone choose to use a papertowel as a cache container ) or says it has to be a worthy view/site? That was a big issue with virtuals (ie "WOW! factor"), should that be done with all traditional caches as well?

 

It takes enough time to review a cache based on current guidelines (whatever they are at the time) without adding a subjective "Worthy view/site" factor.

[ImpalaBob]

Wally caches are abundant in my area. Light pole caches are also quite popular. We do them .... and move on. I'd rather do a guard rail cache than a trashy area cache. If you know of better locations in the area, why not contact the owner and give him some nice suggestions. We waited over 1 year to put out our first cache .... and vowed to never bring anyone to a trashy area.

 

I totally agree .... but it is not a reviewer problem! It is a cache owner problem .... no imagination.

 

Your point is well taken! We all like fun caches better than lame ones!!!! ImpalaBob

[+ParrotRobAndCeCe]

Hunted a cache today which probably shouldn't have been approved. ...

I'm sorry, but I have no pity for your plight.

 

You hunted a 1/1 micro with the name Express Cache. That was clearly showed on the map to be right next to the interstate. Further, this is the complete description:

 

Since we enjoy finding caches during our long drives, we thought other cachers who are passing through would like a break from driving and getting a cache along the way to their destination. For those who live in the area, this is also a quick find for you to boost your numbers and get a "caching fix" if your schedule is too busy to hike through the woods. You barely have to get out of your car to get this one, but you do have to get off the highway and find your way along local roads. Do not attempt cache while on the highway or exit ramp. Please bring your own pen or pencil to sign the log and beware of muggles.

 

What, exactly, did you expect to find?

 

How DARE you assume people actually read the cache description. And don't get all high and mighty about it, why, that's just trying to force YOUR way of caching on everyone else!

[+tozainamboku]

Cache was hidden by simply driving to the back end of a shopping center and sticking a hide a key to the guardrail.

 

There is no scenery or anything else to be seen from the site.

 

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Micros.

 

Gosh yes. An ammo can hidden in the guardrail behind the shopping center would be much better .

 

When I'm out caching and the GPS leads me to a place like this I do one of two things:

1) Nobody is around, its obvious where the cache is - or decrypt the hint to make it obvious, I grab the cache sign the log and get a smiley. woo hoo.

2) The mall cops are patrolling or some store employees are taking a smoke break. I drive past and forget this one.

 

In either case, I continue on to the next cache - hopefully in a better location. Or even pick out one that has a nice hike. If I've seen too many of these for the day and am no longer having fun, I take a break.

 

Visiting Dallas-Ft. Worth for a family wedding this past weekend - I wound up having not much time to geocache. I found two caches like this because they were in the shopping mall that was walking distance from my hotel. Hey, I got to cache in Texas. And the best part was neither had DRR written on the outside . The rehersal dinner was at Billy Bob's and a Willie Nelson lookalike stuck his head in the door and said "If you're not having fun, you don't have anyone to blame but yourself". That's my new geocaching motto. Maybe I should get a coin made

[+Yamahammer]

Crusso, One way to improve caches in your area is to place 'quality' caches yourself. Give others something to shoot for. Set the example. "BE" the leader. Others will try to duplicate your efforts. You might explain what you're doing in the description as well.

 

Peace!

[Keystone]

My point was simply that it's NOT always the reviewer's responsibilty to ensure the cache has a worthy view/site, etc BUT there were some things in the description which should "have raised an eyebrow".

Thanks for clarifying.

 

I took a look at the cache page and there is nothing in the description that raises any guideline compliance issues. I would have published the cache if it were in my review territory.

 

Please help me out further by pointing to the specific listing guideline(s) that you believe was overlooked in the review of this cache.

[Mushtang]

I load a bunch of points then go hunt them and don't always have the cache page with me.

In a case where you don't read the description before you go looking for a cache, how can it possibly be the reviewer OR the owners fault when you end up at a cache you think is unworthy of your time?

[+Renegade Knight]

Hunted a cache today which probably shouldn't have been approved. Now I don't know what the hider told the reviewer, but in part, this is what his cache description said: "this is also a quick find for you to boost your numbers" & "barely have to get out of your car to get this one".

Cache was hidden by simply driving to the back end of a shopping center and sticking a hide a key to the guardrail. I know the owner of the dept store didn't grant permission for this. There is no scenery or anything else to be seen from the site. Looking around this area is likely to bring attention from the cops as it is basically the loading area/non general parking area of the lot. There are several parks within a 2 block radius of this site where any number of caches could be hidden. I know this probably fits the general guidelines but surely we can do better than this.

