Ignoring a cache issue

[+Sol seaker]

If the cache is that much of an issue you should put a needs archive on it. I am certain you are familiar with how to do a NA log as you've done it several times already. However it would be far better to have your neighbour email Groundspeak with his or her concern about the problem it really shouldn't be your responsibility to continue to police other peoples caches.

 

Neighbour is an elderly man- does not use computers or email. He has asked me to help him out.

For the record, I have only ever placed an NA on one cache. Reviewer agreed and it was dealt with.

 

Don't worry about putting too many N/A's on caches.

Just because you put an N/A on it doesn't mean it will get archived. It just means the local reviewer will take a look at the problem.

 

Putting an N/A on a cache just puts it in the reviewers inbox.

Putting an N/A on a cache is a good way to draw the attention a cache needs by someone who has authority. That takes it out of your hands, which is where this needs to be.

 

It also puts it in the hands of someone who has the authority to do something about it and take care of the problem in the appropriate way.

 

The reviewer knows the rules and how to deal with this stuff. He's also got the backup resources for any problems.

 

Sometimes the best thing you can do it pass it on to an authority who can properly deal with the matter. It keeps geocaching in a better light.

 

 

have you put an N/A on it yet?? Please do.

[+Sol seaker]

What I have done when I was approached was remove the cache, get the info of the person complaining and put an archive request and contact the reviewer and give them the complainer's contact info. That covers everything and usually works for all parties.

 

NOT a good idea to remove the cache!!!!!!

 

If they don't like people searching, with the cache gone and still active they will search for even longer!!!!!!!

 

Post a "Needs Archiving".

This brings it to the reviewer attention and they will deal with it properly.

 

Posting a "N/A" does not mean it will get archived necessarily. The reviewer will make the determination on what is to happen here. They are trained to do this. Let them.

 

They are trained how to deal with these things.

[+jellis]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

Ok. We have established that it isn't on his property. Is it a power trail?

She never said it was a power trail. She was pointing about my posting which was a power trail where 2 caches were placed in front of muggles properties and they didn't want cachers(anyone) poking around their property. Though it was the easement that it was placed, the point is if a landowner near a cache does not want a cache there, then why would a CO keep it there? They can argue that it is not their property the cache is on, but the LO could keep removing the cache themselves or call the police about suspicious behavior. If explaining to the LO does not resolve the problem then the cache becomes the problem and should be removed and archived. Why stir up more trouble?

[+jellis]

What I have done when I was approached was remove the cache, get the info of the person complaining and put an archive request and contact the reviewer and give them the complainer's contact info. That covers everything and usually works for all parties.

 

NOT a good idea to remove the cache!!!!!!

 

If they don't like people searching, with the cache gone and still active they will search for even longer!!!!!!!

 

Post a "Needs Archiving".

This brings it to the reviewer attention and they will deal with it properly.

 

Posting a "N/A" does not mean it will get archived necessarily. The reviewer will make the determination on what is to happen here. They are trained to do this. Let them.

 

They are trained how to deal with these things.

In all occasions including the ones mentioned on my posting the cachers posted on the cache page the cache was removed.

Mine the landowners were there and wanted to see that I was removing the container. So I didn't have much of a choice. If I didn't they would have anyway.

One of the ones I removed a previous cacher promised the landowner it would be taken care of which did not. So me removing it assured her it was gone. Our reviewers are pretty responsive when it comes to these situations.

Edited March 5, 2012 by jellis

[+ras_oscar]

Everybody has an opinion. Here is mine. As a geocacher I consider myself an ambassador to the non geocaching publc every time I go out to do a search. If I arrive at GZ and its someone's front yard, I move on. I would not want other people walking through my front yard. I can understand that some people expand the concept of "their" property to include areas they can see but that don't specifically belong to them. That doesn't mean the CO did not have proper permission from the actual property ownwer. It doesn't mean they did either. It's information we simply don't have here in this thread. The issue is a neighbor that sees activities he doesn't understand. In these times of heightened sensitivities that is inevitable. I as the local ambassador would have first explained to the neighbor what I was doing. This simple act can often alleviate the situation. I would have volunteeered to contact the CO on the neighbor's behalf and relay the concern. At that point its up to the CO to either resolve the issue with the neighbor or remove the cache. IMHO, removal without archival will result in more disruption cachers looking for something that's no longer there.

[+jellis]

IMHO, removal without archival will result in more disruption cachers looking for something that's no longer there.

When the landowner is standing in front of you while you are holding the cache and they express they want it removed.....hmm I should put it back and ignore the landowner?

