Jump to content

Is a new attribute needed?


4wheelin_fool
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

With the knowledge that there are many geocaches in some areas that do not follow the guidelines, perhaps a new attribute is needed.

 

If they are to be continuously published anyhow, and "Needs Archived" noted are ignored, perhaps they could just be listed with a new attribute:

 

G

 

It would indicate that the cache does not meet the guidelines, or it could indicate that many cachers routinely violate local law to access the cache.

 

The many geocaches in Germany in places not open to the public, and still being listed could also have it.

Requires illegal access

A few NA's have been posted and ignored.

 

Caches on private property without permission, which require a dangerous way to access also could use it.

Hidden in a rusty lampost among live wires A note to a Lackey about this has gone ignored.

 

 

The geocaches in the Alien head series, with many people driving to them despite being asked not to do so could also use it.

 

 

It could be a useful tool. Since they are not being archived, perhaps they could be identified. Cachers in some areas are afraid to post Needs Archived logs. If they do it elewhere, they are told to butt out. We should just face reality and allow them with identification.

Link to comment

The many geocaches in Germany in places not open to the public, and still being listed could also have it.

Requires illegal access

A few NA's have been posted and ignored.

 

One note on that cache posted in English:

 

Write note

07/14/2010

 

Attempted it today(tonigh/today mornig) with the hope to find it. Used stealth mode to sneek to the point of interest with my ladder and just before being able to start climbing, noticed that the police was just conducting a......"what a great night, let's go out and get in contact with a few people" party; Had to lie in the deep gras for at least half an hour till the moved on ...... will attempt it next time..

so all fellow cachers....watch out for the pigs!!!!

 

People are very aware of the illegal nature of this cache. They may not have posted "NA" logs, but the notes are very clear, even with Google Translation as my only guide.

 

It's a different culture, obviously.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment
Cachers in some areas are afraid to post Needs Archived logs. If they do it elewhere, they are told to butt out..

 

I am, unapologetically, the boldest person I know and even I have a hard time logging NA logs, especially within my own little community. I often wonder why certain caches are allowed to stand?? Why am I the only one who thinks this cache SBA?

 

So yes, I agree with you, the NA may be too much responsibility for some people's comfort level.

 

This new attribute could be a good thing. I can filter out caches that have no business being done. Would it be a user applied attribute like the NM log?

Link to comment

Caches on private property without permission, which require a dangerous way to access also could use it.

Hidden in a rusty lampost among live wires A note to a Lackey about this has gone ignored.

 

What note? Saying what? To which Lackey?

 

The reviewer posted this, is it not good enough?

 

Post Reviewer Note

09/25/2009

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

The geocaches in the Alien head series, with many people driving to them despite being asked not to do so could also use it.

 

Umm, how do those caches not meet Groundspeak's guidelines? Is there a guideline that says you must obey the CO's wishes? :unsure:

 

They meet the guidelines of this site so you are already advocating misuse of your attribute.

 

They are on BLM land and the BLM has documented that geocaching is a fair and adequate use of public land. It remains to be seen if the BLM would find the vehicle impact trail against their policy.

 

Like the caches in Germany, no one really wants to get that ball rolling. I invite you to do it though. You seem committed. :mellow:

Link to comment

The geocaches in the Alien head series, with many people driving to them despite being asked not to do so could also use it.

 

Umm, how do those caches not meet Groundspeak's guidelines? Is there a guideline that says you must obey the CO's wishes? :unsure:

 

They meet the guidelines of this site so you are already advocating misuse of your attribute.

 

They are on BLM land and the BLM has documented that geocaching is a fair and adequate use of public land. It remains to be seen if the BLM would find the vehicle impact trail against their policy.

 

Like the caches in Germany, no one really wants to get that ball rolling. I invite you to do it though. You seem committed. :mellow:

 

The caches meet the guidelines, but geocachers commonly violate local laws to find them. The attibute would indicate how the majority approaches the hide.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

The geocaches in the Alien head series, with many people driving to them despite being asked not to do so could also use it.

Umm, how do those caches not meet Groundspeak's guidelines? Is there a guideline that says you must obey the CO's wishes? :unsure:

 

They meet the guidelines of this site so you are already advocating misuse of your attribute.

This.

There's already a feature that does this: Ignore. :P

Link to comment

I'd have to scour the map and individually add each cache to my ignore list. And here's the kicker...my iPhone doesn't respect my ignore list!!

 

Or I could just click the new attribute box when I run my PQs, and eliminate these caches. I usually walk away from those type of caches anyway so it would save me lots of time to group ignore them, so to speak.

Link to comment

Caches on private property without permission, which require a dangerous way to access also could use it.