 

In other words, you didn't like the cache. It does fit the general guideliens and should have been published, YOU can do better than that, THEY were under no such obligation. The reviewer did just fine.

Edited July 12, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+sbell111]

... If you know of better locations in the area, why not contact the owner and give him some nice suggestions.

Actually, since that is Crusso's local area, he can hide a cache in those 'better areas' and lead by example. Either way, the cache in question was as advertised.

[+welch]

Hunted a cache today which probably shouldn't have been approved. Now I don't know what the hider told the reviewer, but in part, this is what his cache description said: "this is also a quick find for you to boost your numbers" & "barely have to get out of your car to get this one".

Cache was hidden by simply driving to the back end of a shopping center and sticking a hide a key to the guardrail. I know the owner of the dept store didn't grant permission for this. There is no scenery or anything else to be seen from the site. Looking around this area is likely to bring attention from the cops as it is basically the loading area/non general parking area of the lot. There are several parks within a 2 block radius of this site where any number of caches could be hidden. I know this probably fits the general guidelines but surely we can do better than this.

Even if the reviewer reads the description and is pretty sure it will be the lamest cache ever, they are not supposed to decline it for being lame. Just ensure that it follow the guidelines (or seems to).

When you log the cache, say you didn't care for the scenery etc. You don't need to be mean, but be honest in your log. Maybe the cache owner will read them and create different caches in the future. Or maybe not, but I'd like to hope for the best.

Of course they might go and make a complex puzzle cache or a multi with 400 stages, or something that wouldn't be so much fun to hunt. That's one of the other facets of lame caches, someone somewhere probably thought that was a cool cache (for some bizzare reason). Don't get me wrong, I think lightpoles and guardrails are very boring, but I do realize not everyone wants exaxtly the same things from their cache hunts.

[+MountainMudbug]

Regarding getting lax on the reviews (not quality of caches), I am wondering about caches approved in close proximity to railroad tracks. Are reviewers supposed to look at the local map for each cache hide?

 

Because I've seen cache pages where the text says something like "the reviewer made me mention don't go near the railroad tracks!"

 

But I've also found a cache that was literally 15ft from active tracks and there was no mention of anything on the cache page from the hider or the reviewer. The only mention of the tracks on the cache page was a note of warning from a finder of the cache outlining the dangers of railroad tracks.

 

Just curious. I'm not concerned enough to call the specific cache out, I'm just wondering about consistency of the review process in cases such as this.

[+StarBrand]

Seemed like enough of a description to mark it as ignore - unless of course I needed a quick geo "fix".

[+VegasCacheHounds]

 

My point was simply that it's NOT always the reviewer's responsibilty to ensure the cache has a worthy view/site, etc BUT there were some things in the description which should "have raised an eyebrow".

 

 

I wasn't aware that it was ever a reviewer's responsibility to ensure that a cache has a worthy view/site, etc.

 

From my understanding, having a worthy view/site, etc. isn't part of the guidelines at all, and if they were could you just imagine the threads we would see then? (just think back to the whole "wow" factor issues when Virtual caches were still around)

 

The reviewer's job isn't to say if the cache is a good cache or a bad cache, but to see if it meets the published guidelines.

[+Quiggle]

Regarding getting lax on the reviews (not quality of caches), I am wondering about caches approved in close proximity to railroad tracks. Are reviewers supposed to look at the local map for each cache hide?

 

Because I've seen cache pages where the text says something like "the reviewer made me mention don't go near the railroad tracks!"

 

But I've also found a cache that was literally 15ft from active tracks and there was no mention of anything on the cache page from the hider or the reviewer. The only mention of the tracks on the cache page was a note of warning from a finder of the cache outlining the dangers of railroad tracks.

 

Just curious. I'm not concerned enough to call the specific cache out, I'm just wondering about consistency of the review process in cases such as this.

 

This may need to be a separate topic, but the cache owner could have changed the coords after publishing (up to 528' while we typically only check for a minimum of 150'). Until the recent implementation of the coordinate change log, there were few ways to track the moving of a cache.

