Jump to content

cache archived by reviewer due to "danger of life"


bevema
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Concerning the archiving of Von Ober- nach Unter St.Veit by Mogel:

 

>>Wie ich heute erfahren habe' date=' ist das Betreten der Wienflussanlage nicht nur verboten, sondern auch in gewissen Situationen lebensgefährlich.

>>Der Cache wird daher disabled.

>Nachdem der Owner innerhalb von 4 Wochen den Cache trotz Betretungsverbot und Lebensgefahr nicht verlegen konnte, wird der Cache nunmehr archiviert.

[/quote']

Ich finde das Verhalten des österreichischen Reviewers unhöflich, anmassend und übertrieben. Viele andere Caches sind

wesentlich gefährlicher in ihrer Lage und werden nicht archiviert.

Hier von "höchster Lebensgefahr" zu sprechen ist lächerlich. Meines Wissens wurde noch niemand im Wiental von

den schnell herannahenden Wassermassen bei einem Gewitter überrascht und wurde dadurch verletzt oder ist daran

verstorben, weder ein Muggle noch ein Cacher.

Zu jeder Jahreszeit sieht man Unmengen an Leuten im Wienbett spazieren gehen.

 

Und die 24h Fristsetzung zur Archivierung ist ohnehin eine Frechheit, wieso reicht nicht bloss ein Disablen

bis zur Verlegung aus?

PS: Die Gefahren sind bei so manchem Gebirgs-Cache sicher wesentlich höher. Was disabled unser "volunteer reviewer" als nächstes?

 

So geht für mich das Hobby den Bach runter!

 

--

Translation for foreign cachers (and for forwarding this to Groundspeak' date=' as well)

>>Wie ich heute erfahren habe, ist das Betreten der Wienflussanlage nicht nur verboten, sondern auch in gewissen Situationen lebensgefährlich.

As it has got to my knowlwedge today, trespassing the riverbed of Wienfluss is not only forbidden, buit also perilous under certain situations.

>>the cache is therefor being disabled.

>because the owner hasn't been able to relocate the cache within 4 weeks despite prohibition of access and deadly peril, the cache is archived henceforth.

 

I find the behaviour of the Austrian reviewer rude, overbearing and exaggerated. Many other Caches are far

more dangerous in their location and aren't getting archived.

To speak here of "highest danger of life" is ridiculous. To my knowledge nobody has ever been surprised in the

Wiental-river bed by the fast approaching masses of water during a tempest and has either been injured or has

died due to injuries, neither a muggle nor a cacher.

In every season you can see shoals of people taking a walk in the riverbed.

 

And the 24h deadline before archiving is an impertinence, anyway. Why hasn't a simple 'disable' until the pending

relocation been enough?

PS: The dangers of many a mountain-cache are much higher' date=' for sure.

>What will get disabled by our "volunteer reviewer" next?[/quote']

 

That way the hobby "goes to hell in a handbasket" for me.

Link to comment

You had four weeks to fix the problem, according to the translation. You did nothing. That is pretty rude. It's also plenty of advance notice prior to archival.

 

Go get permission, contact your reviewer, apologize, and see if the cache can be unarchived. Permission cures many problems.

Not my cache, just a nice one within the city boundary.

 

The permission will never get granted, but 3 km upstream there is even a bike-route within the riverbed.

So the danger can't be that enormous, in my opinion...

 

Maybe I'll adopt and relocate the cache, of the former owner agrees :wink:.

 

Addition:

the "Forbidden"-Sign has been placed soon after WW2, its pure rust and almost unreadable. And it looks like it has never been replaced.

Edited by bevema
Link to comment

First, I must agree with vtmtnman's comment, above, to the effect of "why worry about it if the cache owner has done nothing about it four weeks?"

 

Next, the cache listing page displays a Terrain rating of only 2.5 for this cache and does not seem to bear an explicit warning about the potential dangers/hazards, and, in light of the dangers of floodwaters (and related hazards) in such a setting, I feel that the cache listing page -- in order to meet GC cache listing requirements as well as for reasons of commonsense civility -- would need to carry a Terrain rating of 5 and would need to contain a clear and explicit warning about potential dangers. This was not done and has not yet been done. I therefore am not at all surprised that the reviewer became concerned about this cache.

 

Lastly, the matter of the "forbidden"/"no trespass" sign is a hard one to get around, and this factor alone sounds a death knell for the cache. More reason for the reviewer to become concerned about the cache.

Edited by Vinny & Sue Team
Link to comment

You had four weeks to fix the problem, according to the translation. You did nothing. That is pretty rude. It's also plenty of advance notice prior to archival.

 

Go get permission, contact your reviewer, apologize, and see if the cache can be unarchived. Permission cures many problems.

Not my cache, just a nice one within the city boundary.

 

The permission will never get granted, but 3 km upstream there is even a bike-route within the riverbed.

So the danger can't be that enormous, in my opinion...

 

Maybe I'll adopt and relocate the cache, of the former owner agrees :wink:.

