Is a new attribute needed?

[+JL_HSTRE]

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 guideline violation and maybe even illegal placement...

 

As I am understanding it, the cache (GC31ZPT) can be accessed without parking on the side of the Interstate (you can legally park in the park-n-ride lot), which avoids the usual legality issue with Interstate caches (you cannot park on the side of an interstate highway except in an emergency). Of course, if there is signage or fencing at the PnR lot telling people not to enter the woods that is another matter of legality.

 

If this cache should be archived because it is on the ROW for an Interstate, by that logic shouldn't every rest area cache also be archived if it does not have DOT explicit permission?

[Mr.Yuck]

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 guideline violation and maybe even illegal placement...

 

As I am understanding it, the cache (GC31ZPT) can be accessed without parking on the side of the Interstate (you can legally park in the park-n-ride lot), which avoids the usual legality issue with Interstate caches (you cannot park on the side of an interstate highway except in an emergency). Of course, if there is signage or fencing at the PnR lot telling people not to enter the woods that is another matter of legality.

 

If this cache should be archived because it is on the ROW for an Interstate, by that logic shouldn't every rest area cache also be archived if it does not have DOT explicit permission?

 

Yeah, I'm thinking I wouldn't be terribly against that one too. It does kind of meet the "area where the public would have no reason to go to" criteria though. The only crime there is that it makes us as a lot look like a bunch of kooks.

[+Gan Dalf]

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 guideline violation and maybe even illegal placement...

 

As I am understanding it, the cache (GC31ZPT) can be accessed without parking on the side of the Interstate (you can legally park in the park-n-ride lot), which avoids the usual legality issue with Interstate caches (you cannot park on the side of an interstate highway except in an emergency). Of course, if there is signage or fencing at the PnR lot telling people not to enter the woods that is another matter of legality.

 

This is where the line between implicit vs. explicit permission exists. As B&L pointed out, the WSDOT does not have an explicit geocaching policy, not suprising however, most railrods do. You can't place a cache within 500 feet of any railway ROW and yet, since there is no policy, this cache is allowed to exist.

 

I agree that Rest Stop caches can complicate the ROW policy but this is a perfect example of why there are human reviewers for cache placements. Most people will agree that the majority of people will take the easy road out and so it is not a far cry to assume that a cache placed in the middle of the north and south bound lanes of an interstate will have people walking along the lanes to access the cache.

[4wheelin_fool]

There are plenty of caches in grey areas. They may meet the guidelines and there is legal access, but the majority is not finding them in a legal manner.

 

Other caches may be questionable if they meet the guidelines or not.

 

Then there is the third group of caches which are illegal, but do not get archived for some unknown reason. These could all benefit from a new attribute or log type.

[+cx1]

 

Then there is the third group of caches which are illegal, but do not get archived for some unknown reason. These could all benefit from a new attribute or log type.

I may have missed it and if so I apologize...

But if a cache owner is going to knowingly place an illegal cache what makes you think they would then use this suggested attribute?

I imagine it would be difficult (and raise many other issues) to change the attribute system so visitors to a cache page can edit that pages attributes.

So I really do not see how a new attribute could be used.

I do think that the new log-type would dovetail nicely into the warning log type suggested in another thread though.

[Cascade Reviewer]

 

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.

I apologize for that. You and I have exchanged emails about other issues in the past, and I feel that I have responded appropriately. In the case that you are referring to in your post, I had thought that I had written back to you. So much so, that I did a gmail search after reading your comment, believing that you were wrong and that I had emailed you back. But I hadn't.

 

I did discuss the cache with other Reviewers, and I did personally email the cache owner, who seemed have adequate permission for the hide. I requested that they put the permission info in the cache description to help finders, but they archived the cache soon after that, instead.

[+B+L]

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.

I apologize for that. You and I have exchanged emails about other issues in the past, and I feel that I have responded appropriately. In the case that you are referring to in your post, I had thought that I had written back to you. So much so, that I did a gmail search after reading your comment, believing that you were wrong and that I had emailed you back. But I hadn't.

 

I did discuss the cache with other Reviewers, and I did personally email the cache owner, who seemed have adequate permission for the hide. I requested that they put the permission info in the cache description to help finders, but they archived the cache soon after that, instead.

Yes, I would like to emphasize that you have normally been very responsive and I appreciate that. I apologize for calling you out in public, as it was not my intention. I was careless in my wording and I should not have been so specific. Sorry.

[Cascade Reviewer]

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.

I apologize for that. You and I have exchanged emails about other issues in the past, and I feel that I have responded appropriately. In the case that you are referring to in your post, I had thought that I had written back to you. So much so, that I did a gmail search after reading your comment, believing that you were wrong and that I had emailed you back. But I hadn't.

 

I did discuss the cache with other Reviewers, and I did personally email the cache owner, who seemed have adequate permission for the hide. I requested that they put the permission info in the cache description to help finders, but they archived the cache soon after that, instead.

Yes, I would like to emphasize that you have normally been very responsive and I appreciate that. I apologize for calling you out in public, as it was not my intention. I was careless in my wording and I should not have been so specific. Sorry.

No worries. I'm glad that I had the opportunity to let you know what happened with that cache.

 

I try my best, but I know that some emails slip past my attention. If you send me an email and I don't respond in a couple days, please send me another one. Squeaky wheel, and all that.