I don't just put a NA, I actually contact the reviewer and explain to them. They usually take care of it pretty fast. They don't wait. They will say on their Archive posting they will contact the CO. I think it worse keeping the cache there and anger the landowner even more.

Edited March 5, 2012 by jellis

[Trinity's Crew]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

Ok. We have established that it isn't on his property. Is it a power trail?

She never said it was a power trail. She was pointing about my posting which was a power trail where 2 caches were placed in front of muggles properties and they didn't want cachers(anyone) poking around their property. Though it was the easement that it was placed, the point is if a landowner near a cache does not want a cache there, then why would a CO keep it there? They can argue that it is not their property the cache is on, but the LO could keep removing the cache themselves or call the police about suspicious behavior. If explaining to the LO does not resolve the problem then the cache becomes the problem and should be removed and archived. Why stir up more trouble?

He used your Power Trail thread to provide weight to his argument about why this cache has to go. Power trails, by their very nature, get visited A LOT. They are much more likely to attract attention and irritate homeowners once they have been noticed. If this cache is only being found once or twice a month it isn't as big an issue.

 

 

I have questions regarding the details of this issue and how it came about. These will likely never be answered. Now that the neighbor does know, AneMae should post NA, leave a note on the cache page explaining that this elderly gentleman wants it removed, and let the owner work it out. That way the caching public will have an opportunity to be aware of the situation if they look for the cache prior to the final resolution. It will also give the CO a chance to speak with the elderly gentleman and plead his case personally.

[+danielwest76]

Here's a thought...have you told the cache owner what the GC code is for the cache? Or perhaps the name of the cache? A lot of cachers have more than one cache, so unless specifics are given as to the exact cache in question it can sometimes be difficult to narrow down which cache needs the attention. I personally have 45 or so caches placed...if someone told me that my cache in the spruce tree needs attention that would only narrow it down to less than 10. Without specifics the CO isn't going to be able to do much unless this is the only cache they own.

[Trinity's Crew]

I have posted to this thread a lot. I'd like to explain why. I'll address some of the things that bothered me in the OP.

 

First message to the CO in regards to a neighbour upset about a cache directly in front of his house:

 

Good thread started in the forums over some power trail issues in rural areas (see link below) . Some interesting points to consider.

Like I mentioned before, I have a neighbour with a cache in front of his house- he was not aware what it was until I explained it to him.

 

 

He says, "Like I mentioned before," I don't see where he mentioned it previously. He did reference it in his setup prior to posting the email to the CO but he didn't mention it previously in the email. Either he only posted part of the email, or he has emailed previously.

 

He says, "I have a neighbour with a cache in front of his house- he was not aware what it was until I explained it to him."

 

This set little alarm bells off in my head. I initially read this as, "I told my neighbor he had a cache in front of his house. He wasn't even aware of it."

 

I asked AneMae for clarification on this point and he said his neighbor caught him looking for it but if that is what happened why didn't he just say that in the email?

 

Second Message to CO:

 

You can choose to ignore this, but be prepared for a bunch of DNF logs (maybe even an NA log). My neighbour has asked me what your response was to this. When I told him you had ignored it (for over a week now) he was not happy. He felt you have not taken responsibility for your role in this and the concern it is causing. In his words "if he isn't going to do anything about this I will just throw it in the garbage."

I do not wish to see any caches thrown in the garbage. I have asked him to let me attempt to contact you one more time. So this is it. How do you propose to deal with this?

In my view as the CO - you have a responsibility here. Time to step up to it.

 

 

The tone of the second email was much less polite and so was the neighbor's reaction. In a little more than a week he went from being reluctant to remove the cache to threatening to throw it in the garbage.

 

Intentional or not I feel that AneMae may have added fuel to the fire.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[+Planet]

If the cache is causing "undue alarm" with ANY neighbor, it is not good for the game. Post a needs archived, and you can ask a moderator to close your thread, if you're really done.

[+The A-Team]

Intentional or not I feel that AneMae may have added fuel to the fire.

I'd have to disagree with this. Your interpretation of the comment "he was not aware what it was until I explained it to him" was that the neighbour wasn't aware of anything going on. I took it to mean that the neighbour had seen things going on, but just didn't know what it was. AneMae later confirmed that this was the correct interpretation. The only issue coming from this was that you read something into the comment that AneMae didn't intend, and I doubt was intentional on his part.

 

As for the "Like I mentioned before", it may have referred to something earlier in the message that was completely irrelevant to this discussion, so he didn't bother posting it here. Anyway, it has no bearing on this discussion.

 

The root of this entire topic is the matter of unhappy muggles. From the responses here, the majority opinion seems to be that if a neighbour/land owner/muggle is aware of a cache and is unhappy with it, the tendency should be to err on the side of good-will and remove the cache, regardless of permission status.