Hidden in a rusty lampost among live wires A note to a Lackey about this has gone ignored.

 

What note? Saying what? To which Lackey?

 

The reviewer posted this, is it not good enough?

 

 

Post Reviewer Note

09/25/2009

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

 

I emailed a lackey about it and recieved no reply.

 

Reaching in there is not only a safety risk but potential vandalism. When the wires short out and someone gets electrocuted, the issue that it obviously lacked permission will come up. The property owner may accuse geocachers of vandalising the lamppost. Having 100 people or so digging around through live wires will certainly contribute to it's degradation. When it reaches the newspaper there is the additional issue of stupidity. People will ask, are geocachers stupid?

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

People routinely ignore attributes (both setting them and reading them), can't read attributes (my PN-40 doesn't handle them), and often don't bother reading full cache descriptions.

 

What purpose would layering more on serve if people don't use what's already there?

 

Why do people need to be protected from themselves? This is why no one has good judgement anymore - they expect others to make these decisions for them! It's lesson that may be hard to learn, but it's best learned the hard way.

Link to comment

The geocaches in the Alien head series, with many people driving to them despite being asked not to do so could also use it.

Umm, how do those caches not meet Groundspeak's guidelines? Is there a guideline that says you must obey the CO's wishes? :unsure:

 

They meet the guidelines of this site so you are already advocating misuse of your attribute.

This.

There's already a feature that does this: Ignore. :P

 

Yes, you can ignore them if you see the attribute and see that most cachers are violating local law to find it.

Link to comment

As soon as I hear about cachers having a gun held to their heads, being forced to search for caches against their will, then I will agree there is a problem.

 

Why people moan and groan about some caches, but go for them any way is simple...numbers, numbers, numbers outweigh their intelligence and personal feelings, obviously.

 

Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.

 

 

B.

Link to comment

I do like the idea of caches somehow having a filterable property for an unhandled infraction of guidelines. NA logs might not get dealt with for some time, or even ignored, even when a cache breaks guidelines.

 

I personally would probably not use it, but for instance right now you have no way apart from checking past logs whether a cache has been flagged NA, possibly for good reason.

And as with the examples above, illegal caches that are not archived could do well with this property.

 

But it could also be easily abused were it attributed by the caching community. It could lead to the same drama as a 'Thumbs Down' feature.

 

I'd have to scour the map and individually add each cache to my ignore list. And here's the kicker...my iPhone doesn't respect my ignore list!!

Geosphere has its own ignore feature that works wonders ;)

 

Or I could just click the new attribute box when I run my PQs, and eliminate these caches. I usually walk away from those type of caches anyway so it would save me lots of time to group ignore them, so to speak.

Aye.

This is basically applying a community-rating as a filterable property, like a thumbs-down threshold. A single flag can easily be abused (one person could flag it and it would no longer appear in anyone's PQ who filters them out), so it would be more like the thumbs up/down feature of Challenges...

 

This is getting to be a little too complex, imo :blink:

Link to comment
Reaching in there is not only a safety risk but potential vandalism. When the wires short out and someone gets electrocuted, the issue that it obviously lacked permission will come up. The property owner may accuse geocachers of vandalising the lamppost. Having 100 people or so digging around through live wires will certainly contribute to it's degradation. When it reaches the newspaper there is the additional issue of stupidity. People will ask, are geocachers stupid?

If you asked me if geocachers have poor judgement while chasing smileys (I wouldn't call them universally "stupid"), then I would say "many of them absolutely do."

 

As a community, we will be judged based on the actions of those who cause the greatest impact - whether it's negative actions or positive ones. Unfortunately, one negative event can erase years of goodwill being built up.

Link to comment

People routinely ignore attributes (both setting them and reading them), can't read attributes (my PN-40 doesn't handle them), and often don't bother reading full cache descriptions.

 

What purpose would layering more on serve if people don't use what's already there?

 

Why do people need to be protected from themselves? This is why no one has good judgement anymore - they expect others to make these decisions for them! It's lesson that may be hard to learn, but it's best learned the hard way.

 

People *use* attributes while running PQs, which is what I mentioned in a PP. I would simply filter out the majority of caches that I would self filter out anyway. Except I'll save myself the drive.

 

Eta:quoted text

Edited by JesandTodd
Link to comment

 

Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.

 

which we are finding doesn't always work.

 

I do like the idea of caches somehow having a filterable property for an unhandled infraction of guidelines. NA logs might not get dealt with for some time, or even ignored, even when a cache breaks guidelines.

 

I personally would probably not use it, but for instance right now you have no way apart from checking past logs whether a cache has been flagged NA, possibly for good reason.

