Should I change my log?

[+The Flying Ks]

Hi there, as I am fairly new to geocaching and as there are some "unlisted" rules that geocachers learn as they go... I am seeking advice. Should I change my log for this cache? http://coord.info/GC1W1Y4

 

It is really gross, but maybe some cachers find homeless encampments a challenge? Am I robbing someone of that joy by asking this to be archived? Do some cachers carry hazmat suits in the event they want to cache a particularly grody location? Does common sense prevail here? Should the health department be notified? Was I too harsh in my log? Does poo all around a cache location automatically receive a "needs archiving" log for some? Thanks for the advice.

 

HH

[+dorqie]

I actually wouldn't say that poo means the cache needs to be archived, but a warning on the cache page would be nice since I wouldn't want to look for that kind of cache!

I've found caches near homeless camps before, and not had a problem, but then, I've never encountered anything quite like what you did, so I don't know.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

I found a cache near a homeless camp AND I've found a cache near human poo. The homeless camp one was a beautiful place and large cache but I was really scared to be there. I would log a NA if a cache is at a homeless camp.

 

Poo is gross and I'd mention it in my log, and I did. But I wouldnt log a NA because of it only.

 

COs should be aware and responsible. If they know there is a homeless camp nearby they have an obligation to disclose that on their cache page.

[+dorqie]

I read a little further down the cache page. It seems like the poo is a more recent addition according to the logs.

[+The Flying Ks]

The cache is in the homeless camp. It is far from a beautiful place, to be sure. OR maybe it just needs to be listed AS a homeless camp cache with a higher difficulty level? Right now he only calls it "walk of shame" in his hint.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Hilltop Homeschooler

[+t4e]

ooh the quality that PM caches have to offer

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

As a female who caches alone, I would not knowingly hunt a cache in or near a homeless cache, or even in a shady part of town. I'd log it NA. I wish more COs would be responsible for their containers, locations, maintenance and cache pages. We need to self police to keep caching a good game.

Edited July 25, 2011 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+DanOCan]

Reading through the previous logs, it sounds like an "interesting" place.

 

I likely wouldn't have logged a Needs Archived log since it doesn't necessarily violate any guidelines, but I sure would have posted a DNF describing the situation and likely would have added a comment about "I may not bother trying again." and let the CO and future seekers make up their own mind as to what their tolerance level for that sort of location is.

[+dorqie]

As a female who caches alone, I would not knowingly hunt a cache in or near a homeless cache, or even in a shady part of town. Is log it NA.

Yes, but just because you wouldn't cache in a shady area of town doesn't mean it's not an enjoyable cache for some. To me the issue is adequate warning. Here is an example of a cache that is in crack central but still gets good logs and fav points My link

[+Chokecherry]

I would have done a DNF but not an NA. I, as a single female, quite enjoy the stereotypical shady parts of town as people tend to mind their own business in them. But that's just me.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

At the very least, the proximity to the homeless camp should be mentioned in the cache page. Though, I'm not sure why anyone would enjoy viewing a homeless camp. Seems sad, and a little disturbing. Creepy I am all for. Seeing people on hard times and smearing fecial matter on walls is not for me.

 

I'm sure I'm a little biased from my past experiences, granted.

Edited July 25, 2011 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+The Flying Ks]

Thank you - you have all given me "food for thought." Though I do think CO should up the difficulty level! Ick. Anyway - I will return it to DNF and be a little more libertarian in my posting and not spoil it for the cachers that find that type of cache amusing. Good luck to them. It wasn't a shady part of town the last time I visited town a year ago... things are going downhill pretty fast.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Posting a NA is totally uncalled-for. There are no guidelines violations. (Or if there are, you did not mention them.) Just because you did not like a cache location does not mean that it should be archived. What an abuse of the system!

Yes. I suggest changing your log, and apologizing to the CO.

[+The Flying Ks]

Posting a NA is totally uncalled-for. There are no guidelines violations. (Or if there are, you did not mention them.) Just because you did not like a cache location does not mean that it should be archived. What an abuse of the system!

Yes. I suggest changing your log, and apologizing to the CO.