 

AneMae contacted the owner to make them aware of a possible issue, but nothing was done, hence the less polite follow-up message. I can't say I wouldn't react the same way. I'm also completely unsurprised that the neighbour's mood was worsened by hearing that the owner was completely unresponsive. If I was that neighbour, again, I'd probably react the same. As the neighbour, there's activity going on near my house that I'm not comfortable with, and those involved in enabling this activity are basically ignoring me.

 

I think less time should be spent dissecting the OP and more on discussing the root issue. Personally, I'd agree with the consensus that in such a scenario, the cache should be removed. This could be through the instant removal of the container, if the neighbour is demanding it and will likely do it themselves after you leave anyway. If they're more amenable, an NA would be best and allow the CO and reviewers to sort it out. Luckily, I've never been in such a situation before, but with enough time and caching, I'll probably run into it someday.

[+danielwest76]

Perhaps I'll elaborate a bit more on my post four comments ago. I know the CO personally, and have been receiving his side of the story over the past week or two. He would be happy to remove the cache as he does not wish any of his caches to cause issues for people. Unfortunately he has nearly 400 caches on this particular trail, and to date has not been provided with enough information (ie. GC-code or cache name) to be able to remove and archive the cache. He's a responsible cache owner and has archived numerous caches along his trail when issues have been brought to his attention.

[+Totem Clan]

Perhaps I'll elaborate a bit more on my post four comments ago. I know the CO personally, and have been receiving his side of the story over the past week or two. He would be happy to remove the cache as he does not wish any of his caches to cause issues for people. Unfortunately he has nearly 400 caches on this particular trail, and to date has not been provided with enough information (ie. GC-code or cache name) to be able to remove and archive the cache. He's a responsible cache owner and has archived numerous caches along his trail when issues have been brought to his attention.

 

...and now you know the rest of the story.

 

So the problem at this point is with the OP not the CO.

[Trinity's Crew]

 

The root of this entire topic is the matter of unhappy muggles. From the responses here, the majority opinion seems to be that if a neighbour/land owner/muggle is aware of a cache and is unhappy with it, the tendency should be to err on the side of good-will and remove the cache, regardless of permission status.

 

I already said that he should post NA and let the owner and the reviewer sort it out. But I disagree with your stance on removal of a cache regardless of permission status. If this particular cache is on private property with explicit permission then it should not be archived. I doubt that's the case but my point is there are scenarios that don't warrant archival. NA log? Yes. Archival? Depends on the circumstances.

 

 

I think less time should be spent dissecting the OP and more on discussing the root issue.

The OP gave me pause. Most of my posts were predicated on my reaction to the OP. I appreciate your feedback and I may have been off base. I am a little suspicious by nature.

As I mentioned above, at this point there is nothing left to do but post NA and let the owner and reviewer sort it out.

[+Treknschmidt]

 

So the problem at this point is with the OP not the CO.

 

DING, DING, DING ... we have a winner

[+The A-Team]

But I disagree with your stance on removal of a cache regardless of permission status. If this particular cache is on private property with explicit permission then it should not be archived. I doubt that's the case but my point is there are scenarios that don't warrant archival. NA log? Yes. Archival? Depends on the circumstances.

On second thought, I'll agree with this and revise my earlier statement from:

...the tendency should be to err on the side of good-will and remove the cache, regardless of permission status.

to:

...the tendency should be to log a Needs Archive log to alert the CO and reviewers of possible issues.

 

Anyway, danielwest76's post raises questions about the way the OP handled the situation, so like you originally assumed, we weren't hearing the whole story. Your suspicious nature served you well!

 

Let this be a reminder to all:

When sending a message about a specific cache to a cache owner, reviewer, or any other cacher, ALWAYS include the GC code.

[+Planet]

The CO is willing, the OP should send a link to which cache by email to the CO.

And it's done.

[Trinity's Crew]

The CO is willing, the OP should send a link to which cache by email to the CO.

And it's done.

Where's that fork??

[+tozainamboku]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

Who owns the property across the road from the neighbor you've been describing? It's that person who has a legit beef. Did that landowner grant permission?

 

Also, please note, the "Geocacher's Creed" is not part of the listing guidelines. While there are laudable principles in the Creed, review decisions are made per the listing guidelines. Here the issue is "compliance with applicable laws" and/or "adequate permission."

Maybe. But the following is in the guidelines

Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious. For example, a geocacher will likely be wrongly suspected of being malicious if a cache is hidden in full view of an office or apartment windows.