And as with the examples above, illegal caches that are not archived could do well with this property.

 

But it could also be easily abused were it attributed by the caching community. It could lead to the same drama as a 'Thumbs Down' feature.

 

I'd have to scour the map and individually add each cache to my ignore list. And here's the kicker...my iPhone doesn't respect my ignore list!!

Geosphere has its own ignore feature that works wonders ;)

 

Or I could just click the new attribute box when I run my PQs, and eliminate these caches. I usually walk away from those type of caches anyway so it would save me lots of time to group ignore them, so to speak.

Aye.

This is basically applying a community-rating as a filterable property, like a thumbs-down threshold. A single flag can easily be abused (one person could flag it and it would no longer appear in anyone's PQ who filters them out), so it would be more like the thumbs up/down feature of Challenges...

 

This is getting to be a little too complex, imo :blink:

I don't use geosphere.

You can see if a NA log has been logged on the summary of logs section just prior to all the logs.

I like the thumbs down on challenges ( but that's neither here nor there)

Link to comment

 

Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.

 

which we are finding doesn't always work.

 

This gives me an opportunity to say, once again, how fantastic the reviewers for Ontario are in being responsive to "NA" logs and concerns expressed by cachers.

 

I guess we're spoiled here. And lucky.

 

Thanks, Ontario Reviewers.

Link to comment

 

Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.

 

 

But I think the OP is syaing that is part of the problem. NA logs, notes to reviewers, letters to Groundspeak, are generally ignored or no action is taken. Here is another specific example. I know for a fact that all of those options have been used for this particular cache. Doesn't seem to matter, even though it is an obvious guidleine violation and maybe even illegal placement...

 

The issue I see is that obviously a CO is not going to place an attribute on their cache that says that it was placed in violation of the guidleines. So unless a cacher is allowed to place the new attribute on the cache, kinda like The Needs Maintanance Attribute then it is a moot point. I also doubt that Grounspeak would seriously consider giving cachers that ability.

 

But this isn't really a serious suggestion, right? I mean the OP was only posting this to make a point...

Edited by FobesMan
Link to comment

 

Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.

 

 

But I think the OP is syaing that is part of the problem. NA logs, notes to reviewers, letters to Groundspeak, don't seem to matter. Here is another specific example. I know for a fact that all of those options have been used for this particular cache. Doesn't seem to matter, even though it is an obvious guidleine violation and maybe even illegal placement...

 

The issue I see is that obviously a CO is not going to place an attribute on their cache that says that it was placed in violation of the guidleines. So unless a cacher is allowed to place the new attribute on the cache, kinda like The Needs Maintanance Attribute then it is a moot point. I also doubt that Grounspeak would seriously consider giving cachers that ability.

 

But this isn't really a serious suggestion, right? I mena the OP was only posting this to make a point...

 

No it's a serious suggestion. There appears to be a need for it.

Link to comment

 

Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.

 

which we are finding doesn't always work.

 

This gives me an opportunity to say, once again, how fantastic the reviewers for Ontario are in being responsive to "NA" logs and concerns expressed by cachers.

 

I guess we're spoiled here. And lucky.

 

Thanks, Ontario Reviewers.

The same for southern Az and Seattle area. I've never had a problem here. But I have had a problem with the local community back in Az with posting NM or NA logs....no lie...which makes me think more than twice posting them.

Link to comment

 

Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.

 

 

But I think the OP is syaing that is part of the problem. NA logs, notes to reviewers, letters to Groundspeak, are generally ignored or no action is taken. Here is another specific example. I know for a fact that all of those options have been used for this particular cache. Doesn't seem to matter, even though it is an obvious guidleine violation and maybe even illegal placement...

 

The issue I see is that obviously a CO is not going to place an attribute on their cache that says that it was placed in violation of the guidleines. So unless a cacher is allowed to place the new attribute on the cache, kinda like The Needs Maintanance Attribute then it is a moot point. I also doubt that Grounspeak would seriously consider giving cachers that ability.

 

But this isn't really a serious suggestion, right? I mean the OP was only posting this to make a point...

 

My post #18:

 

Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.

 

which we are finding doesn't always work.

 

This gives me an opportunity to say, once again, how fantastic the reviewers for Ontario are in being responsive to "NA" logs and concerns expressed by cachers.

 

I guess we're spoiled here. And lucky.

 

Thanks, Ontario Reviewers.

Link to comment

 

Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.

 

 

But I think the OP is syaing that is part of the problem. NA logs, notes to reviewers, letters to Groundspeak, are generally ignored or no action is taken. Here is another specific example. I know for a fact that all of those options have been used for this particular cache. Doesn't seem to matter, even though it is an obvious guidleine violation and maybe even illegal placement...