[+Team Gryarvold]

We would have gone and gotten it on one of those days when we are in a hurry somewhere but want to get a few quick caches and get our fix for the day. Don't have time for a hike or a puzzle but GOTTA GET A CACHE. So yes, we would read the info and either save it or get it. Do we mind that the reviewers and or the cache owners list it, no we don't one bit. We have been quilty of putting a few of those out like that and we have others in the area that do it, and the people that like them get them and the ones that don't, don't. But we think the numbers that are getting them speak for themselves.

[+thedeadpirate]

Please check any that apply:

 

[x] - Reviewer bashing thread

[x] - Micro bashing thread

[ ] - Bring back the Virts

[ ] - Bring back locationless

[ ] - Waymarking stinks

[ ] - Garmin vs. Magellan

[ ] - Geocoin woes

[ ] - GC.com stinks

[x] - Let's rate caches

[x] - Membership v. Premium Membership

[x] - Cache Quality

 

Don't get your panties in a wad guys! sheesh!

I wasn't bashing anyone, I was trying to open up a dialogue/discussion about cache quality. I hunted it because it comes up on my "Nearest caches" page which I like to clean out from time to time. I load a bunch of points then go hunt them and don't always have the cache page with me.

 

Then I really don't see how a cache rating system is going to help. If folks aren't reading the cache listing, they're not going to see the rating either. You're still going to be running out finding a cache that you clearly are not going to like because you didn't read the listing.

 

It's definitely not the reviewer's fault if you failed to read the listing. In this case it's not the cache owner's fault either as the listing clearly states "this is also a quick find for you to boost your numbers" and "barely have to get out of your car". These same 2 phrases that you say should have been a clue to the reviewer would have been a red flag to you if you had read the description first.

 

I understand putting numbers in your gpsr and hitting the road. Just don't get worked up when you go out blindly looking for a cache. That's the risk you take by not reading the listing.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Thinking more on what the OP said in his first post and in the follow up, it appears that he believes that this cache should not have been approved due to the fact that it looks quite likely that the cache hider did not ask for permission, even though it is obviously on non-public property.

 

However, from my understanding, the policy that reviewers use with caches that are placed on private property that the public has access to, such as a parking lot, is to assume that the cache hider has read the guidelines and has secured appropriate permission. Once again from my understanding the only times a reviewer specifically askes for proff of permission is if the cache falls in an area that has a Geocaching policy, such as a National Park or a regional park that has a known policy, or some similar restricted area.

[+WascoZooKeeper]

TITANIUM MEMBERS don't have this problem, because they have an additional option on PQs to exclude lame caches.

[+Renegade Knight]

Regarding getting lax on the reviews (not quality of caches), I am wondering about caches approved in close proximity to railroad tracks. Are reviewers supposed to look at the local map for each cache hide?

 

Because I've seen cache pages where the text says something like "the reviewer made me mention don't go near the railroad tracks!"

 

But I've also found a cache that was literally 15ft from active tracks and there was no mention of anything on the cache page from the hider or the reviewer. The only mention of the tracks on the cache page was a note of warning from a finder of the cache outlining the dangers of railroad tracks.

 

Just curious. I'm not concerned enough to call the specific cache out, I'm just wondering about consistency of the review process in cases such as this.

 

It would not suprise me if the review process relative to railroad tracks is consistant. It would also not suprise me if the maps used by reviewers were off and showed the cache as further from the tracks than it is, or if the maps didn't show them at all. Plus there is the deal where the issue did come up and was handled before the cache was approved. For example if the tracks are close to an area where the public is allowed to hang out.

[+4leafclover]

When I see those words in a cache description, instead of "enjoy the beautiful view from here," I hold my nose shut while I press the "publish" button.

 

Like briansnat said, if the cache fits the guidelines I am obligated to publish it.

 

So why would you blame the reviewer rather than the cache owner? I would be happy to edit the topic of your thread to read "cache owners getting lax." It would be far more accurate.

 

gee, I see this offer of help was pounced upon really quickly....

[+Stunod]

 

 

Well, I guess a few people think some of them are full of...

 

Edited July 12, 2006 by Stunod

[+Glock22]

Here we have all types None are lame just some easy and no adventure others are extremly difucult to get to but there all fun, i have only 66 finds but have driven 45 miles just to get a couple for the kids that sounded fun. My point is just have fun even if you think its lame my kids think it's a find and keeps them interested.