When you place a cache opposite someone's property, particularly on a residential or rural road in a spot where nobody would have a reason to stop and be searching, it tends to make property owners uncomfortable. They may just decide to call the police to investigate or, who knows, maybe take matters into there own hands. I'd say that's reason enough to archive a cache.

[Keystone]

I'm well aware of that specific guideline language, having authored its original version.

 

The issue is still permission. If the land owner across the street has granted permission, then I'd direct the OP's elderly neighbor to that land owner. The land owner can then revoke permission if persuaded to do so.

 

The quoted language comes into play as a basis for initiating the dialogue about permission.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Here's a thought...have you told the cache owner what the GC code is for the cache? Or perhaps the name of the cache? A lot of cachers have more than one cache, so unless specifics are given as to the exact cache in question it can sometimes be difficult to narrow down which cache needs the attention. I personally have 45 or so caches placed...if someone told me that my cache in the spruce tree needs attention that would only narrow it down to less than 10. Without specifics the CO isn't going to be able to do much unless this is the only cache they own.

 

Perhaps I'll elaborate a bit more on my post four comments ago. I know the CO personally, and have been receiving his side of the story over the past week or two. He would be happy to remove the cache as he does not wish any of his caches to cause issues for people. Unfortunately he has nearly 400 caches on this particular trail, and to date has not been provided with enough information (ie. GC-code or cache name) to be able to remove and archive the cache. He's a responsible cache owner and has archived numerous caches along his trail when issues have been brought to his attention.

 

Why didn't the responsible CO reply to the email sent by the OP and ask for the GC code himself if he wasn't clear which cache was being discussed?

[+jellis]

Here's a thought...have you told the cache owner what the GC code is for the cache? Or perhaps the name of the cache? A lot of cachers have more than one cache, so unless specifics are given as to the exact cache in question it can sometimes be difficult to narrow down which cache needs the attention. I personally have 45 or so caches placed...if someone told me that my cache in the spruce tree needs attention that would only narrow it down to less than 10. Without specifics the CO isn't going to be able to do much unless this is the only cache they own.

 

Perhaps I'll elaborate a bit more on my post four comments ago. I know the CO personally, and have been receiving his side of the story over the past week or two. He would be happy to remove the cache as he does not wish any of his caches to cause issues for people. Unfortunately he has nearly 400 caches on this particular trail, and to date has not been provided with enough information (ie. GC-code or cache name) to be able to remove and archive the cache. He's a responsible cache owner and has archived numerous caches along his trail when issues have been brought to his attention.

 

Why didn't the responsible CO reply to the email sent by the OP and ask for the GC code himself if he wasn't clear which cache was being discussed?

I agree. So are we back where we started?

[+jellis]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

Who owns the property across the road from the neighbor you've been describing? It's that person who has a legit beef. Did that landowner grant permission?

 

Also, please note, the "Geocacher's Creed" is not part of the listing guidelines. While there are laudable principles in the Creed, review decisions are made per the listing guidelines. Here the issue is "compliance with applicable laws" and/or "adequate permission."

Maybe. But the following is in the guidelines

Select an appropriate location and container. Think about how your container and the actions of geocachers seeking it will be perceived by the public. Although your geocache will be hidden with landowner permission, concerned passersby who are unaware of geocaching may view people searching the property as suspicious. For example, a geocacher will likely be wrongly suspected of being malicious if a cache is hidden in full view of an office or apartment windows.

When you place a cache opposite someone's property, particularly on a residential or rural road in a spot where nobody would have a reason to stop and be searching, it tends to make property owners uncomfortable. They may just decide to call the police to investigate or, who knows, maybe take matters into there own hands. I'd say that's reason enough to archive a cache.

This is what I was trying to convey in my thread. If the landowner or those who live within the distance to get upset about the cache placement, whether by heavy or infrequent activity, and wants the caches removed, then we as responsible cachers should respect that.

[+cerberus1]

Here's a thought...have you told the cache owner what the GC code is for the cache? Or perhaps the name of the cache? A lot of cachers have more than one cache, so unless specifics are given as to the exact cache in question it can sometimes be difficult to narrow down which cache needs the attention. I personally have 45 or so caches placed...if someone told me that my cache in the spruce tree needs attention that would only narrow it down to less than 10. Without specifics the CO isn't going to be able to do much unless this is the only cache they own.

 

Perhaps I'll elaborate a bit more on my post four comments ago. I know the CO personally, and have been receiving his side of the story over the past week or two. He would be happy to remove the cache as he does not wish any of his caches to cause issues for people. Unfortunately he has nearly 400 caches on this particular trail, and to date has not been provided with enough information (ie. GC-code or cache name) to be able to remove and archive the cache. He's a responsible cache owner and has archived numerous caches along his trail when issues have been brought to his attention.