 

The issue I see is that obviously a CO is not going to place an attribute on their cache that says that it was placed in violation of the guidleines. So unless a cacher is allowed to place the new attribute on the cache, kinda like The Needs Maintanance Attribute then it is a moot point. I also doubt that Grounspeak would seriously consider giving cachers that ability.

 

But this isn't really a serious suggestion, right? I mean the OP was only posting this to make a point...

 

My post #18:

 

Post a "Needs Archived" or send an email to the reviewer...get it done or stop complaining.

 

which we are finding doesn't always work.

 

This gives me an opportunity to say, once again, how fantastic the reviewers for Ontario are in being responsive to "NA" logs and concerns expressed by cachers.

 

I guess we're spoiled here. And lucky.

 

Thanks, Ontario Reviewers.

 

Yes... Note the time stamp. I was starting to write at the same time you were posting. Wasn't trying to pile on.

Link to comment

 

But I think the OP is syaing that is part of the problem. NA logs, notes to reviewers, letters to Groundspeak, are generally ignored or no action is taken. Here is another specific example. I know for a fact that all of those options have been used for this particular cache. Doesn't seem to matter, even though it is an obvious guidleine violation and maybe even illegal placement...

 

The issue I see is that obviously a CO is not going to place an attribute on their cache that says that it was placed in violation of the guidleines. So unless a cacher is allowed to place the new attribute on the cache, kinda like The Needs Maintanance Attribute then it is a moot point. I also doubt that Grounspeak would seriously consider giving cachers that ability.

 

But this isn't really a serious suggestion, right? I mean the OP was only posting this to make a point...

 

I'd make the point here that just because one or more geocachers believes a cache violates guidelines doesn't always make it true. In the case of the one you listed, the only person requesting archiving is making the assumption that permission wasn't given. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't, but there's no clear cut violation there as far as I can tell.

 

Choosing not to archive isn't the same as ignoring. But reviewers are volunteers, and in some areas, may not be replying quickly, or at all. That's a discussion to take up with GS.

Link to comment

If i'm visiting another country or area, I would like to know if there is a chance I could get arrested. If all of the locals are aware of an area being off limits as well as the reviewer, but the cache is listed anyhow, that doesn't help me one bit when I approach it during the day under the assumption that it is okay. If another user flagged it as a possible guidelines violation, I could reach my own conclusions rather easily.

 

NA's and attributes like this should be regarded as being serious and not deletable by the cache owner.

Link to comment

People are very aware of the illegal nature of this cache. They may not have posted "NA" logs, but the notes are very clear, even with Google Translation as my only guide.

 

It's a different culture, obviously.

 

Yes, of course all cachers are aware that they are not supposed to climb up the tower - the hiders are aware of it as well. There has even been a NA log for the cache (which btw is not located in Germany) which has been ignored. So why should local cachers write a further one? Just to be attacked or laughed at like the poster of the NA log from 2009? I have better things to do than being told by others that I am just not courageous enough for such caches (which is true anyway, but not my reason for believing that such caches are not a good idea). I stopped dealing with such caches except for caches where it is not obvious from the description what is involved. It just uses up too much energy and is to no avail.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I'd make the point here that just because one or more geocachers believes a cache violates guidelines doesn't always make it true. In the case of the one you listed, the only person requesting archiving is making the assumption that permission wasn't given. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't, but there's no clear cut violation there as far as I can tell.

 

In the mentioned case the situation is crystal clear. It would already be very hard to get the permission to hide a micro to the bottom part of the structure which can be reached from the ground due to the fact that the ground of the mall is private property. We had a similar issue with a harmless cache hidden in another mall where the security team caught a cacher and the cache had to be removed. I am 100% sure that the managing team of the mall where the mentioned cache is hidden will never in the world provide permission for an object hidden up in this height where people climb up without any security measures. If they offered permission, they would get into big troubles if an accident happens and of course no mall is going to take that risk. They might even get trouble in the present case if something happens and someone tries to sue them although they are not aware of the cache. All works only under the assumption that no accidents happens and noone is caught while climbing (the position of the tower and the cache have been chosen in a way that it is possible to stay undetected with some reasonable probability).

