commercial cache?

[+JL_HSTRE]

http://coord.info/GC2VTVX

 

This recent cache publication caused a stir on a regional caching group I'm part of. The cache is located at Jules Underwater Hotel, the only underwater hotel in the US. Logs say it was published by special permission of Groundspeak so they would seem to be well aware of it.

 

Personally, I don't see an issue with the location though I could quibble about some of the cache description wording. But since there was some concern expressed by several local cachers I was curious to hear what others think about this cache.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Joshism

[Tahosa and Sons]

If the Lily Pad says its cool then dive in.

[Mr.Yuck]

http://coord.info/GC2VTVX

 

This recent cache publication caused a stir on a regional caching group. The cache is located at Jules Underwater Hotel, the only underwater hotel in the US. Logs say it was published by special permission of Groundspeak so they would seem to be well aware of it.

 

Personally, I don't see an issue with the location though I could quibble about some of the cache description wording. But since there was some concern expressed by several local cachers I was curious to hear what others think about this cache.

 

Interesting. I personally wouldn't be interested. The whole "published with special permission of Groundspeak" thing recently caused a huge stir in Europe, which most people in this forum would have no clue about, seeing as it happened in Europe.

 

This thing here, I don't think too many people will be concerned with. Their website, they can do whatever the heck they want. Even if you could never do it under the "rules", a regular John or Jane Doe account holder is subjected to.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+thecaswellfamily]

Oh man... there's another one that for my bucket list! I'll probably never get there but it sure sounds like a fascinating place to explore!

[+sword fern]

look at the ISS.

[knowschad]

The log, "Since this cache requires a bit of pre-planning you may like to call ahead please do so and ask for Deb or Teresa at 305-451-2353." was added post-publication and makes it sound like I need to make reservations. I think the place sounds awesome, but the cache sounds way too commercial for my taste, thank you.

[+BlueDeuce]

http://coord.info/GC2VTVX

 

This recent cache publication caused a stir on a regional caching group. The cache is located at Jules Underwater Hotel, the only underwater hotel in the US. Logs say it was published by special permission of Groundspeak so they would seem to be well aware of it.

 

Personally, I don't see an issue with the location though I could quibble about some of the cache description wording. But since there was some concern expressed by several local cachers I was curious to hear what others think about this cache.

 

Some caches are placed in an area that A. Require land owner permission to access the area. B. Require an access fee.

 

Doesn't seem to be a blatant commercial advertisement to me.

Edited May 12, 2011 by BlueDeuce

[+Shaved Ewok]

So does FTF get to keep the camera or not?

[+buttaskotch]

I can see what people are saying about commercialism in this cache. However, it seems like an awesome experience for those who have always wanted to go for an underwater cache but couldn't because of not having the equipment or instruction. This cache levels the playing field, in a safe® environment with an expert to train and watch the non-diver.

 

My thought is, the spirit of Geocaching is to take the seeker to a new, unique place to experience something wonderful. This cache fits the bill.

 

With regard to the surcharge and pre-planning, well, I have to pay to go to local and state parks and plan my route.

And if I want to find the Virtuals in WDW, I still have to pay an admission charge for a cache that is not officially sanctioned by the park.

So, its moot in my opinion.

 

I will definitely try this cache when next in Florida.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I can see what people are saying about commercialism in this cache. However, it seems like an awesome experience for those who have always wanted to go for an underwater cache but couldn't because of not having the equipment or instruction. This cache levels the playing field, in a safe® environment with an expert to train and watch the non-diver.

 

In the description it states: "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water geocaches in the United States as of the placing on May 7, 2011." Is that a typo? That can't be the first undersea water geocaches in the U.S.

[+DanOCan]

In the description it states: "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water geocaches in the United States as of the placing on May 7, 2011." Is that a typo? That can't be the first undersea water geocaches in the U.S.

 

Well, there is a big difference between being THE FIRST undersea water caches and being ONE OF THE ONLY.

 

As for the commercial nature of it? Meh. The requirements are clearly laid out, the business isn't over promoted and the Frog approved it so I don't see an issue.

 

I'd be more worried that when you get down there you find the cache is just sitting in plain sight making it more of a 2/5 than a 5/5.