 

Just my .02

 

Thanks guys ....And Girls

[+Wander Lost]

I'm sure it did raise an eyebrow, but not much the reviewer can do. As said, the guidelines don't have a section for quality. The only way you can stop hides like that from being popular in your area is not to hide them and not to hunt them.

[+laughingcat]

Hunted a cache today which probably shouldn't have been approved. Now I don't know what the hider told the reviewer, but in part, this is what his cache description said: "this is also a quick find for you to boost your numbers" & "barely have to get out of your car to get this one".

Cac

 

I've seen a lot that say park and grab.. however some might find those too hard due to physical limitations so maybe some would like one that could be reached from a car?

 

Sometime I do need to see what the rules are on placing caches. How about one where the coordinates and the cache are 455 feet apart. Hello? What, we are taking up two cache sites with this one cache now? Wierd.

[+Crusso]

Thinking more on what the OP said in his first post and in the follow up, it appears that he believes that this cache should not have been approved due to the fact that it looks quite likely that the cache hider did not ask for permission, even though it is obviously on non-public property.

 

Guess everyone else missed this point.

 

Regarding getting lax on the reviews (not quality of caches), I am wondering about caches approved in close proximity to railroad tracks. Are reviewers supposed to look at the local map for each cache hide?

 

Uh, yes.

 

AND AGAIN, I AM NOT BASHING ANYONE - Just trying to raise the issue for discussion!

See panty quote above!

Edited July 13, 2006 by Crusso

[+Ambrosia]

Thinking more on what the OP said in his first post and in the follow up, it appears that he believes that this cache should not have been approved due to the fact that it looks quite likely that the cache hider did not ask for permission, even though it is obviously on non-public property.

 

Guess everyone else missed this point.

Not really.

[+StarBrand]

Thinking more on what the OP said in his first post and in the follow up, it appears that he believes that this cache should not have been approved due to the fact that it looks quite likely that the cache hider did not ask for permission, even though it is obviously on non-public property.

 

Guess everyone else missed this point.

 

Regarding getting lax on the reviews (not quality of caches), I am wondering about caches approved in close proximity to railroad tracks. Are reviewers supposed to look at the local map for each cache hide?

 

Uh, yes.

 

AND AGAIN, I AM NOT BASHING ANYONE - Just trying to raise the issue for discussion!

See panty quote above!

If the hider checked the boxes to submit the cache than he/she is assuring the reviewers that "adequate permission" was obtained - the volunteers can't follow up on every submission - hard enough to keep up with known local rules. They have to trust the cacher on some level. If you KNOW there is no permission than feel free to notify TPTB of that.

[+El Diablo]

This is a publishing site that list caches according to publish guidelines. The Reveiwers follow those guidelines in making a decision to publish the cache or not. This part is easy.

 

Here is the hard part. If you don't like parking lot caches, lamp post caches, guardrail caches....don't hunt them, to do so shows support of that type of cache. We as a caching community set the standards that we deem acceptable. This site is not responsible for lame caches, nor are the Reveiwers. The caching community is responsible.

 

El Diablo

[Keystone]

You'd be surprised at just how many parking lot micros are submitted with reviewer notes saying that permission was obtained from the business owner. How do you know that this cache did not get submitted with such an assurance?

 

And as a reviewer, how am I supposed to know what each hider regards as "adequate permission?" Apart from off limits areas and locations covered by a land manager's geocaching policy, I don't have a standard to test against.

 

Sorry you're missing the point here. I would be happy to clarify anything that isn't clear to you.

[+welch]

Thinking more on what the OP said in his first post and in the follow up, it appears that he believes that this cache should not have been approved due to the fact that it looks quite likely that the cache hider did not ask for permission, even though it is obviously on non-public property.

 

Guess everyone else missed this point.

 

Regarding getting lax on the reviews (not quality of caches), I am wondering about caches approved in close proximity to railroad tracks. Are reviewers supposed to look at the local map for each cache hide?

 

Uh, yes.

 

AND AGAIN, I AM NOT BASHING ANYONE - Just trying to raise the issue for discussion!

See panty quote above!

Since I missed it the first time could you be more specific about the issue you're trying to raise?

 

Are you suggesting that some caches get listed that didn't have adequate permision?

or that the reivewers don't usually double check that if there was a policy there it was followed, unless its been brought to their attention this area has rules?

or something else??

[+Crusso]

Since I missed it the first time could you be more specific about the issue you're trying to raise?

 

Are you suggesting that some caches get listed that didn't have adequate permision?