 

The background of the way how the existing N/A log is formulated is that the logger of the N/A got one of his caches (a tree climbing cache at the edge of a private garden) has been archived upon request by local cachers due to the private property issue. He then in return argued that this cache is comparable which it indeed is. The only difference is that at the tree climbing cache which was much less dangerous the danger to be seen by muggles was higher than in the case of the metal tower in the mall. It's the probability of being caught and having to pay some fine, what the group of cachers enjoying such caches are most interested into.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Yes, of course all cachers are aware that they are not supposed to climb up the tower - the hiders are aware of it as well. There has even been a NA log for the cache (which btw is not located in Germany) which has been ignored. So why should local cachers write a further one? Just to be attacked or laughed at like the poster of the NA log from 2009? I have better things to do than being told by others that I am just not courageous enough for such caches (which is true anyway, but not my reason for believing that such caches are not a good idea).

A "Needs Archive" log is not your only option. You also can privately contact the local reviewer with your concerns. If you wish to do this anonymously, then you can do so with a sockpuppet account. If the local reviewer ignores the problem, then you can contact Groundspeak directly.

Link to comment

If i'm visiting another country or area, I would like to know if there is a chance I could get arrested.

 

Getting arrested is somehow the extreme variant, but you need to expect to get into conflict with local laws while geocaching anyway.

In any case, in most European countries you need to cache under the hypothesis that it is best not to be watched even if houses are nearby as

in most cases the cache has been placed without informing the neighbours. This is true for caches at legally reachable places as well.

 

In any case, the differences betweeen different countries are quite big. For example, there are countries where it is not allowed to leave trails in forest areas

while this is allowed in other countries. This is just a simple example though it goes in a completely different direction than the one intended by you in this thread.

I guess what could help, but which does not yet exist is some exchange about what is important to take into account when geocaching in country X.

Unfortunately, hardly any exchange exists. Most cachers in Europe who use geocaching forums at all, use only local forums and so there is no exchange between cachers

from different countries about the differences in geocaching cultures, local laws that play a role for geocaching etc.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I'd make the point here that just because one or more geocachers believes a cache violates guidelines doesn't always make it true. In the case of the one you listed, the only person requesting archiving is making the assumption that permission wasn't given. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't, but there's no clear cut violation there as far as I can tell.

 

In the mentioned case the situation is crystal clear. It would already be very hard to get the permission to hide a micro to the bottom part of the structure which can be reached from the ground due to the fact that the ground of the mall is private property. We had a similar issue with a harmless cache hidden in another mall where the security team caught a cacher and the cache had to be removed. I am 100% sure that the managing team of the mall where the mentioned cache is hidden will never in the world provide permission for an object hidden up in this height where people climb up without any security measures. If they offered permission, they would get into big troubles if an accident happens and of course no mall is going to take that risk. They might even get trouble in the present case if something happens and someone tries to sue them although they are not aware of the cache. All works only under the assumption that no accidents happens and noone is caught while climbing (the position of the tower and the cache have been chosen in a way that it is possible to stay undetected with some reasonable probability).

 

The background of the way how the existing N/A log is formulated is that the logger of the N/A got one of his caches (a tree climbing cache at the edge of a private garden) has been archived upon request by local cachers due to the private property issue. He then in return argued that this cache is comparable which it indeed is. The only difference is that at the tree climbing cache which was much less dangerous the danger to be seen by muggles was higher than in the case of the metal tower in the mall. It's the probability of being caught and having to pay some fine, what the group of cachers enjoying such caches are most interested into.

 

Cezanne

Not sure you and I are referencing the same cache. The one in the message I quoted required a bushwhack.

Link to comment

Yes, of course all cachers are aware that they are not supposed to climb up the tower - the hiders are aware of it as well. There has even been a NA log for the cache (which btw is not located in Germany) which has been ignored. So why should local cachers write a further one? Just to be attacked or laughed at like the poster of the NA log from 2009? I have better things to do than being told by others that I am just not courageous enough for such caches (which is true anyway, but not my reason for believing that such caches are not a good idea).

A "Needs Archive" log is not your only option. You also can privately contact the local reviewer with your concerns. If you wish to do this anonymously, then you can do so with a sockpuppet account. If the local reviewer ignores the problem, then you can contact Groundspeak directly.

 

I do not have any need for using a sockpuppet account when mailing to the reviewer. I would welcome a new feature "report a cache", but of course the alias of the reporting cacher should be sent along. It just should not be shown on the cache page.

 

I could write to a reviewer and have done so already in some cases. The reply to post a needs archived log is a reply myself and others have received several times. The idea behind is certainly that in such a case one is the recipient of the wave of anger that otherwise would meet the reviewer. Writing to Groundspeak is an option as well, but most cachers want to limit such contacts to the minimum as the local reviewers do not appreciate this type of behaviour.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Not sure you and I are referencing the same cache. The one in the message I quoted required a bushwhack.