[+t4e]

I can see what people are saying about commercialism in this cache. However, it seems like an awesome experience for those who have always wanted to go for an underwater cache but couldn't because of not having the equipment or instruction. This cache levels the playing field, in a safe® environment with an expert to train and watch the non-diver.

 

In the description it states: "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water geocaches in the United States as of the placing on May 7, 2011." Is that a typo? That can't be the first undersea water geocaches in the U.S.

 

most scuba caches are in lakes...a quick PQ confirms that, mind you its based on scuba attribute which some people don't use, as in the case of the cache in discussion here

 

having just finished diving certification in a 10 week course, i can only squirm at the idea of diving to 30ft after a 3 hour training, even if its with an instructor...that's absolutely insane

 

on the other hand, its no "high tech diving" by any means for someone properly trained

Edited May 12, 2011 by t4e

[+cache_test_dummies]

But since there was some concern expressed by several local cachers I was curious to hear what others think about this cache.

I think it looks like a great cache. I have no problem with the commercial aspect in this particular situation.

 

For a bit of additional perspective, Jeremy once posted the following Tweet on Twitter:

 

"If the geocache is a quality experience, I really don't care what the motivation is, commercial or otherwise."

[+CanadianRockies]

The commercial aspect and costs are spelled out in the description. Since I don't feel the need to find every cache out there, I have no problem with its publication. Indeed, I'm glad it was published, since that shows Groundspeak is flexible...at least with the more interesting commercial locations.

 

This one looks interesting enough that it might make my "to do" list if I'm ever in the area.

[GOF and Bacall]

Looks like it is in a state park, no? There are many caches in state parks that require a fee to access. This one is just a bit more expensive than most.

[+LukeTrocity]

I can see how the cost and somewhat commercialism would cause some concern, however I would def go for this! Groundspeak gave their blessing, and it seems like a cool 5/5. Adding that to the "to do" list.

[knowschad]

This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water geocaches

Huh? Is it a geocache in a geocache? :huh:And what, pray tell, is "undersea water"?

 

Here is a link to the Jules Underwater Hotel website

 

[+Kameharem]

I think it looks brilliant and if I'm ever in the area I will surely give it a shot.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I can see what people are saying about commercialism in this cache. However, it seems like an awesome experience for those who have always wanted to go for an underwater cache but couldn't because of not having the equipment or instruction. This cache levels the playing field, in a safe® environment with an expert to train and watch the non-diver.

 

In the description it states: "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water geocaches in the United States as of the placing on May 7, 2011." Is that a typo? That can't be the first undersea water geocaches in the U.S.

 

most scuba caches are in lakes...a quick PQ confirms that, mind you its based on scuba attribute which some people don't use, as in the case of the cache in discussion here

 

having just finished diving certification in a 10 week course, i can only squirm at the idea of diving to 30ft after a 3 hour training, even if its with an instructor...that's absolutely insane

 

on the other hand, its no "high tech diving" by any means for someone properly trained

Speaking as someone who is not a diver, 30' doesn't sound all that deep. At least, not so much that it should make someone squirm at the thought of it. The pool I went to was 12' deep (for the high dive). You obviously don't need gear to go that deep, and probably not for several feet further down (if the pool was deep enough). What makes 30' that much worse? I mean, couldn't that depth be done with just a snorkel?

 

 

Serious question, really.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Team GPSaxophone

[+lamoracke]

I think unique experiences like this are worthy of an exception. Its like its at Planet Hollywood and requires you to buy a burger for the waitress to bring it out to you.

 

Definitely not the first or only scuba cache. Their phrase "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water geocaches in the United States as of the placing on May 7, 2011." could be fixed by changing the word only to very few or something like that.

[knowschad]

I think unique experiences like this are worthy of an exception. Its like its at Planet Hollywood and requires you to buy a burger for the waitress to bring it out to you.

 

Definitely not the first or only scuba cache. Their phrase "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water geocaches in the United States as of the placing on May 7, 2011." could be fixed by changing the word only to very few or something like that.

 

Actually, I suspect that what they intended to say was, "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water MOTELS in the United States"

[+Ecylram]

No complaints with me. It's a unique cache where the CO jumped through the hoops to get special permission from Groundspeak.