 

Already changed... but your post here was way more rude than my original post to be honest. I won't be apologizing. The CO should be maintaining his cache... and never once represented this cache as being in a gnarly poop coated hallway. The level is a 1.5 and should be higher if it continues on.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot."

–briansnat

 

This cache:

..."the board of health should be notified"

..."There is a bad odor at GZ, kinda like a broke down toilet"

..."I was a little grossed out by some of the other things near this cache"

..."Would have no desire to get trapped in this location."

 

Maybe it doesn't violate any guidelines, but it sounds bad. But I didn't see it in person so who knows. I would like to be around to have seen the old days of caching! I doubt this kind of cache would be accepted.

 

I guess a NA is too much. You can also ignore caches from specific users if that helps. I still maintain that the homeless camp needs to be in the cache page.

Edited July 25, 2011 by SeekerOfTheWay

[+Harry Dolphin]

Posting a NA is totally uncalled-for. There are no guidelines violations. (Or if there are, you did not mention them.) Just because you did not like a cache location does not mean that it should be archived. What an abuse of the system!

Yes. I suggest changing your log, and apologizing to the CO.

 

Already changed... but your post here was way more rude than my original post to be honest. I won't be apologizing. The CO should be maintaining his cache... and never once represented this cache as being in a gnarly poop coated hallway. The level is a 1.5 and should be higher if it continues on.

 

WOW! There was nothing rude about my post. It was a statement of fact. You have abused the system by putting an NA on a cache simply because you didn't like it.

Your reply, however is rude. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen, or homeless camp, or most any place in the world.

[+kpanko]

The cache was probably in a better location in the beginning.

 

Write a note to the cache owner explaining your concerns. They will probably just archive it of their own will.

[+The Flying Ks]

Thanks again for the kind responses (the other responses - /ignore). Common sense is personal - one person's "appropriate" placement (in guidelines) is another person's "inappropriate" it would seem. It would seem caches hidden in places covered in human fecal matter is totally "appropriate" for some.

 

 

HH

 

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." ~ Abraham Lincoln

[+QuiltinNana]

We cache with our 5 year old granddaughter and I would sure appreciate a heads up as to what this area entails before taking her to a cache like this. I would find this gross as well. I probably would not even have searched once I saw the area, but I would definitely explain in my post, why I didn't bother to search.

[+Coldgears]

http://geopooping.blogspot.com/

 

I was told about this while geocaching with a lifelong friend. I have no idea how he found it, but it sure fits this discussiong very well.

[+A & J Tooling]

Looks like a fun cache. Where is the bad part? You smell something bad? Osh begosh! Call the cops!

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

All my caches smell like roses.

[+The Flying Ks]

We cache with our 5 year old granddaughter and I would sure appreciate a heads up as to what this area entails before taking her to a cache like this. I would find this gross as well. I probably would not even have searched once I saw the area, but I would definitely explain in my post, why I didn't bother to search.

 

I actually walked down the hallway, saw the mattress and trash, saw the walls, saw the graffiti that read, "Poop over there" and bailed. I wrote a message to CO telling them about the cache.

[+A & J Tooling]

So you never actually saw the cache?

[MisterEFQ]

Posting a NA is totally uncalled-for. There are no guidelines violations. (Or if there are, you did not mention them.) Just because you did not like a cache location does not mean that it should be archived. What an abuse of the system!

Yes. I suggest changing your log, and apologizing to the CO.

 

Already changed... but your post here was way more rude than my original post to be honest. I won't be apologizing. The CO should be maintaining his cache... and never once represented this cache as being in a gnarly poop coated hallway. The level is a 1.5 and should be higher if it continues on.

 

He was not being rude at all. Pointing when to post a NA is good information for new cachers to learn and he should not be ignored because you didn't like his response.

 

Question, how do you know the CO is not maintaining his cache, when you never had it in your hand to know if it needed maintenance?

[+The Flying Ks]

Posting a NA is totally uncalled-for. There are no guidelines violations. (Or if there are, you did not mention them.) Just because you did not like a cache location does not mean that it should be archived. What an abuse of the system!

Yes. I suggest changing your log, and apologizing to the CO.