 

this cache should not have been approved due to the fact that it looks quite likely that the cache hider did not ask for permission,

 

Based on the fact that this hide is in the back of a shopping center, the local police are quick to nail people in these lots after business hours. And the reason I know is because I used to work there and the owner's were not happy with people being in the lot after hours. They would often ask the local police to patrol the lots after various acts of graffiti, vandalism, etc.

 

Since I missed it the first time could you be more specific about the issue you're trying to raise?

The issue I was trying to raise in general was a discussion about bad cache hides & reviewers scrutinizing requested placements a little better. If you reread my original post you will see that I never mentioned the cache name or number specifically. Another poster did that. The discussion seems to have degraded into picking apart this cache specifically. That was not the original intent. And again, I was not bashing the reviewers who I know have a tough job especially being volunteers. Again, I was just trying to open a dialogue in general.

Edited July 13, 2006 by Crusso

[+Markwell]

Off-limit caches

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived.

 

I guess the owner may not have read the red.

Edited July 13, 2006 by Markwell

[+welch]

Since I missed it the first time could you be more specific about the issue you're trying to raise?

 

Are you suggesting that some caches get listed that didn't have adequate permision?

 

this cache should not have been approved due to the fact that it looks quite likely that the cache hider did not ask for permission,

 

Based on the fact that this hide is in the back of a shopping center, the local police are quick to nail people in these lots after business hours. And the reason I know is because I used to work there and the owner's were not happy with people being in the lot after hours. They would often ask the local police to patrol the lots after various acts of graffiti, vandalism, etc.

In general I don't think you can say the police are quick to question people in such places. Yes some cities/places they area, others they are probably not so quick. Nor would it seem possible to say that because it was in such a place that it didn't have permission. We do not know if the reviewer asked, or what was said. (I think meantioned that in the opening post)

In this specific cache it seems like you have enough info that you should should request the cache be archived, or at least pass the info on to the reviewer and let them deal with this specific cache.

 

Since I missed it the first time could you be more specific about the issue you're trying to raise?

The issue I was trying to raise in general was a discussion about bad cache hides & reviewers scrutinizing requested placements a little better. If you reread my original post you will see that I never mentioned the cache name or number specifically. Another poster did that. The discussion seems to have degraded into picking apart this cache specifically. That was not the original intent. And again, I was not bashing the reviewers who I know have a tough job especially being volunteers. Again, I was just trying to open a dialogue in general.

Thank you for stating your purpose .

If you reread my other posts you'll notice that untill this post I did make direct reference to the specific cache, nor have I given its name or numer.

 

(e/ fixed quote)

Edited July 13, 2006 by welch

[+RichardMoore]

You'd be surprised at just how many parking lot micros are submitted with reviewer notes saying that permission was obtained from the business owner. How do you know that this cache did not get submitted with such an assurance?

 

And as a reviewer, how am I supposed to know what each hider regards as "adequate permission?" Apart from off limits areas and locations covered by a land manager's geocaching policy, I don't have a standard to test against.

 

Sorry you're missing the point here. I would be happy to clarify anything that isn't clear to you.

On the other hand, as a reviewer and a forum moderator you are well aware that several cachers have stated in the forums that they are opposed to asking permission to place caches on what they consider to be public property.

Shouldn't their hides then be re-examined to determine if the guidelines for placing a cache were violated?

[+fresgo]

I wonder how many caches out in the wilderness actually "have permission of the property owner."

 

If you don't like micros in the back of a shopping center why look for them especially if it is as described. How many maps and aerials can you look at on the cache page and with google earth you can readily screen shopping centers out of your search.

 

Discussion is a great thing but have you ever thought that some people don't have the ability to hike 10 miles in the wilderness to find a cache or have a 4X4, kayak, snowmobile or whatever to go find those wonderful ammo cans and 55 gallon drums somewhere in the sticks that may not be so wonderful anyway. Some of us live in urban areas and appreciate any that is hidden.

[+headybrew]

Please check any that apply:

 

[x] - Reviewer bashing thread

[x] - Micro bashing thread

[ ] - Bring back the Virts

[ ] - Bring back locationless

[ ] - Waymarking stinks

[ ] - Garmin vs. Magellan

[ ] - Geocoin woes

[ ] - GC.com stinks

[ ] - Let's rate caches

 

[ ] - Topics we're not allowed to talk about