 

You are right. I was talking of the cache the OP brought up in this thread. I have overlooked that the person who replied to was providing a further example

in the same sentence where he talked about what the OP wrote. Sorry for the confusion caused. I cannot judge the bushwhacking cache you wrote about.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Caches on private property without permission, which require a dangerous way to access also could use it.

Hidden in a rusty lampost among live wires A note to a Lackey about this has gone ignored.

 

What note? Saying what? To which Lackey?

 

The reviewer posted this, is it not good enough?

 

 

Post Reviewer Note

09/25/2009

 

We do not archive caches because they are dangerous. Reviewers are not the "safety police" and if anyone feels that their personal safety is at risk during the course of searching for a geocache then they should walk away and ignore the cache listing.

 

I emailed a lackey about it and recieved no reply.

 

Reaching in there is not only a safety risk but potential vandalism. When the wires short out and someone gets electrocuted, the issue that it obviously lacked permission will come up. The property owner may accuse geocachers of vandalising the lamppost. Having 100 people or so digging around through live wires will certainly contribute to it's degradation. When it reaches the newspaper there is the additional issue of stupidity. People will ask, are geocachers stupid?

 

+1 I hate the reviewer's attitude. Unfortunately, it seems to be common. Gee, even though I KNOW about it and could do SOMETHING, I am going to do NOTHING. Let's just wait until someone gets ELECTROCUTED and when they do we'll just say it was THEIR fault. Yes, people are responsible for their own safety. HOWEVER, seeing a cache hidden among wires, many people may assume the wires are NOT live and go in for the grab...

 

All I can say is that someone DOES get electrocuted, both the cache owner and the reviewer SHOULD be sued for NEGLIGENCE. :rolleyes:

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

A "Needs Archive" log is not your only option. You also can privately contact the local reviewer with your concerns. If you wish to do this anonymously, then you can do so with a sockpuppet account.

I do not have any need for using a sockpuppet account when mailing to the reviewer. I would welcome a new feature "report a cache", but of course the alias of the reporting cacher should be sent along. It just should not be shown on the cache page.

 

I could write to a reviewer and have done so already in some cases. The reply to post a needs archived log is a reply myself and others have received several times. The idea behind is certainly that in such a case one is the recipient of the wave of anger that otherwise would meet the reviewer.

You also could use the sockpuppet account to post a "Needs Archive" log, if the local reviewer refuses to deal with private emails.

 

If the local reviewer ignores the problem, then you can contact Groundspeak directly.

Writing to Groundspeak is an option as well, but most cachers want to limit such contacts to the minimum as the local reviewers do not appreciate this type of behaviour.

Again, the sockpuppet option can keep these contacts anonymous. If the local reviewer doesn't appreciate people reporting illegally placed caches, then it might be a good idea to let Groundspeak know this.

Link to comment

But I think the OP is syaing that is part of the problem. NA logs, notes to reviewers, letters to Groundspeak, are generally ignored or no action is taken. Here is another specific example. I know for a fact that all of those options have been used for this particular cache. Doesn't seem to matter, even though it is an obvious guidleine violation and maybe even illegal placement...

Reviewers are often active members of the local geocaching community, which can make situations like the one you are referring to pretty uncomfortable. We have gotten seven caches archived. Of those, only one was archived without getting Groundspeak involved. Of the remaining six, four were archived after we persisted. Groundspeak declined to take any immediate action on the remaining two, but they both were archived within the next year anyway. In our experience, it has been a very frustrating process and it concerns us that we might be creating some problems with the local reviewers.

 

The cache you are using as an example was found by a local reviewer and their log states that they do not see any problems with the cache, which is not the surprising in the least, because this same reviewer has told me in the past that, unless a land owner or manager requests that any inappropriately placed caches to be removed, this reviewer will take no action. I brought a cache to their attention awhile back, because the cache is placed on private land not far from a prominent "keep out, no trespassing" sign. I provided plenty of documentation, including photos, but the reviewer said they did not see any problems and that I should take it up with the cache owner (the reviewer had already found this cache themselves). I found this response pretty disappointing because I had already discussed my concerns with the cache owner and the reviewer would have known this, had they actually read what I sent them. The cache owner had even admitted to me that they purposely posted parking coordinates that, if used, would prevent people from seeing the nearby "keep out" sign.

 

So then it becomes a dilemma: pursue this and risk insulting the reviewer, who I know personally, or let it go? I chose the latter this time, but this whole process has been very discouraging and really makes me question whether the listing guidelines are anything more than window dressing.

 

Here's a perfect example: I sent a note to the publishing reviewer of this cache: http://coord.info/GC31D1V on 8/22 and suggested maybe they should take a closer look at it because the logs tell a tale that will not end well. I never got a response and as far as I can tell the reviewer did absolutely nothing about it. Self-policing fails again.

