Cache owner deleted my log

[+buttaskotch]

 

My reply offered suggestions – don’t go out before consulting a map, (I recommended two specifically), bring along a map and compass, don’t simply rely on a GPSr;,… all the usual sensible stuff and concluded with “Needless to say I am still of the opinion that you should amend your log.”

 

CC#1

In this day and age of GPSr, people like myself don't have use for maps any longer. I have 2 GPSrs and have only a local NYC map somewhere in the trunk of my car that is more than likely outdated.

 

Secondly, there are times I just head out because I have time to kill. Unless there is specific information in the cache description about trailheads and how to (or not to) head to the cache, I would more than likely take a similar approach as some of the cachers took who have found this cache.

 

Cache descriptions can benefit from letting the finder know about PO'd farmers and likely trails to take. It certainly would make me happy.

[+rob3k]

I also use the pilotsnipes macro to load caches with child waypoints on my car GPSr. Parking waypoints often save a lot of frustration and are greatly appreciated. That said, I generally just get back in the car (and sometimes move on to the next cache) if it looks like I need to trespass for the smiley.

[+Renegade Knight]

...In this day and age of GPSr, people like myself don't have use for maps any longer. ...

 

The form of your map changed. You very much have a use for maps. Some of the detail that might be available on a paper map is lost in a GPS map. While a GPS is handy, you should know what you are missing and what the trade offs are.

[+NeverSummer]

Seems like this tempest in a teapot could be easily resolved by the CO posting parking coordinates.

I wonder if you can make them mandatory? As in "park here, tell me you parked here or I'll delete your log because you will cause all kinds of trouble for everone if you don't".

 

An ALR for the prevention of ill will and malice (of property owners, but obvously not some finders).

Haha, nope, not an ALR, as it would be asking you to do something *before* finding the cache!

[+pklong]

My reply offered suggestions – don’t go out before consulting a map

Always good advice, especially in unfamiliar territory, but would that have helped?

Looking at the street map from Groundspeak, it seems that the best route is from that road that jogs south off the main road.

Even looking at Google Earth doesn't help, as all those hedgerows between the fields look so similar, it's hard to discern a correct course.

You can rally all you want about the detriment of adding additional waypoints to your cache page, but it sure seems like it would've helped on this one.

 

This is why we love Ordnance Survey maps over here. Try this:

 

MultiMap

 

Footpath clearly marked. Still can't see any reason for not adding the Trailhead co-ords though!

[knowschad]

Well, the OP's log is back, I see. No child coordinates posted yet.

[Clan Riffster]

Consideration for others pays off over time. Stubborness pays off now.

I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for the additional waypoints.

[+Castle Mischief]

While I agree that the parking coords wouldn't hurt, I doubt that having a jury of self-appointed internet cache inspectors would influence my own decision in a similar matter; with the likelihood decreasing every time somebody posted a helpful follow-up to report that indeed, I had not followed their advice.

[+Bad Duck]

QUOTE

[March 2, 2008 by minstrelcat (1130 found)

We got a little confused by this cache because at home, a terrain rating of 1 means wheelchair-accessible! Because of this we tried to get to the cache from the north as the terrain looked flat on the map, only to come across a sign on a gate saying we couldn't access the area that way

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems pretty clear that the north route is the improper way. Can't read the SIGN ON THE GATE. Then they can't read the cache page either. And most likely wouldn't use parking coordinates.

Why should the cache owner have to hold the hand of any cacher who can't find the way in. Spoon fed where to park on a game of searching for things. It's part of caching, finding the way in to the cache. Guess the "numbers" people can't be slowed down the two minutes it takes to read the page.

[+J-Way]

A great location, good views & some interesting history that we would never have found ourselves.

 

There is a problem visiting this cache. To the North of the stones are two rather fed-up farmers. They regularly have people tramping over their fields to find the stones. I would ask that the cache owner places co-ords for parking & for the trailhead to ensure that visitors are able to find the stones using the public footpaths.

 

The terrain rating of "1" looks a little incorrect.

First, who says the people who are "regularly" tramping over their fields are geocachers? It won't be the first time that generic clueless tourists damage private property because they don't properly research how to get to a public location.

 

Second, lots of older non-wheelchair accessible caches all over the world have terrain ratings of "1". The wheelchair requirement was only added in the past year or two. Most people who are wheelchair bound know to look for the wheelchair accessible symbol, see if the cache is listed over at "handicaching.com", or contact the owner first.

 

Many many thousands of older caches have no additional waypoints because they weren't available when the cache was listed. Assuming the parking and access directions were there all along, then I say the owner is covered. People who dump-and-run only cause problems (for themselves AND for others) by not reading descriptions. One good whack on the head with a shovel might cure that problem.

 

Personally, however, I would add a parking waypoint.

[Clan Riffster]

Seems pretty clear that the north route is the improper way.

Clear as mud, eh?

I consider myself to be solutions oriented. When I encounter a problem, rather than railing about it, I look for a means to correct it.

In this case the problem seems to be folks taking an incorrect route from their car to the cache. Judging by what I see here, this is occurring for two main reasons. 1 ) A kwick look see at a map shows a road pointing right at the cache. If I had no knowledge to the contrary, that would be the first place I checked to see if there was a suitable access point. 2 ) As has been often demonstrated by me, some folks can be dumber than a bag of hammers, some times. As much as we rant and rave about it, some folks simply will not bother reading a cache page, if they don't think its necessary. While I can't, in good conscience, agree with folks not reading the cache page, I can recognize that, in certain cases, it's gonna happen. I call this "Not Sticking My Head In The Sand". If there are fences, gates and "No Trespassing" signs folks need to bypass taking the northern route, that just adds a few more hammers to their bag.