 

Well done, IMO!

[+dfx]

Speaking as someone who is not a diver, 30' doesn't sound all that deep. At least, not so much that it should make someone squirm at the thought of it. The pool I went to was 12' deep (for the high dive). You obviously don't need gear to go that deep, and probably not for several feet further down (if the pool was deep enough). What makes 30' that much worse? I mean, couldn't that depth be done with just a snorkel?

 

can be done without scuba gear, it's just a matter of being able to hold your breath long enough and dealing with the pressure (which won't be much of a problem at 30', assuming you know how to equalize your ears and mask). However, in some ways, going to a given depth with scuba gear is more risky than with just a snorkel, because at depth, you're breathing compressed air (or other gas mixtures). At 30', ambient pressure and thus the pressure of the air you're breathing is already twice as much as at the surface. Now imagine what happens when the scuba newbie takes a breath at 30' depth, then panics for some reason, stops breathing, just starts shooting up to the surface and the air inside the lungs wants to expand to twice its volume.... Edited May 12, 2011 by dfx

[+gtsally]

Throw this into the discussion.

 

This cache GC2AKRB was Archived to make room for the new one. Granted the CO was non responsive, but it appears that the cache was holding it's own.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think unique experiences like this are worthy of an exception. Its like its at Planet Hollywood and requires you to buy a burger for the waitress to bring it out to you.

 

Definitely not the first or only scuba cache. Their phrase "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water geocaches in the United States as of the placing on May 7, 2011." could be fixed by changing the word only to very few or something like that.

 

Actually, I suspect that what they intended to say was, "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water MOTELS in the United States"

 

That was my guess as well. Now that I think about it, I thought I remembered seeing one in Monterey Bay when I was there a couple of years ago but I'm not seeing it now.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Speaking as someone who is not a diver, 30' doesn't sound all that deep. At least, not so much that it should make someone squirm at the thought of it. The pool I went to was 12' deep (for the high dive). You obviously don't need gear to go that deep, and probably not for several feet further down (if the pool was deep enough). What makes 30' that much worse? I mean, couldn't that depth be done with just a snorkel?

 

can be done without scuba gear, it's just a matter of being able to hold your breath long enough and dealing with the pressure (which won't be much of a problem at 30', assuming you know how to equalize your ears and mask). However, in some ways, going to a given depth with scuba gear is more risky than with just a snorkel, because at depth, you're breathing compressed air (or other gas mixtures). At 30', ambient pressure and thus the pressure of the air you're breathing is already twice as much as at the surface. Now imagine what happens when the scuba newbie takes a breath at 30' depth, then panics for some reason, stops breathing, just starts shooting up to the surface and the air inside the lungs wants to expand to twice its volume....

Air expands that much from only 30'?

[+Ecylram]

Throw this into the discussion.

 

This cache GC2AKRB was Archived to make room for the new one. Granted the CO was non responsive, but it appears that the cache was holding it's own.

I've got a pretty low tolerance for absentee owners (except for really old caches). The CO in this case cached for 1 month and found six caches. They haven't logged in, in nearly a year. They weren't available to answer a basic question about the location of this nano.

 

It's not fair to ask the area reviewer to do the job of the CO in monitoring the state of an existing cache. they have enough on their plates.

[+jipow]

no business name, why is it considered a commercial cache? I've paid fees to enter state parks, whats differant here?

As far a a cache being archived for this one, owner would not answer questions or perform maintance on their cache.

given a chance, I'll try for this one.

[knowschad]

Throw this into the discussion.

 

This cache GC2AKRB was Archived to make room for the new one. Granted the CO was non responsive, but it appears that the cache was holding it's own.

 

the property owner would like to talk about a cache placement here - something they've been consulted on first.

 

The property owner wanted to discuss the cache with the owner. The owner didn't respond. That is a problem.

[+mcrow]

I don't see where this should be a problem. I also play Disc Golf and many disc golfers are like Goecachers in that nearly all courses (until recently) were free and non-commercial. Now there are a lot more pay to play courses popping up around the country. These commercial courses are often much nicer, very well maintained and provide a unique experience that can't be had at most free places. Because it costs money to provide such a course for play, I don't see a problem with being charged to play and don't mind if someone can make a living at it.