Edited by B+L
Link to comment

I'd make the point here that just because one or more geocachers believes a cache violates guidelines doesn't always make it true. In the case of the one you listed, the only person requesting archiving is making the assumption that permission wasn't given. Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't, but there's no clear cut violation there as far as I can tell.

 

Choosing not to archive isn't the same as ignoring. But reviewers are volunteers, and in some areas, may not be replying quickly, or at all. That's a discussion to take up with GS.

It is clearly illegal to place a cache in the right of way an interstate highway. Groundspeak knows this, but they will continue to look the other way until the WSDOT tells them that caching is not allowed. No explicit geocaching policy? No problem.

Link to comment

both the cache owner and the reviewer SHOULD be sued for NEGLIGENCE. :rolleyes:

 

I am not sure even how much traction the suit would get. The CO is self-admittedly under age.

 

I am wondering if Reviewer "A" doesn't want to archive a cache approved by Reviewer "B" because that would be tacit admission that the latter shouldn't have approved it in the first place?

 

Finally, I am wondering in this specific case if there was a N/A log that got deleted?

 

http://coord.info/GC1WNYQ

Link to comment

The geocaches in the Alien head series, with many people driving to them despite being asked not to do so could also use it.

Umm, how do those caches not meet Groundspeak's guidelines? Is there a guideline that says you must obey the CO's wishes? :unsure:

 

They meet the guidelines of this site so you are already advocating misuse of your attribute.

This.

There's already a feature that does this: Ignore. :P

 

Yes, you can ignore them if you see the attribute and see that most cachers are violating local law to find it.

 

If a cache violates the guidelines (which includes requiring finder violating local laws to find it) it should be archived.

 

Ignoring it, or even adding an attribute which makes it easier to ignore caches which violate the guidelines doesn't change the fact that the cache is violating the guidelines. Keeping caches which violate guidelines active, especially if cachers are violating local laws to find it, can have all sorts of negative consequences. What are the benefits of ignoring it and leaving it active?

Link to comment

Reviewers are often active members of the local geocaching community, which can make situations like the one you are referring to pretty uncomfortable.

Reviewers can remain anonymous. If they would feel uncomfortable making tough decisions when known to the local geocaching community, then perhaps they should remain anonymous.

 

If they already have revealed their identities and don't want to make uncomfortable choices, then they have the option to resign.

Link to comment

Reviewers are often active members of the local geocaching community, which can make situations like the one you are referring to pretty uncomfortable.

Reviewers can remain anonymous. If they would feel uncomfortable making tough decisions when known to the local geocaching community, then perhaps they should remain anonymous.

 

If they already have revealed their identities and don't want to make uncomfortable choices, then they have the option to resign.

 

If a reviewer doesn't want to make uncomfortable choices, perhaps they should re-evaluate their position.

 

Don't know why I didn't see that last line. I agree with CanadianRockies post as stated.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

If a cache violates the guidelines (which includes requiring finder violating local laws to find it) it should be archived.

 

Ignoring it, or even adding an attribute which makes it easier to ignore caches which violate the guidelines doesn't change the fact that the cache is violating the guidelines. Keeping caches which violate guidelines active, especially if cachers are violating local laws to find it, can have all sorts of negative consequences. What are the benefits of ignoring it and leaving it active?

But again, that's the problem here. Ignoring it won't make it go away. But sometimes reviewers do nothing, so illegal/bad caches may still be active. Ignoring, currently, is the only option - if you read recent history to find out its status. Otherwise, how would one know if it may be illegal or breaking guidelines?

*shrug*

Link to comment

Reviewers are often active members of the local geocaching community, which can make situations like the one you are referring to pretty uncomfortable.

Reviewers can remain anonymous. If they would feel uncomfortable making tough decisions when known to the local geocaching community, then perhaps they should remain anonymous.

 

If they already have revealed their identities and don't want to make uncomfortable choices, then they have the option to resign.

Agreed, although I actually meant this other way around in that it's uncomfortable for people who are familiars. It is perhaps more of a problem here in the home territory of Groundspeak than it might be elsewhere.

Edited by B+L
Link to comment

 

I am wondering if Reviewer "A" doesn't want to archive a cache approved by Reviewer "B" because that would be tacit admission that the latter shouldn't have approved it in the first place?

 

I doubt it. I think that reviewers have much thicker skins than that and accept responsibility when they've made a mistake. In this case, Reviewer "B" would not have known about any potentially live wires in a cache because reviewers don't visit caches locations prior to publishing a listing. Even if the CO *knew* there were live wires, if the CO doesn't mention it when submitting the listing the reviewer is still going to publish it as long as it meets all other guidelines. This is something that Reviewer A (or any other reviewer) would know.