 

Why didn't the responsible CO reply to the email sent by the OP and ask for the GC code himself if he wasn't clear which cache was being discussed?

 

If this is the same issue springing up from another thread and I remember it correctly, they already have a history.

I wouldn't respond to a CO I felt may "have an agenda" either. If the OP's original email didn't include this information, I'd probably wait until someone more trusted contacted me with the same problem. The other more demanding mails I'd probably forward to Groundspeak, hopefully to end this nonsense.

I looked at the COs who have multiple hides in the area and it doesn't appear any frequent the forums. I wouldn't think now would be a good time, though it may reinforce that there might be credibility issues present from another.

[+danielwest76]

Here's a thought...have you told the cache owner what the GC code is for the cache? Or perhaps the name of the cache? A lot of cachers have more than one cache, so unless specifics are given as to the exact cache in question it can sometimes be difficult to narrow down which cache needs the attention. I personally have 45 or so caches placed...if someone told me that my cache in the spruce tree needs attention that would only narrow it down to less than 10. Without specifics the CO isn't going to be able to do much unless this is the only cache they own.

 

Perhaps I'll elaborate a bit more on my post four comments ago. I know the CO personally, and have been receiving his side of the story over the past week or two. He would be happy to remove the cache as he does not wish any of his caches to cause issues for people. Unfortunately he has nearly 400 caches on this particular trail, and to date has not been provided with enough information (ie. GC-code or cache name) to be able to remove and archive the cache. He's a responsible cache owner and has archived numerous caches along his trail when issues have been brought to his attention.

 

Why didn't the responsible CO reply to the email sent by the OP and ask for the GC code himself if he wasn't clear which cache was being discussed?

 

To further enlighten, the OP is a newbie cacher in the area and by his own admission in a previous thread has taken up the role of 'cache cop' in the area. This current thread is but the latest in a recent string of run-ins between the CO and the OP, to the point that the CO has complained to Groundspeak and has been instructed not to contact the OP. So...the CO is stuck in a catch-22 situation. He wishes to resolve the issue, but for fear of further inflaming the situation can't. Perhaps the OP would lay his cards on the table and post the GC code here for all to see, or do what others have suggested in placing a NA so that at least then the CO would have a positive id on what cache has the issue.

[+Treknschmidt]

If this is the same issue springing up from another thread and I remember it correctly, they already have a history.

I wouldn't respond to a CO I felt may "have an agenda" either. If the OP's original email didn't include this information, I'd probably wait until someone more trusted contacted me with the same problem. The other more demanding mails I'd probably forward to Groundspeak, hopefully to end this nonsense.

I looked at the COs who have multiple hides in the area and it doesn't appear any frequent the forums. I wouldn't think now would be a good time, though it may reinforce that there might be credibility issues present from another.

 

You have nailed this correctly. As of right now the OP has done nothing but badger the CO and supplied no information to back up the claim of a frustrated neighbour. I can assure you the CO does not want or need the extra attention and therefore will not respond to this person as per instruction from Groundspeak. The proper way to handle this situation has been listed half a dozen times in this thread, so far the OP has chosen not to follow any of them. I would suggest this thread be locked down if it didn't serve as a learning process for other cachers.

[MisterEFQ]

Second Message to CO:

 

You can choose to ignore this, but be prepared for a bunch of DNF logs (maybe even an NA log). My neighbour has asked me what your response was to this. When I told him you had ignored it (for over a week now) he was not happy. He felt you have not taken responsibility for your role in this and the concern it is causing. In his words "if he isn't going to do anything about this I will just throw it in the garbage."

I do not wish to see any caches thrown in the garbage. I have asked him to let me attempt to contact you one more time. So this is it. How do you propose to deal with this?

In my view as the CO - you have a responsibility here. Time to step up to it.

 

If I got that type of tone in an email you would go right to my ignore list.

 

Which I'm sure happens to you all the time.

 

Bad boys

Bad boys

Whatcha gonna do?

Whatcha gonna do when

AneMae comes for you?

[Clan Riffster]

NOT a good idea to remove the cache!!!!!!

 

Sometimes, removing a cache is the best solution.

I've had a land manager question me during a hunt.

When I explained what I was doing, they asked me to remove the cache from their property.

I felt their request was reasonable, as no permission had been sought.

Oh. Almost forgot. Gotta add a bunch of exclamation points for dramatic effect!!!!!!

 

Post a "Needs Archiving".

Unless, of course, the cache does not need to be archived.

With this cache, that seems to be the case.

Person A is complaining about something on Person B's property.

Not exactly a "needs archived" scenario.

Though an e-mail to the Reviewer might be a good idea.