 

I would say this cache is like the pay courses in Disc Golf, it provides a unique experience that does not come free to the owners of the cache.

 

The only time I would start worrying about commercial caches is if there are so many more of them than free ones, but I doubt that would ever happen.

[+dfx]

Air expands that much from only 30'?

 

Yes, ambient pressure is 1 atmosphere (14.7 psi) at the surface (at sea level) and increases by 1 atmosphere for every 30' of water. So at 30' you got 2 atmospheres (29.4 psi), at 60' you got 3 atmospheres (44.1 psi) and so on. Therefore, in terms of relative pressure differences, the first 30' make the most difference. And according to Boyle's law (you gotta learn all that carp when taking a scuba course) the volume of a gas is inversely proportional to the pressure (double the pressure = half the volume).

 

So yeah, taking a breath of compressed air at 30', then going up to the surface while holding that breath can and will do a lot of damage to your body.

Edited May 12, 2011 by dfx

[+t4e]

I can see what people are saying about commercialism in this cache. However, it seems like an awesome experience for those who have always wanted to go for an underwater cache but couldn't because of not having the equipment or instruction. This cache levels the playing field, in a safe® environment with an expert to train and watch the non-diver.

 

In the description it states: "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water geocaches in the United States as of the placing on May 7, 2011." Is that a typo? That can't be the first undersea water geocaches in the U.S.

 

most scuba caches are in lakes...a quick PQ confirms that, mind you its based on scuba attribute which some people don't use, as in the case of the cache in discussion here

 

having just finished diving certification in a 10 week course, i can only squirm at the idea of diving to 30ft after a 3 hour training, even if its with an instructor...that's absolutely insane

 

on the other hand, its no "high tech diving" by any means for someone properly trained

Speaking as someone who is not a diver, 30' doesn't sound all that deep. At least, not so much that it should make someone squirm at the thought of it. The pool I went to was 12' deep (for the high dive). You obviously don't need gear to go that deep, and probably not for several feet further down (if the pool was deep enough). What makes 30' that much worse? I mean, couldn't that depth be done with just a snorkel?

 

 

Serious question, really.

 

perhaps if you read my post again you will notice that i said "makes me squirm at the idea of diving to 30ft after 3 hour training" and for a properly trained diver 30ft is piece of cake

 

you don't even need a snorkel IF you can hold your breath to go down to 30ft, search for the cache and come back up

 

you comparing apples and oranges, high dive in a pool is not the same as actually spending time down there

[+JL_HSTRE]

This cache GC2AKRB was Archived to make room for the new one. Granted the CO was non responsive, but it appears that the cache was holding it's own.

 

the property owner would like to talk about a cache placement here - something they've been consulted on first.

 

The property owner wanted to discuss the cache with the owner. The owner didn't respond. That is a problem.

 

Looks like there is some debate in the logs as to whether or not it's on private property. Zooming in on Google Maps it would appear to be right next to somebody's driveway, though outside the fence line. Whether it's technically within the street's right of way or not, that doesn't seem like a good spot for a cache, though reading the logs it does seem to have amused some of the neighbors.

 

Also, logs from earlier this year indicate the logsheet was full then got wet. Regardless of whether the issue was raised by the people placing the "5 Fathoms" cache, the geocaching world doesn't need abandoned nanos.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Joshism

[Mr.Yuck]

Throw this into the discussion.

 

This cache GC2AKRB was Archived to make room for the new one. Granted the CO was non responsive, but it appears that the cache was holding it's own.

 

Cache was a nano. It's one of the like .0001 percent of nanos in the world that were properly listed as a micro, so I'll give them that.

 

Non-responsive? Seems kind of like bullying to get a commercial cache listed by a "tourism" based account to me, but I"m sure I'm in the minority there on that opinion.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I can see what people are saying about commercialism in this cache. However, it seems like an awesome experience for those who have always wanted to go for an underwater cache but couldn't because of not having the equipment or instruction. This cache levels the playing field, in a safe® environment with an expert to train and watch the non-diver.

