Misstated

[+Too Tall John]

There's a cache like this in Connecticut. Well, Rhode Island. No wait. Massachusetts. Heck, I don't even know now.

 

It's listed as a RI cache, yet the map clearly shows that it's in CT, and the description keeps talking about MA.

 

It got me so riled up that I posted an SBA for it stating that everything about the cache is wrong.

Hey, I want to know which cache this is so I might have a chance to knock off three states with one find!

GCHBYB or GC4BA3?

 

They are exactly on top of each other (one is a virtual) but one is listed in RI while the other in CT.

[CoyoteRed]

...but feel that caches should show up in the correct states. Period.

I feel the same about the "placed date" actually being the date the cache was placed or listed--either one--and not a year in the past just so one can screw with the FTFers.

 

If accuracy is paramount, it should swing both ways.

[Clan Riffster]

You do the best you can, and the cache should stand on it's own merit for it's own intended purposes

Well put.

 

Should this cache be correctly re-cataloged as a North Carolina cache?

No. As mentioned earlier in this thread, there is no way to tell what state this cache is in. As such, I'll have to stick with the CO's opinion.

 

Looks like a fun cache. Find it and enjoy it. Move to the next one.

As usual, Mtn-Man manages to sift through mountains of silliness, cutting to the heart of the matter with some well placed verbiage.

[+waypointazoid]

I suppose it is indeed the original question that should be addressed.

 

Should Sassafrass be re-catalogued to show it as a North Carolina cache?

 

A cache is just a cache. It's there to be found and logged. Anything beyond that is up to the individual owner. The requirements of the cache are set by the owner. The theme, if any, is set by the owner. And most importantly, the cache, it's theme, it's requirements, and it's location is reviewed by a volunteer to test wheather that cache meets the established guidelines.

 

Sassafrass is one of those caches that, due to it's theme, must sit on the "fence" or it's worthy theme cannot exist.

 

The original volunteer reviewer who approved and published this cache was well aware of the issue that now has been labeled an "error".

 

There is no error. It was unkown wheather the accuracy of all the elements was sound then, and it is still unknown. Then, as now, the relevance of the accuracy was unimportant to the intent of this cache. The intent of the owner was to bring cachers to a beautiful place, and to allow them to come to the highest peak in South Carolina. It is the peak that is the theme. The intent is simple and clear. There was no intent to include the cache in "location-based" games initiated by other cache owners.

 

The actual scientific location of this cache has no relation to the original intent or theme of the cache. Each cache, and it's intent should stand alone when being judged for fitness to be published. It's relation to, and how it will fit into unrelated games or goals created by other cache owners or finders is not a burden that any cache owner should be forced to consider. Once you set that sort of precedent, the sky is the limit to the ensuing pettiness.

 

So if this cache is to stand alone in it's examination for fitness, then, in this case, the two questions that had to be answered were these:

 

1. Has there been a reasonable effort made to establish the correct location of the cache?

 

2. Will any unavoidable margin of error hinder the finder in locating this cache?

 

The first question was answered by me to the original reviewer of the cache; he was satisfied.

 

The second question is answered by the fact that in over two years and with 40 finds, there has not been a single DNF on this cache.

 

Out of hundreds of caches, it was one of only 5 to be nominated for an accolade by the cachers of South Carolina. The logs reflect an overwhelmingly positive experience by those who seek it.

 

Reversing a two year old decision should not be taken lightly. Standing by a decision to insure continuity and stability of the game outweighs an inconvenienced owner whose series he has made dependent on the caches of others. This is a matter of choice: The cache page tells the finder what state this cache is officially listed in. If he needs a cache to satisfy the requirements of an unrelated game, he has free will to move to another cache for his quest. The cache owner of the game has the freedom to include or exclude any cache he wishes in setting the requirements of his own cache. And no cacher, who has logged a cache in a particular state... in good faith... should later find that his stats of a sudden have changed to satisfy the curiosity or goals... benevolent or otherwise, of another. Neither should a cacher who has satisfied the requirements of another game (Delorme, Alphabet, etc.) become suddenly lacking in those requirements.

 

Stare Decisis: Stand by the decision (of the original volunteer reviewer)

 

As it stands, an easy, self-designed remedy is available to every concerned party. If there is an imposed change, irreversible problems could be created, and the theme of a well received cache is greatly diminished.

 

Every other consideration is just semantics or malcontent. Some inevitably become dysfuntional in an imperfect world. Some frown on Lamp Skirt caches. Some are bothered by guard-rail micros. Some despise a cache placed among stones, and I don't care for puzzle caches. The fact is, none of us have an inalienable right to be content with everything in geocaching. The peak, and the border are one. It is an unavoidable anomaly if you want to place a cache themed on this state's highest ground. If it doesn't suit you, calm down and move on.