Let's save the NAs for caches that Need Archiving.

[+Treknschmidt]

Let's save the NAs for caches that Need Archiving.

 

Not necessarily it can be used in various scenarios just to grab the reviewers attention. Our reviewers often tell us to post a NA, if a cache is in trouble and the cache owner isn't responding than this IS the ideal thing to do. Let the reviewer handle it, especially in a scenario such as this when there is more to the story to be told.

 

*edit* For bad spelling

Edited March 7, 2012 by Treknschmidt

[Clan Riffster]

Our reviewers often tell us to post a NA, if a cache is in trouble and the cache owner isn't responding than this IS the ideal thing to do. Let the reviewer handle it, especially in a scenario such as this when there is more to the story to be told.

 

In your instance, the cache you described did need to be archived. If a cache is toast, and the owner is MIA, it Needs to be Archived, so the NA log type is perfectly appropriate. But that's not necessarily the case with the cache the OP described. We assume it has permission, and someone who knows the cache owner indicated that the owner is one who does get permission. It has an active owner. It is intact. It does not appear to be in violation of any guidelines. What part of that suggests it Needs Archiving?

 

If we take what we've read here as gospel, the only thing about this cache that would be a negative is that the guy who lives across the street from the cache doesn't like people stopping near his property. Having Mrs Kravitz as a neighbor is not a guideline violation, and as such, this cache does not necessarily Need to be Archived. Though it might be best to let the Reviewer know about it. An e-mail would accomplish this, without generating angst due to a misapplied log type.

 

Save the NAs for caches that Need Archiving.

[Mr.Yuck]

Perhaps I'll elaborate a bit more on my post four comments ago. I know the CO personally, and have been receiving his side of the story over the past week or two. He would be happy to remove the cache as he does not wish any of his caches to cause issues for people. Unfortunately he has nearly 400 caches on this particular trail, and to date has not been provided with enough information (ie. GC-code or cache name) to be able to remove and archive the cache. He's a responsible cache owner and has archived numerous caches along his trail when issues have been brought to his attention.

 

Interesting. Apparently not the first "London Loop" cache where there was a problem, and the cache owner couldn't even friggin' tell which cache of theirs it was that had a problem, or who the land owner was to contact. http://coord.info/GC2TKGD (Long story short, the cache owner obviously talked to the wrong land owner, and as I said previously, had no clue themselves which cache it was). But hey, I'll bet you they were within 5 caches and 2,500 feet of the correct one.

 

Sorry, but if you have a cache out there, and can't even tell which one it is that has a problem, that is just like totally over the top, in my humble opinion.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+popokiiti]

It is a shame that this has gone this way. With the right words and explanation, maybe the gentleman across the street could have become a cachers' friend. Perhaps get a "hello" and a chat about the weather. The poor man is probably lonely and may enjoy giving hints to those cachers having trouble making the find.

If I were the CO, the tone of those emails (intended or not) would have irritated me. Perhaps a pleasant note on the cache page would alert him to which one it is so he can remove it?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

 

To further enlighten, the OP is a newbie cacher in the area and by his own admission in a previous thread has taken up the role of 'cache cop' in the area. This current thread is but the latest in a recent string of run-ins between the CO and the OP, to the point that the CO has complained to Groundspeak and has been instructed not to contact the OP. So...the CO is stuck in a catch-22 situation. He wishes to resolve the issue, but for fear of further inflaming the situation can't. Perhaps the OP would lay his cards on the table and post the GC code here for all to see, or do what others have suggested in placing a NA so that at least then the CO would have a positive id on what cache has the issue.

 

Thanks for that. That certainly changes things. There might be a problem with the cache, but there is almost certainly a problem with the local cache cop.

 

The ball is pretty squarely in the OP's court now. Either let the CO know which cache it is or log your NA so that it can be fixed or archived. Whichever it is, it's time for the OP to move on with their caching life and quit with the made-up drama.

[+danielwest76]

Perhaps I'll elaborate a bit more on my post four comments ago. I know the CO personally, and have been receiving his side of the story over the past week or two. He would be happy to remove the cache as he does not wish any of his caches to cause issues for people. Unfortunately he has nearly 400 caches on this particular trail, and to date has not been provided with enough information (ie. GC-code or cache name) to be able to remove and archive the cache. He's a responsible cache owner and has archived numerous caches along his trail when issues have been brought to his attention.

 

Interesting. Apparently not the first "London Loop" cache where there was a problem, and the cache owner couldn't even friggin' tell which cache of theirs it was that had a problem, or who the land owner was to contact. http://coord.info/GC2TKGD (Long story short, the cache owner obviously talked to the wrong land owner, and as I said previously, had no clue themselves which cache it was). But hey, I'll bet you they were within 5 caches and 2,500 feet of the correct one.