 

With the advent of PQs, getting a whole gob of caches to a GPSr has gone from several hours to just a few clicks. That's how lots of folks play the game. Heck, that's how I play the game. Load the PQ and away I go. Because I have a device capable of loading the entire cache page, I always have the data right at my fingertips, but I know others are limited to just the basics such as cache name, GC number, D/T ratings, etc. While I happen to enjoy reading cache pages, I know other folks don't. It's just a fact of life. Give them what appears to be a very straight forward cache hunt and all they want to know is "What am I looking for?" These apparently are the folks who are having the biggest problem with this cache.

 

By adding a parking waypoint, the intrepid young cacher now has two things showing up on his/her GPSr screen instead of one.

Hopefully they'll take that as a clue.

 

Is it a guaranteed solution? Of course not. Could it help? Absolutely. Would it hurt? Definitely not.

[+Castle Mischief]

By adding a parking waypoint, the intrepid young cacher now has two things showing up on his/her GPSr screen instead of one.

Hopefully they'll take that as a clue.

 

Is it a guaranteed solution? Of course not. Could it help? Absolutely. Would it hurt? Definitely not.

 

Only if they load the second file that contains the additional waypoints... I still agree that the parking coords would be helpful to those that would use them; just playing Devil's advocate.

 

I never load the second file that has the parking coords. Why? Because I read the cache description on my Palm and I've never felt the need to cross a fence to get to a cache. If I thought that maybe I might need to cross a fence, I'd check the description to see if there was mention of something like "property owner encourages fence jumping".

[GOF and Bacall]

Perhaps the cache owner could help the local landowners out and foster a bit of good will for geocachers at the same time. Talk to the farmers and offer to put up a sign at the place people are improperly accessing the area. Something that tells them the proper place to park. Perhaps a simple map.

[Clan Riffster]

Talk to the farmers and offer to put up a sign at the place people are improperly accessing the area.

Or, hide behind a shrub with a shovel, whacking any wayward cachers upside the head.

[GOF and Bacall]

Talk to the farmers and offer to put up a sign at the place people are improperly accessing the area.

Or, hide behind a shrub with a shovel, whacking any wayward cachers upside the head.

 

If I showed up in Deltona and did that what would you do?

 

No, that might make the farmers chuckle but wouldn't endear you to your fellow cachers.

 

Log

 

"Left - consciousness, took - ride in ambulance"

[Clan Riffster]

If I showed up in Deltona and did that what would you do?

When I woke up, I'd rub my head and say, "Ow!"

[+Yno]

 

Or, hide behind a shrub with a shovel, whacking any wayward cachers upside the head.

 

Shouldn't you whack them on the shin and yell "Respect my authoritay!"?

[+Happy Humphrey]

Being fairly familiar with this cache and the approach, I've taken an interest in the discussion. It's sad that some people may still try the "north" route in spite of the rather clear cache description. I suspect that those who will be prone to such a mistake won't be influenced by no steenkin' parkin' waypoint.

 

But it's amusing that some have taken the "shovel" log of April 1st without a pinch of salt...check the finder's profile!

 

Checking through the logs, it seems that there were one or perhaps two that actually reached the cache from the north side. However, the description looks pretty good from a "legal access" point of view and it appears that it's not geocachers that are giving the landowners grief.

 

I'm not sure whether the wording is original, so perhaps some seekers have (nearly) half an excuse. Although, IMO many (most?) caches would have a similar problem should people attempt to take a direct line from a point of their choice rather than looking for a legal and easy approach (normally, the terrain rating lets me know; "1*" kind of hints that fences and walls won't have to be scaled en route).

 

In the end, I think I've convinced the cache owner that posting a parking waypoint won't do any harm and may at least disarm any further criticism. As it happens, there is a spot near the start of the footpath (although it's not very good), so hopefully this will be highlighted once he's had chance to amend the web page.

Edited May 15, 2009 by Happy Humphrey

[+Renegade Knight]

Being fairly familiar with this cache and the approach, I've taken an interest in the discussion. It's sad that some people may still try the "north" route in spite of the rather clear cache description. I suspect that those who will be prone to such a mistake won't be influenced by no steenkin' parkin' waypoint.

 

But it's amusing that some have taken the "shovel" log of April 1st without a pinch of salt...check the finder's profile!

 

Checking through the logs, it seems that there were one or perhaps two that actually reached the cache from the north side. However, the description looks pretty good from a "legal access" point of view and it appears that it's not geocachers that are giving the landowners grief.

 

I'm not sure whether the wording is original, so perhaps some seekers have (nearly) half an excuse. Although, IMO many (most?) caches would have a similar problem should people attempt to take a direct line from a point of their choice rather than looking for a legal and easy approach (normally, the terrain rating lets me know; "1*" kind of hints that fences and walls won't have to be scaled en route).

 

In the end, I think I've convinced the cache owner that posting a parking waypoint won't do any harm and may at least disarm any further criticism. As it happens, there is a spot near the start of the footpath (although it's not very good), so hopefully this will be highlighted once he's had chance to amend the web page.

Very nice.

[knowschad]

But it's amusing that some have taken the "shovel" log of April 1st without a pinch of salt...check the finder's profile!

 

Hey, I know that guy!! So does at least one other poster to this forum, but I ain't sayin' who...