 

"You can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd... but you can be happy if you've a mind to!..."

[GOF and Bacall]

A well stated and respectable position. I applaud your restraint in adversity.

 

One question though. Did you get a new box of letters for Christmas. Yer gona use 'em all up by tax day at this rate.

 

Just funnin' with ya.

[+waypointazoid]

A well stated and respectable position. I applaud your restraint in adversity.

 

One question though. Did you get a new box of letters for Christmas. Yer gona use 'em all up by tax day at this rate.

 

Just funnin' with ya.

Thanks Goff,

 

It's true, I've never been accused of excessive brevity! And I apologize to those uninterested in what really brought us here to begin with.

[+OzGuff]

...but feel that caches should show up in the correct states. Period.

I feel the same about the "placed date" actually being the date the cache was placed or listed--either one--and not a year in the past just so one can screw with the FTFers.

 

If accuracy is paramount, it should swing both ways.

 

Point taken.

[+OzGuff]

In the big picture I understand that this issue is a molehill. But the state in which a cache is listed is relevant to some -- the reviewers for example. It is my understanding that the state/territory/country "selected" by the cache owner is used to direct caches to the appropriate reviewer. Most of my caches are located in North Carolina and I have inadvertently attempted to list caches in North Dakota once or twice. When that has happened the reviewer responsible for ND caches has disabled the cache and posted a log requesting that I change the state to NC so that the correct reviewer can review it for possible publication. If the correct state wasn't important then why wouldn't they just review the cache and if all is in order hit the "Publish" button?

 

Different states have different rules/laws/guidelines with regard to geocaching. What if this cache was located on State X land but listed as being on State Y land due to State X's restrictive policies with regard to geocaches? The State X reviewer publishes the cache because there are no State X issues but the State Y reviewer would not have published the cache.

 

Much of what has been said about the quality of the cache is in my opinion irrelevant. I agree that it IS a great cache, and enjoyed finding it in early 2007. (At which time I mentioned that the cache was 100-150 feet inside the NC border. And that comment sat untouched for almost two years.) My guess is that every cacher who has found the cache (whether they logged it online or not) would have also found it had it been correctly listed as being located in NC. And any cacher who might have logged a DNF because they didn't find it would likely still not have found it had it been correctly listed as being located in NC.

 

As I am not a reviewer I cannot speak to their actions, but let me make some assumptions. I assume that if the coordinates appear to possibly exist within a reviewer's purview then they likely review it and publish it (or not) on the merits of the cache. I assume that if the coordinates appear to NOT exist within a reviewer's purview -- for example, North Dakota vs North Carolina -- than they kick it back to the cache owner for cache owner review or forward it on to the proper reviewer. From the default maps that appear on the cache page this cache looks like it could be located on SC land, and without zooming in to take a closer look it would be easy to assume that the cache owner selected the correct state.

 

As with most potentially contentious issues in these threads there has been no consensus. (Though there have been more than their fair share of "Who cares?" comments.) I will live and continue to enjoy geocaching if the cache remains listed as an SC cache. But I repeat: I have no axe to grind but feel that caches should show up in the correct states. Period.

[+waypointazoid]

You had us at "this issue is a molehill".

 

Only two out of 40 have asked, only one out of 40 complained. Rare is the cacher that even looks for something like this on a cache page. Less would pain over this than do over lampskirts by about 100 to 1.

 

Lampskirts live on, and yet the cyborgs haven't absorbed us into the collective.

 

In North Carolina, it would take 5 minutes for me to tell a cacher what they can't do, but in South Carolina it would take me 20 minutes to tell a cacher all of what they can't do. This has nothing to do with reviewer temperament, its just the way the cookie has crumbled over the last 8 years, but the point is that if a cache will pass in SC, you can bet your sister it's gonna pass in NC... you have hundreds of caches in both states and know this; another stretched-to-the-limit argument.

 

You've emailed me twice about this, posted the same thing twice on the cache page, you initiated an inquiry that included two reviewers. You complained directly to Groundspeak, and with no success on the horizon, now you have offered this for world-wide consideration in the Groundspeak forums, arugued it with four different angles, and in spite of the overwhelming number of "who cares" you have repeated yourself over and over... if that's not grinding an axe then there's no such thing.

 

You had it right in the first sentence: This is a downunder molehill turned into a Sassafrass mountain.

[+mtn-man]

Gentlemen, take this to Groundspeak. I don't think we care to watch you two argue about this any more. This is not going to be decided in the forums. Before you make yourselves look any worse, I am going to mercifully close this topic.