 

In the description it states: "This geocache is hidden in one of the only undersea water geocaches in the United States as of the placing on May 7, 2011." Is that a typo? That can't be the first undersea water geocaches in the U.S.

 

most scuba caches are in lakes...a quick PQ confirms that, mind you its based on scuba attribute which some people don't use, as in the case of the cache in discussion here

 

having just finished diving certification in a 10 week course, i can only squirm at the idea of diving to 30ft after a 3 hour training, even if its with an instructor...that's absolutely insane

 

on the other hand, its no "high tech diving" by any means for someone properly trained

Speaking as someone who is not a diver, 30' doesn't sound all that deep. At least, not so much that it should make someone squirm at the thought of it. The pool I went to was 12' deep (for the high dive). You obviously don't need gear to go that deep, and probably not for several feet further down (if the pool was deep enough). What makes 30' that much worse? I mean, couldn't that depth be done with just a snorkel?

 

 

Serious question, really.

 

perhaps if you read my post again you will notice that i said "makes me squirm at the idea of diving to 30ft after 3 hour training" and for a properly trained diver 30ft is piece of cake

 

you don't even need a snorkel IF you can hold your breath to go down to 30ft, search for the cache and come back up

 

you comparing apples and oranges, high dive in a pool is not the same as actually spending time down there

When I was in swimming lessons as a kid we did spend time at the bottom of the 12' pool, that's why I was wondering why something *only* 30' deep would make you squirm. I say *only* because as someone with no SCUBA training whatsoever it just doesn't *seem* all that deep. dfx answered the questions pretty well though, so I'll leave it at that and not derail this thread further.

[Mr.Yuck]

Throw this into the discussion.

 

This cache GC2AKRB was Archived to make room for the new one. Granted the CO was non responsive, but it appears that the cache was holding it's own.

 

I didn't have time to look at that archived cache in too much detail when I made post #34 to this thread. Now I have. Let me tell you what, if the last finder and the last note poster are correct that this cache was on public property, and Groundspeak used strong arm tactics to eliminate it, so this commercial cache by a tourism-based account could be placed, that is a complete crock of you know what, and I ain't afraid to say it.

 

Of course we don't have the full story, but I'd love to hear it.

[+jipow]

Throw this into the discussion.

 

This cache GC2AKRB was Archived to make room for the new one. Granted the CO was non responsive, but it appears that the cache was holding it's own.

 

I didn't have time to look at that archived cache in too much detail when I made post #34 to this thread. Now I have. Let me tell you what, if the last finder and the last note poster are correct that this cache was on public property, and Groundspeak used strong arm tactics to eliminate it, so this commercial cache by a tourism-based account could be placed, that is a complete crock of you know what, and I ain't afraid to say it.

 

Of course we don't have the full story, but I'd love to hear it.

 

 

What makes you say it's a tourism based account? looks like CO has 76 finds in 5 states, with 39 hides.

regardless, owner of NANO cache was not responding to needs maintance logs, or Groundspeak.

[Mr.Yuck]

Throw this into the discussion.

 

This cache GC2AKRB was Archived to make room for the new one. Granted the CO was non responsive, but it appears that the cache was holding it's own.

 

I didn't have time to look at that archived cache in too much detail when I made post #34 to this thread. Now I have. Let me tell you what, if the last finder and the last note poster are correct that this cache was on public property, and Groundspeak used strong arm tactics to eliminate it, so this commercial cache by a tourism-based account could be placed, that is a complete crock of you know what, and I ain't afraid to say it.

 

Of course we don't have the full story, but I'd love to hear it.

 

 

What makes you say it's a tourism based account? looks like CO has 76 finds in 5 states, with 39 hides.

regardless, owner of NANO cache was not responding to needs maintance logs, or Groundspeak.

 

Because the account name is "Explore Florida"? There's one needs maintenance log. Anyone can drop a needs maintenance log on any cache. The finders after that seem fine with the condition.

 

The guys cache was archived after receiving (and yes not responding) to an email saying it was on private property when the last two posts to the cache page from people with boots on the ground say it wasn't! So this scuba cache can be published? "Bad Form", as one of those poster's said in their log.

