Contacting a reviewer directly

[+TeamPatchwork]

Hello, everyone!! Just a simple question..is it in bad for to contact a reviewer in regards to an issue with a cache?

 

Here's the deal. There's a cache near me that I tried to find on the 13th of November. The original business is being demolished, and it's quite simply, an unsafe area. In addition to general construction debris, there are also "no trespassing" and "hard hat required" signs where the cache was/is hidden.

 

I've contacted the cache owner, to no avail (he appears to be a still active user) I've also posted a "NA" note on the cache page, but haven't seen anything come from that.

 

Normally, I wouldn't worry to much about this, but, at least to me, it's an issue of safety. Any thoughts? Should I contact a reviewer directly, or just let it be and assume that everyone knows they're caching at their own risk?

 

And, another side to this is, we recently had a cache blown up by the bomb squad, and I want to avoid any more bad publicity for geocaching, by someone caching in a no trespassing/hard hat area.

 

Thanks for your advice!!

[+flask]

no, not bad form.

[+TeamPatchwork]

no, not bad form.

 

Thank you, flask, and happy thanksgiving!

[+IBcrashen]

If you dont know for sure ( as stated, you havent found it) how do you know it needs archiving? It could be in a safe place away from the deconstruction of the building but in the temporary no trespassing area. At most a note posting on the cache page letting the CO and others know about the deconstruction and the cache not being available for now.

 

You and you alone are responsible for your safety. If you dont feel comfortable going for a cache dont.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I would assume that you know the cache's location is within the danger area if you went to find it and it led you to within the area? I'm also assuming the area is fairly large leaving no doubt the hide is within that area? If this is, in fact, the case and the owner doesn't respond, a note to the reviewer is in order. IF the reviewer decides the cache is OK (likely after contacting the owner), I'm confident the listigng will be left active. If not, it'll either be archived or tremporarily disabled!

 

Not bad form to look out for others...

[+sTeamTraen]

An alternative to contacting the reviewer by e-mail is to post a "Needs Archived" log, sometimes called "SBA" after its old title, "Should Be Archived". Your local reviewer will receive a copy of this by e-mail. (The reviewers do not get notified of "Needs Maintenance" logs.)

 

The advantage of logging an SBA is that everyone - the cache owner, potential seekers, and the reviewer - can see it. If your concern is something like "there appears to be a live landmine one foot from the cache", then SBA is definitely the way to go.

 

The disadvantage of an SBA is that sometimes, cache owners take it rather badly. So if you do choose this route, be as nice as possible, and make sure you stick to facts.

 

Note that your reviewer will - except for landmines - very likely not react by archiving the cache. She or he will want to discuss it with the cache owner first. (I think "Needs Archived" should be renamed "Needs Maintenance Badly". )

Edited November 26, 2009 by sTeamTraen

[+TeamPatchwork]

Just to clarify...we went on a group hunt a week and a half ago, and all of us on the hunt agreed that the cache must be in the danger area..unless the coords are off by a couple of hundred feet. Yes, I did post a DNF, contacted the CO, and after no response from him, posted a SBA. I've seen nothing on the SBA after over 10 days, which is why I wondered if I could contact a reviewer directly.

 

I'm not one that takes posting an SBA lightly...I don't do it because I didn't like a cache, or just because I can't find a difficult cache. It's the danger and obvious trespassing on this one that concerns me.

[+Touchstone]

I would recommend posting a second SBA with a few more details, such as cache owner not active, and trespassing in a construction area type concerns. The local Reviewer may have just put the Listing on a Watchlist in order to keep an eye on the Listing, while at the same time not being too heavy handed with the cache owner.

 

In some unusual cases, you could also contact Groundspeak directly, but this doesn't sound like an "imminent danger" type of situation to me if I'm reading your OP correctly. More than likely, Groundspeak would leave it to the local Reviewer to handle.

[+IBcrashen]

So all you are saying is that the cache in not available right now. Or do you know that this area will always be a "no trespassing area"? You do not know if the cache is in a safe place from the deconstruction of the building. The CO should disable it for sure and if he doesnt an e-mail to the reviewer, who should disable it, is in line.

 

If GC is going to archive caches because cachers might break the law then they would archive all caches in parks with open/closed hours because cachers might go into the park after hours, even for a FTF.

[+Touchstone]

If GC is going to archive caches because cachers might break the law then they would archive all caches in parks with open/closed hours because cachers might go into the park after hours, even for a FTF.

 

I'm afraid you've lost me on that train of thought

[+IBcrashen]

If GC is going to archive caches because cachers might break the law then they would archive all caches in parks with open/closed hours because cachers might go into the park after hours, even for a FTF.

 

I'm afraid you've lost me on that train of thought

 

 

And, another side to this is, we recently had a cache blown up by the bomb squad, and I want to avoid any more bad publicity for geocaching, by someone caching in a no trespassing/hard hat area.

 

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

So all you are saying is that the cache in not available right now. Or do you know that this area will always be a "no trespassing area"? You do not know if the cache is in a safe place from the deconstruction of the building. The CO should disable it for sure and if he doesnt an e-mail to the reviewer, who should disable it, is in line.

 

If GC is going to archive caches because cachers might break the law then they would archive all caches in parks with open/closed hours because cachers might go into the park after hours, even for a FTF.

 

If the only way to get the cache would result in breaking the law, then there is an issue.