 

Already changed... but your post here was way more rude than my original post to be honest. I won't be apologizing. The CO should be maintaining his cache... and never once represented this cache as being in a gnarly poop coated hallway. The level is a 1.5 and should be higher if it continues on.

 

He was not being rude at all. Pointing when to post a NA is good information for new cachers to learn and he should not be ignored because you didn't like his response.

 

Question, how do you know the CO is not maintaining his cache, when you never had it in your hand to know if it needed maintenance?

 

Because the area has degraded over time since he originally left the cache. There was also a log from before mine that suggested this site needed archiving. If a cache were left in the woods and the logs got progressively worse like, "There seems to be some poison oak near the cache" and "There is a ton of poison oak near the coordinates!" and then to "There is poison oak everywhere, and I just saw a mountain lion and her cubs near where the hint is pointing! Maybe this needs archiving?!" etc... wouldn't you think that perhaps either the CO had not checked on the cache location in a while, the CO knew the cache location would degrade to this and found it funny, or the CO should change difficulty/terrain level to keep the cache. This is logical.

 

And yes, by him ordering me to apologize to the cache owner? That was somewhat rude. I had already changed the log to a DNF instead of NA by the time he posted his accusation - that was somewhat rude. Everyone is different... everyone has an opinion. You may not have found it rude and I did. I'm allowed my opinion. Moving on...

Edited July 26, 2011 by Hilltop Homeschooler

[MisterEFQ]

Because the area has degraded over time since he originally left the cache. There was also a log from before mine that suggested this site needed archiving. If a cache were left in the woods and the logs got progressively worse like, "There seems to be some poison oak near the cache" and "There is a ton of poison oak near the coordinates!" and then to "There is poison oak everywhere, and I just saw a mountain lion and her cubs near where the hint is pointing! Maybe this needs archiving?!" etc... wouldn't you think that perhaps either the CO had not checked on the cache location in a while, the CO knew the cache location would degrade to this and found it funny, or the CO should change difficulty/terrain level to keep the cache. This is logical.

 

And yes, by him ordering me to apologize to the cache owner? That was somewhat rude. I had already changed the log to a DNF instead of NA by the time he posted his accusation - that was somewhat rude. Everyone is different... everyone has an opinion. You may not have found it rude and I did. I'm allowed my opinion. Moving on...

 

Ordered you? You suggested to you. And he didnt accuse you of anything than what you admitted to doing.

 

You felt you were wrong enough to change the log, so I dont see how its rude to suggest you apologize.

 

None of the reasons you just mentioned are cache maintenance issues. Personally I would never look for a cache with a site like that, but thats just me. And I would never post a NA or a NM on a cache that I have never seen. And if I did I would apologize to the CO after I found out when and when not to post a NA or a NM.

Edited July 26, 2011 by MisterEFQ

[+The Flying Ks]

Because the area has degraded over time since he originally left the cache. There was also a log from before mine that suggested this site needed archiving. If a cache were left in the woods and the logs got progressively worse like, "There seems to be some poison oak near the cache" and "There is a ton of poison oak near the coordinates!" and then to "There is poison oak everywhere, and I just saw a mountain lion and her cubs near where the hint is pointing! Maybe this needs archiving?!" etc... wouldn't you think that perhaps either the CO had not checked on the cache location in a while, the CO knew the cache location would degrade to this and found it funny, or the CO should change difficulty/terrain level to keep the cache. This is logical.

 

And yes, by him ordering me to apologize to the cache owner? That was somewhat rude. I had already changed the log to a DNF instead of NA by the time he posted his accusation - that was somewhat rude. Everyone is different... everyone has an opinion. You may not have found it rude and I did. I'm allowed my opinion. Moving on...

 

Ordered you? You suggested to you. And he didnt accuse you of anything than what you admitted to doing.

 

You felt you were wrong enough to change the log, so I dont see how its rude to suggest you apologize.

 

None of the reasons you just mentioned are cache maintenance issues. Personally I would never look for a cache with a site like that, but thats just me. And I would never post a NA or a NM on a cache that I have never seen. And if I did I would apologize to the CO after I found out when and when not to post a NA or a NM.

 

You are entitled to your opinion... happy caching!