 

Sorry, but if you have a cache out there, and can't even tell which one it is that has a problem, that is just like totally over the top, in my humble opinion.

 

You're very true in saying this isn't the first London Loop cache that's had a problem, and it's unlikely to be the last London Loop cache with a problem. Is that to say that London Loop caches are nothing but problems? No. The more caches you place the greater your odds of encountering a problem with one of them. Show me a CO who has NEVER had a problem with any of their caches and I'll show you someone who has placed very few, if any caches. I have about 45 caches out in the wild, all non-power trail hides and I've had problems with some of them. The key in resolving problems is that when someone reports a problem they take the time to give ALL the specifics to the CO... GC-code, cache name, physical description of the area, co-ordinates...anything and everything that will allow the CO who has more than one hide to quickly and accurately determine which cache is being talked about. For a relative newbie to send a CO an email saying that his neighbor has an issue with a cache placement falls far short of being able to identify where the cache is. As of yet the OP hasn't appeared at any social caching events so that the locals might get to know who he is. None of us yet knows where he lives, as we do with many of our caching friends (if treknschmidt told me their neighbor didn't like my cache being in front of their property I would know exactly which one it was...OP, haven't a clue...) It all comes back to effective communication with a true desire to resolve the issue, if the OP refuses to provide the information needed solve the problem, and instead decides to escalate the problem by sending more hostile emails and starting forum threads nothing will get resolved...though it does make for amusing reading for those of us outside of the situation.

[+Totem Clan]

 

To further enlighten, the OP is a newbie cacher in the area and by his own admission in a previous thread has taken up the role of 'cache cop' in the area. This current thread is but the latest in a recent string of run-ins between the CO and the OP, to the point that the CO has complained to Groundspeak and has been instructed not to contact the OP. So...the CO is stuck in a catch-22 situation. He wishes to resolve the issue, but for fear of further inflaming the situation can't. Perhaps the OP would lay his cards on the table and post the GC code here for all to see, or do what others have suggested in placing a NA so that at least then the CO would have a positive id on what cache has the issue.

 

Thanks for that. That certainly changes things. There might be a problem with the cache, but there is almost certainly a problem with the local cache cop.

 

The ball is pretty squarely in the OP's court now. Either let the CO know which cache it is or log your NA so that it can be fixed or archived. Whichever it is, it's time for the OP to move on with their caching life and quit with the made-up drama.

Well it seems that he has moved on. I would like to know why he hasn't posted a reply since the truth of the matter came out. Was he just trying to srir up trouble? Did he have some other agenda? Looks like we are going to be left to wonder.

 

Edit for typo

Edited March 7, 2012 by Totem Clan

[Mr.Yuck]

Perhaps I'll elaborate a bit more on my post four comments ago. I know the CO personally, and have been receiving his side of the story over the past week or two. He would be happy to remove the cache as he does not wish any of his caches to cause issues for people. Unfortunately he has nearly 400 caches on this particular trail, and to date has not been provided with enough information (ie. GC-code or cache name) to be able to remove and archive the cache. He's a responsible cache owner and has archived numerous caches along his trail when issues have been brought to his attention.

 

 

Interesting. Apparently not the first "London Loop" cache where there was a problem, and the cache owner couldn't even friggin' tell which cache of theirs it was that had a problem, or who the land owner was to contact. http://coord.info/GC2TKGD (Long story short, the cache owner obviously talked to the wrong land owner, and as I said previously, had no clue themselves which cache it was). But hey, I'll bet you they were within 5 caches and 2,500 feet of the correct one.

 

Sorry, but if you have a cache out there, and can't even tell which one it is that has a problem, that is just like totally over the top, in my humble opinion.

 

You're very true in saying this isn't the first London Loop cache that's had a problem, and it's unlikely to be the last London Loop cache with a problem. Is that to say that London Loop caches are nothing but problems? No. The more caches you place the greater your odds of encountering a problem with one of them. Show me a CO who has NEVER had a problem with any of their caches and I'll show you someone who has placed very few, if any caches. I have about 45 caches out in the wild, all non-power trail hides and I've had problems with some of them. The key in resolving problems is that when someone reports a problem they take the time to give ALL the specifics to the CO... GC-code, cache name, physical description of the area, co-ordinates...anything and everything that will allow the CO who has more than one hide to quickly and accurately determine which cache is being talked about. For a relative newbie to send a CO an email saying that his neighbor has an issue with a cache placement falls far short of being able to identify where the cache is. As of yet the OP hasn't appeared at any social caching events so that the locals might get to know who he is. None of us yet knows where he lives, as we do with many of our caching friends (if treknschmidt told me their neighbor didn't like my cache being in front of their property I would know exactly which one it was...OP, haven't a clue...) It all comes back to effective communication with a true desire to resolve the issue, if the OP refuses to provide the information needed solve the problem, and instead decides to escalate the problem by sending more hostile emails and starting forum threads nothing will get resolved...though it does make for amusing reading for those of us outside of the situation.