[+dfx]

The guys cache was archived after receiving (and yes not responding) to an email saying it was on private property when the last two posts to the cache page from people with boots on the ground say it wasn't! So this scuba cache can be published? "Bad Form", as one of those poster's said in their log.

 

Of course Groundspeak could also just have published that other cache without archiving the old one first by simply ignoring their own proximity rule...

[Mr.Yuck]

The guys cache was archived after receiving (and yes not responding) to an email saying it was on private property when the last two posts to the cache page from people with boots on the ground say it wasn't! So this scuba cache can be published? "Bad Form", as one of those poster's said in their log.

 

Of course Groundspeak could also just have published that other cache without archiving the old one first by simply ignoring their own proximity rule...

 

Exactly. It already had "special permission of Groundspeak".

[+jipow]

[

 

What makes you say it's a tourism based account? looks like CO has 76 finds in 5 states, with 39 hides.

regardless, owner of NANO cache was not responding to needs maintance logs, or Groundspeak.

 

Because the account name is "Explore Florida"? There's one needs maintenance log. Anyone can drop a needs maintenance log on any cache. The finders after that seem fine with the condition.

 

The guys cache was archived after receiving (and yes not responding) to an email saying it was on private property when the last two posts to the cache page from people with boots on the ground say it wasn't! So this scuba cache can be published? "Bad Form", as one of those poster's said in their log.

 

4 needs maintance logs this year, thats more than one a month.

When I signed up for a account, I wanted "candleman" but someone already had it, I make candles as a hobby, would that make my account a commercal or tourst account?

[+cache_test_dummies]

The guys cache was archived after receiving (and yes not responding) to an email saying it was on private property when the last two posts to the cache page from people with boots on the ground say it wasn't! So this scuba cache can be published? "Bad Form", as one of those poster's said in their log.

Why is this bad form?

 

According to the archive note from the reviewer, the property owner tried to get in touch with the cache owner, and the cache owner did not have permission to place the cache at that location.

 

It doesn't matter that some geoacachers who stopped by the location believe the cache is on public property (they could, after all, be mistaken). In cases where a property owner questions the placement of a cache on their property and the cache owner is unresponsive, reviewers archive. If the reviewer action was not appropriate, what is the correct action when a property owner has an issue with a cache on their property and a cache owner is unresponsive?

[Mr.Yuck]

The guys cache was archived after receiving (and yes not responding) to an email saying it was on private property when the last two posts to the cache page from people with boots on the ground say it wasn't! So this scuba cache can be published? "Bad Form", as one of those poster's said in their log.

Why is this bad form?

 

According to the archive note from the reviewer, the property owner tried to get in touch with the cache owner, and the cache owner did not have permission to place the cache at that location.

 

It doesn't matter that some geoacachers who stopped by the location believe the cache is on public property (they could, after all, be mistaken). In cases where a property owner questions the placement of a cache on their property and the cache owner is unresponsive, reviewers archive. If the reviewer action was not appropriate, what is the correct action when a property owner has an issue with a cache on their property and a cache owner is unresponsive?

 

Oh puhlease. The property owner just happened to question this cache placement, and just happened to do it 2 weeks ago. What a coincedence!! Of course they covered their bases with their standard procedure when contacted, which I happen to agree with; What do you think they were going to do, have someone from HQ archive it with a "someone wants to put a better cache in the area" note? Oh, almost forgot, the offending nano was 123 feet from the location of the Scuba cache.

 

Man, I've edited this thing about 10 times. All I'm saying is this thing could have been handled with an exception to the proximity guideline, and without the appearance of popping an annoying zit. Then you wouldn't have people questioning it on a local Florida Geocaching forum, people questioning it on the archived cache page, and disputing the "private property thing", and Mr. Yuck Tip-Toeing the line of locked member on the Geocaching.com forums.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[+cache_test_dummies]

Oh puhlease. The property owner just happened to question this cache placement, and just happened to do it 2 weeks ago. What a coincedence!!

The property owner questioned the placement over two months ago, and the cache was archived two weeks later on March 17th.

 

What do you think they were going to do, have someone from HQ archive it with a "someone wants to put a better cache in the area" note? Oh, almost forgot, the offending nano was 123 feet from the location of the Scuba cache.