[+GeoGeeBee]

As a female who caches alone, I would not knowingly hunt a cache in or near a homeless cache, or even in a shady part of town. I'd log it NA. I wish more COs would be responsible for their containers, locations, maintenance and cache pages. We need to self police to keep caching a good game.

But a cache in a homeless camp or a shady part of town doesn't violate the guidelines. There's no reason it should be archived.

 

Just because you don't want to find it, doesn't mean that no one wants to find it.

 

I wouldn't want to go there, either. But if I find my GPS taking me into an area I don't like, I just stop looking for that cache and look for another one instead. No need to archive the cache just because it's not to my taste.

[+The Flying Ks]

When the CO placed the cache, it probably wasn't a poo infested homeless dump... if you read the logs, people with families came to visit it in the beginning with no complaints. The difficulty level represented accurately the state of the area when first posted I am sure. It degraded considerably (as you can see in the logs). I actually attempted this cache at the beginning of July and tried to contact the CO with my concerns - with no response. I briefly (two weeks later and for 1 day - I'm sure the CO never saw it) put up a "needs archiving" log because of the hazardous state of the zone and because of the lack of response on the CO part. I quickly rethought and came here to find out what was the appropriate thing to do because thus far - this community has appeared kind and helpful, and because I thought it better to seek advice because of the severity of a "needs archiving" log. This was on the same day I came across ANOTHER cache near my hubby's home town where the cache and the bushes where it was hidden was covered in human poo... The owner agreed with me and archived it within hours.

 

Needless to say, even though I received no communication from the CO, I decided to change the log to a DNF immediately. It is duly noted that a "NEEDS ARCHIVING" should not be "abused" and given casually. One person's trash is another's treasure I suppose. In my opinion it is "case closed" and nothing else needs to be said.

[+GeoGeeBee]

When the CO placed the cache, it probably wasn't a poo infested homeless dump... if you read the logs, people with families came to visit it in the beginning with no complaints. The difficulty level represented accurately the state of the area when first posted I am sure. It degraded considerably (as you can see in the logs). I actually attempted this cache at the beginning of July and tried to contact the CO with my concerns - with no response. I briefly (two weeks later and for 1 day - I'm sure the CO never saw it) put up a "needs archiving" log because of the hazardous state of the zone and because of the lack of response on the CO part. I quickly rethought and came here to find out what was the appropriate thing to do because thus far - this community has appeared kind and helpful, and because I thought it better to seek advice because of the severity of a "needs archiving" log. This was on the same day I came across ANOTHER cache near my hubby's home town where the cache and the bushes where it was hidden was covered in human poo... The owner agreed with me and archived it within hours.

I don't think the presence of a homeless camp changes the difficulty level.

 

"hazardous state" is not a valid reason for an "NA" log. Lots of caches are dangerous.

 

The CO almost certainly saw your NA log, as did the reviewer... they both were notified by email as soon as you placed the log.

 

If I owned a cache and learned that the area was covered with feces, I would certainly archive it. If I searched for a cache and found the area covered in feces, I would either post that information in my DNF log, or email the owner to let him know. But it's not a guidelines violation, so not an NA situation.

[+DanOCan]

One person's trash is another's treasure I suppose. In my opinion it is "case closed" and nothing else needs to be said.

 

Fair enough. However, just because I see it as trash doesn't mean it loses its right to exist as a cache. There are plenty of caches out there I don't like, but that doesn't mean they fail to meet the guidelines.

 

There is plenty of room between "trash" and "treasure".

[+Coldgears]

Who wants to start a new international "Fear Factor Cache" series? We can have old port-o-potty holes in which they never removed the contents, a geocache hidden inside a centipede nest, placed in a can of used hypodermic needles, ect ect?

[+BaylorGrad]

I don't think there's anything wrong with your log--nope. Unless you found it, in which case it should be a "found it" with the same warning attached. Maybe the site wasn't a homeless camp when the cache was originally placed there, and the cache owner just needs a head's up?

[+GeoGeeBee]

Who wants to start a new international "Fear Factor Cache" series? We can have old port-o-potty holes in which they never removed the contents, a geocache hidden inside a centipede nest, placed in a can of used hypodermic needles, ect ect?

ect ect?

 

Serisouly?