 

Addition:

the "Forbidden"-Sign has been placed soon after WW2, its pure rust and almost unreadable. And it looks like it has never been replaced.

 

What is there to discuss?

Link to comment

Concerning the archiving of Von Ober- nach Unter St.Veit by Mogel:

 

>>Wie ich heute erfahren habe' date=' ist das Betreten der Wienflussanlage nicht nur verboten, sondern auch in gewissen Situationen lebensgefährlich.

>>Der Cache wird daher disabled.

>Nachdem der Owner innerhalb von 4 Wochen den Cache trotz Betretungsverbot und Lebensgefahr nicht verlegen konnte, wird der Cache nunmehr archiviert.

[/quote']

Ich finde das Verhalten des österreichischen Reviewers unhöflich, anmassend und übertrieben. Viele andere Caches sind

wesentlich gefährlicher in ihrer Lage und werden nicht archiviert.

Hier von "höchster Lebensgefahr" zu sprechen ist lächerlich. Meines Wissens wurde noch niemand im Wiental von

den schnell herannahenden Wassermassen bei einem Gewitter überrascht und wurde dadurch verletzt oder ist daran

verstorben, weder ein Muggle noch ein Cacher.

Zu jeder Jahreszeit sieht man Unmengen an Leuten im Wienbett spazieren gehen.

 

Und die 24h Fristsetzung zur Archivierung ist ohnehin eine Frechheit, wieso reicht nicht bloss ein Disablen

bis zur Verlegung aus?

PS: Die Gefahren sind bei so manchem Gebirgs-Cache sicher wesentlich höher. Was disabled unser "volunteer reviewer" als nächstes?

 

So geht für mich das Hobby den Bach runter!

 

--

Translation for foreign cachers (and for forwarding this to Groundspeak' date=' as well)

>>Wie ich heute erfahren habe, ist das Betreten der Wienflussanlage nicht nur verboten, sondern auch in gewissen Situationen lebensgefährlich.

As it has got to my knowlwedge today, trespassing the riverbed of Wienfluss is not only forbidden, buit also perilous under certain situations.

>>the cache is therefor being disabled.

>because the owner hasn't been able to relocate the cache within 4 weeks despite prohibition of access and deadly peril, the cache is archived henceforth.

 

I find the behaviour of the Austrian reviewer rude, overbearing and exaggerated. Many other Caches are far

more dangerous in their location and aren't getting archived.

To speak here of "highest danger of life" is ridiculous. To my knowledge nobody has ever been surprised in the

Wiental-river bed by the fast approaching masses of water during a tempest and has either been injured or has

died due to injuries, neither a muggle nor a cacher.

In every season you can see shoals of people taking a walk in the riverbed.

 

And the 24h deadline before archiving is an impertinence, anyway. Why hasn't a simple 'disable' until the pending

relocation been enough?

PS: The dangers of many a mountain-cache are much higher' date=' for sure.

>What will get disabled by our "volunteer reviewer" next?[/quote']

 

That way the hobby "goes to hell in a handbasket" for me.

 

Looks like an open and shut case of an inappropriate Cache to me....

 

Philip

Link to comment

Not my cache, just a nice one within the city boundary.

 

The permission will never get granted, but 3 km upstream there is even a bike-route within the riverbed.

So the danger can't be that enormous, in my opinion...

 

Maybe I'll adopt and relocate the cache, of the former owner agrees :wink:.

 

Addition:

the "Forbidden"-Sign has been placed soon after WW2, its pure rust and almost unreadable. And it looks like it has never been replaced.

 

Why would you want to adopt this cache and all of it's problems?

Since you are planning on relocating the cache why wouldn't you just place a new cache of your own?

Link to comment
trespassing the riverbed of Wienfluss is not only forbidden, buit also perilous under certain situations. the cache is therefor being disabled. because the owner hasn't been able to relocate the cache within 4 weeks despite prohibition of access and deadly peril, the cache is archived henceforth.

From here, it looks like the reviewer acted correctly, in the best interest of both Groundspeak and potential future seekers of the cache. Personally, I would applaud his/her restraint, rather than condemn him/her as being "rude". In my, oh so humble opinion, a cache hidden in an area clearly designated as forbidden should be archived immediately. This reviewer gave the owner 4 weeks to correct the problem, during which time the owner did nothing. If the owner decides to someday take responsibility for their hide, there are steps they can take to make it active again.

Link to comment

I think the operative words are "trespassing" and "forbidden". There are numerous dangerous caches and danger alone is not a reason for archiving a cache.

 

Judging from other threads, apparently trespass isn't a particularly good reason to deny a cache either since many consider trespassing to get a cache somehow akin to "civil disobedience." B)

Link to comment

I think the operative words are "trespassing" and "forbidden". There are numerous dangerous caches and danger alone is not a reason for archiving a cache.

 

Judging from other threads, apparently trespass isn't a particularly good reason to deny a cache either since many consider trespassing to get a cache somehow akin to "civil disobedience." :D

 

Funny, I haven't read anything that suggests that in these Forums.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...