Am I reading you correctly? You actually believe that a Groundspeak reviewer faked the property owner request for action in order to archive a cache that they (Groundspeak) wanted get rid of?

 

All I'm saying is this thing could have been handled with an exception to the proximity guideline, and without the appearance of popping an annoying zit. Then you wouldn't have people questioning it on a local Florida Geocaching forum, people questioning it on the archived cache page, and disputing the "private property thing", and Mr. Yuck Tip-Toeing the line of locked member on the Geocaching.com forums.

Unless, of course, the reviewer was actually telling the truth. In which case, an archive due to an unresolved permission issue with a property owner would be the right action.

 

Which is what I believe happened.

 

Of course, the party that contacted Groundpeak about the cache might have been lying about being the property owner. In that case, the archive was still the right course of action, assuming that Groundspeak would have no practical way to know for certain that the person making contact wasn't actually who or what they claimed to be.

[Mr.Yuck]

Double post, sorry. I thought that didn't happen anymore.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

[Mr.Yuck]

Oh puhlease. The property owner just happened to question this cache placement, and just happened to do it 2 weeks ago. What a coincedence!!

The property owner questioned the placement over two months ago, and the cache was archived two weeks later on March 17th.

 

What do you think they were going to do, have someone from HQ archive it with a "someone wants to put a better cache in the area" note? Oh, almost forgot, the offending nano was 123 feet from the location of the Scuba cache.

Am I reading you correctly? You actually believe that a Groundspeak reviewer faked the property owner request for action in order to archive a cache that they (Groundspeak) wanted get rid of?

 

Good thing I saw this, I won't be able to look at the forums for several hours, maybe not till tomorrow even. OK, my bad, I didn't realize the archival request was a few months old. I just remembered the final note being posted a couple of days ago, and apparently figured at the time I typed it that the final find and the archival note were recent too. The Diving Hotel could have very well been in the planning stages of this cache though in March.

 

Reviewer faked the request? NEVER!!! No! I should have thought that could be interpreted that way. But the Diving Hotel owner claiming ownership and firing off an email? Or strong-arming one of the neighbors into doing it? Very possible.

 

Google maps shows property lines in Key Largo, and if this Nano was within 10 feet of the roadside, I don't see how it could possibly be on anything but the public right of way, which is clearly shown on the map.

[+SwineFlew]

The guys cache was archived after receiving (and yes not responding) to an email saying it was on private property when the last two posts to the cache page from people with boots on the ground say it wasn't! So this scuba cache can be published? "Bad Form", as one of those poster's said in their log.

 

Of course Groundspeak could also just have published that other cache without archiving the old one first by simply ignoring their own proximity rule...

 

Yes, they should done it that way.

[Mr.Yuck]

OK, I had more time to think about this while running a few errands, and now I'm really going to backpeddle. I simply wasn't paying attention to dates. If the archival request and last find log were in March, then there is no way there were any shennanigans going on. And believe me, I was never implying any Groundspeak, it's employees or volunteer's shennanigans, but rather the people who wanted to put a cache 123 feet away. Even though I (and others on the ground) believe the nano to have been on public property, an irate homeowner could have easily complained and claimed it was there property. And I totally agree with Groundspeak policy that is in place for when someone claims property ownership of a cache location. Couldn't have come up with a better policy myself.

 

So whaddya say, CTT? I'll edit all my posts so they're blank, and you edit out everywhere you quoted me. Just kidding.

[+cache_test_dummies]

The guys cache was archived after receiving (and yes not responding) to an email saying it was on private property when the last two posts to the cache page from people with boots on the ground say it wasn't! So this scuba cache can be published? "Bad Form", as one of those poster's said in their log.

 

Of course Groundspeak could also just have published that other cache without archiving the old one first by simply ignoring their own proximity rule...

 

Yes, they should done it that way.

They could have done it that way, if the original cache had not been the subject of a property owner complaint. They didn't do it that way because the property owner objected to a cache placed without permission on their property. Instead, they archived the cache, as they should have.

[+cache_test_dummies]

So whaddya say, CTT? I'll edit all my posts so they're blank, and you edit out everywhere you quoted me. Just kidding.

Works for me!