Edited November 26, 2009 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+IBcrashen]

So all you are saying is that the cache in not available right now. Or do you know that this area will always be a "no trespassing area"? You do not know if the cache is in a safe place from the deconstruction of the building. The CO should disable it for sure and if he doesnt an e-mail to the reviewer, who should disable it, is in line.

 

If GC is going to archive caches because cachers might break the law then they would archive all caches in parks with open/closed hours because cachers might go into the park after hours, even for a FTF.

 

If the only way to get the cache would result in breaking the law, then there is an issue.

for ever or just temporarily while deconstruction is going on?

[+Touchstone]

for ever or just temporarily while deconstruction is going on?

 

I think it kind of depends on the length of the project. We had a well loved Virtual in our area that was Disabled for nearly two years. That seems a bit excessive and goes well beyond the intent of what the Disable feature is supposed to be used for:

 

You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache.

[+tozainamboku]

If a cache is in a temporary construction area it can be temporarily disabled while it is inaccessible. It does not have to be archived. Even if the owner does not disable it, it is up to the seekers of the cache to obey laws when seeking a cache. Cachers who think a smiley or a FTF is worth breaking a law and paying a hefty fine if they are caught doing this are [can't say without violating the forum guidelines].

 

Posting a SBA might not get the reviewer to take action in this case. It is not clear that the cache is in violation of any guideline (although if the area is clearly marked no trespassing the cache can be archived). The reviewer is likely trying to contact the cache owner to get them to temporarily disable the cache. Then the cache owner will be able to re-enable the cache when construction is complete. If the reviewer gets no response from the owner, he might archive the cache due to lack of owner maintenance. I don't think the reviewer wants to archive this cache unnecessarily lest there be a 26 page thread in the forums calling him a rogue reviewer . In the meantime you can post a note on the page if you haven't already mentioned in your DNF that the cache is not accessible.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

If GC is going to archive caches because cachers might break the law then they would archive all caches in parks with open/closed hours because cachers might go into the park after hours, even for a FTF.

 

If the only way to get the cache would result in breaking the law, then there is an issue.

for ever or just temporarily while deconstruction is going on?

 

I was only trying to point out the flaw in your comparison to the original question and caches in parks with posted hours. There is no comparison.

 

If the area is gong to be closed for some indefinite period of time, then perhaps it is better to archive the cache. If the period of time appears to be a fairly short time, Disable it.

 

If the cache is left to remain Active, then there will be that one cacher who still goes for it (knowing full well he really shouldn't), will get in trouble, and then spoil things for the rest of us.

[+power69]

Hello, everyone!! Just a simple question..is it in bad for to contact a reviewer in regards to an issue with a cache?

 

Here's the deal. There's a cache near me that I tried to find on the 13th of November. The original business is being demolished, and it's quite simply, an unsafe area. In addition to general construction debris, there are also "no trespassing" and "hard hat required" signs where the cache was/is hidden.

 

I've contacted the cache owner, to no avail (he appears to be a still active user) I've also posted a "NA" note on the cache page, but haven't seen anything come from that.

 

Normally, I wouldn't worry to much about this, but, at least to me, it's an issue of safety. Any thoughts? Should I contact a reviewer directly, or just let it be and assume that everyone knows they're caching at their own risk?

 

And, another side to this is, we recently had a cache blown up by the bomb squad, and I want to avoid any more bad publicity for geocaching, by someone caching in a no trespassing/hard hat area.

 

Thanks for your advice!!

the biz is being demolished and NT signs up?, if someone else now owns the land, it'd fall under "no permission"

whether or not theres permission, common sense would dictate to not go beyond the signs in a potentially dangerous situation as you don't know if there are live charges anywhere that could accidentally be set off.

[4wheelin_fool]

Hello, everyone!! Just a simple question..is it in bad for to contact a reviewer in regards to an issue with a cache?

 

Here's the deal. There's a cache near me that I tried to find on the 13th of November. The original business is being demolished, and it's quite simply, an unsafe area. In addition to general construction debris, there are also "no trespassing" and "hard hat required" signs where the cache was/is hidden.

 

I've contacted the cache owner, to no avail (he appears to be a still active user) I've also posted a "NA" note on the cache page, but haven't seen anything come from that.

 

Normally, I wouldn't worry to much about this, but, at least to me, it's an issue of safety. Any thoughts? Should I contact a reviewer directly, or just let it be and assume that everyone knows they're caching at their own risk?

 

 

Go ahead. You may get a quicker response.

[+The Blorenges]

Hello, everyone!! Just a simple question..is it in bad for to contact a reviewer in regards to an issue with a cache?

 

 

No, it's fine. Reviewers often get emails from cachers about perceived 'issues' with caches. Send details and if you have some photographs of the location that might be helpful then offer to send them as well. Then just let the reviewer deal with it.

 

Thanks for being concerned.

 

MrsB

[Knight-Errant]

for ever or just temporarily while deconstruction is going on?

I think it kind of depends on the length of the project. We had a well loved Virtual in our area that was Disabled for nearly two years. That seems a bit excessive and goes well beyond the intent of what the Disable feature is supposed to be used for:

You may temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to hunt for it until you have a chance to fix the problem. This feature is to allow you a reasonable time – normally a few weeks – in which to arrange a visit to your cache.

We agree that two years would be excessive time for disabling a cache. However, we would hope that Virtual Caches are given a little more latittude as they have NO possiblility of being unarchived at a later date as do other caches.

[+ArmandoM]

I don't get when cachers get upset by a SBA log. If there's a problem with my cache I want to know