Link to comment

both the cache owner and the reviewer SHOULD be sued for NEGLIGENCE. :rolleyes:

 

I am not sure even how much traction the suit would get. The CO is self-admittedly under age.

 

I am wondering if Reviewer "A" doesn't want to archive a cache approved by Reviewer "B" because that would be tacit admission that the latter shouldn't have approved it in the first place?

 

Finally, I am wondering in this specific case if there was a N/A log that got deleted?

 

http://coord.info/GC1WNYQ

 

Grade 7 kid. Average age of a G-7 between 12 and 13. That's a TOU violation....."By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian. If we believe that you are under 18 years of age and not under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning."

 

I liked it better when kids didn't autonomously post caches. A few years ago gps's were expensive, so kids weren't planting. At least not on their own. Usually under their parents account with a parent who posted the cache description and took care of the cache. Now, because of apps, it's a growing issue. I wonder if this kid's parents know that he hides caches in the inside of lamp posts with live wires present. And that he assures cachers (who probably don't realize he's a kid) that it's completely safe.

Edited by Noel R
Link to comment

Fobes, I know this forum topic is not about GC31ZPT, the Wilderness of I-5, but you are citing it as an example in this discussion so I want to ask you a question. Also, pardon me for my lack of skill in using the quote function well. Why do you think it should be archived? One can park at the S Everett park n ride (which the CO suggests, though, I had to park an additional 1/3 mile away as the park n ride was full), go north into the bushes, bushwhack a miserable 700 feet and find the cache. The terrain is 3 based on that, though, no direction one comes from will make it totally easy. I agree that the hide placement might be against the guidelines given its a nail in the tree (at least it was when I found it), but I do not think that is why you or brewman65 are saying it should be archived.

 

Many caches are near freeways or on side of highways that clearly are designed to come from a certain direction, but the rub is, like those, a cacher may not do that. Have seen many caches that I knew just pulling over on the freeway would be the quickest route but I would not do such a thing. To my knowledge, none of the finders have been an idiot and parked a few 100 feet closer in the middle of the freeway ramp to get it. Is it the lack of permission? There are no signs saying no trespassing that I saw. If its just about permission on open space or whatever lands, we both know at big percentage of all caches would be archived.

 

You said its a guideline violation. Of what? Am not trying to argue, just trying to figure out why this one, as an example, should be archived, in your opinion.

 

(edit, well, reading the logs closer, it seems one chap may have taken the easier way out, which is their risk if they are risking getting hit or being seen by a police officer)

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

Fobes, I know this forum topic is not about GC31ZPT, the Wilderness of I-5,

Which is why you should have e-mailed me directly with the question. I refer you to the post #37 by B&L for why I think the way I do. I'm not going to discuss the issues with this particlar cache with you here. I'll leave it at that.

Edited by FobesMan
Link to comment

both the cache owner and the reviewer SHOULD be sued for NEGLIGENCE. :rolleyes:

 

I am not sure even how much traction the suit would get. The CO is self-admittedly under age.

 

I am wondering if Reviewer "A" doesn't want to archive a cache approved by Reviewer "B" because that would be tacit admission that the latter shouldn't have approved it in the first place?

 

Finally, I am wondering in this specific case if there was a N/A log that got deleted?

 

http://coord.info/GC1WNYQ

 

Grade 7 kid. Average age of a G-7 between 12 and 13. That's a TOU violation....."By using the Site, you represent and warrant that you are 18 years of age or older, or under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian. If we believe that you are under 18 years of age and not under the supervision of your parent or legal guardian, please be advised that your account may be terminated without warning."

 

I liked it better when kids didn't autonomously post caches. A few years ago gps's were expensive, so kids weren't planting. At least not on their own. Usually under their parents account with a parent who posted the cache description and took care of the cache. Now, because of apps, it's a growing issue. I wonder if this kid's parents know that he hides caches in the inside of lamp posts with live wires present. And that he assures cachers (who probably don't realize he's a kid) that it's completely safe.

 

I don't know man. There was that gang of 12-13 yr. old middle schooler's in my area who were tossing film canisters into Subway's landscaping by the front window, or LPC's in the parking lot of private businesses in mid-2005. Fortunately, the ignore listing function came out in early 2005. :lol:

 

I've seen my share of horrific unsupervised teen hides over the years. I really have not noticed an increase in them since the smartphone revolution came out of nowhere a couple years ago. Besides, they should all just be getting free with the family plan Samsung flip phones. :P

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...