 

That's funny. I have exactly 45 hides myself. I was going to say something like "do you know how ridiculous it sounds to someone with 45 hides that you need a GC number to know which one of your caches has a problem"? But I guess I'd better not. I guess it boils down to myself being of the opinion rural roadside micro power trails are silly, and you being of the opinion "it's all caching, man". And don't worry, there are a lot more it's all caching, man people out there. I'm just grumpy.

 

Yes, I hang around here, I know you have a new "cache cop" who hasn't attended any social functions, who once even publicly accused the President of the OGA of breaking their first hide (that one lasted about 5 posts before being locked). But from what the original post says, your friend ignored her emails? Twice? You have to at least respond.

[+dakboy]

It is across the road, right in front of his house- so I would think that it is technically "Not" his private property. Does that mean that we can do whatever we want without thinking of others? I would say no.

Do you know for a fact that he doesn't own the land on both sides of the road? This is a common scenario in rural areas.

 

Once bothered, it's almost impossible to convince someone that he shouldn't be upset about something like this. I recall one cache in my area that was hidden just off a public trail, in a public park-like area, which a neighbor didn't like. The trail runs through a large wooded section of a residential area, with most access from trailheads outside the residential area. So obviously you've got private property butting up against the trails. This neighbor didn't like that people were getting closer to his property than the trail itself, and gave a few cachers some trouble & claimed they were on his property. Check all the maps and everything, the neighbor is clearly in the wrong, as the cache is quite a distance from the property line.

 

Better to just let him think he's right & remove the cache than to let the situation escalate by proving otherwise. People like this get defensive and cause even more trouble when it's pointed out to them that they're wrong.

[+Planet]

Yes, I hang around here, I know you have a new "cache cop" who hasn't attended any social functions, who once even publicly accused the President of the OGA of breaking their first hide (that one lasted about 5 posts before being locked). But from what the original post says, your friend ignored her emails? Twice? You have to at least respond.

 

Scroll back. The CO cannot respond to the OP because the OP has been badgering theem and harassing them, and Groundspeak told the CO not to respond to the OP.

The only thing that needs to happen here, is for the OP to stop playing drama cop and give the CO a link to which cache it is. It is so simple, this could have been dealt with days ago, but the OP is more interested in stirring the pot around here, than in taking care of business. This is getting tiresome.

[+Totem Clan]

Perhaps I'll elaborate a bit more on my post four comments ago. I know the CO personally, and have been receiving his side of the story over the past week or two. He would be happy to remove the cache as he does not wish any of his caches to cause issues for people. Unfortunately he has nearly 400 caches on this particular trail, and to date has not been provided with enough information (ie. GC-code or cache name) to be able to remove and archive the cache. He's a responsible cache owner and has archived numerous caches along his trail when issues have been brought to his attention.

 

 

Interesting. Apparently not the first "London Loop" cache where there was a problem, and the cache owner couldn't even friggin' tell which cache of theirs it was that had a problem, or who the land owner was to contact. http://coord.info/GC2TKGD (Long story short, the cache owner obviously talked to the wrong land owner, and as I said previously, had no clue themselves which cache it was). But hey, I'll bet you they were within 5 caches and 2,500 feet of the correct one.

 

Sorry, but if you have a cache out there, and can't even tell which one it is that has a problem, that is just like totally over the top, in my humble opinion.

 

You're very true in saying this isn't the first London Loop cache that's had a problem, and it's unlikely to be the last London Loop cache with a problem. Is that to say that London Loop caches are nothing but problems? No. The more caches you place the greater your odds of encountering a problem with one of them. Show me a CO who has NEVER had a problem with any of their caches and I'll show you someone who has placed very few, if any caches. I have about 45 caches out in the wild, all non-power trail hides and I've had problems with some of them. The key in resolving problems is that when someone reports a problem they take the time to give ALL the specifics to the CO... GC-code, cache name, physical description of the area, co-ordinates...anything and everything that will allow the CO who has more than one hide to quickly and accurately determine which cache is being talked about. For a relative newbie to send a CO an email saying that his neighbor has an issue with a cache placement falls far short of being able to identify where the cache is. As of yet the OP hasn't appeared at any social caching events so that the locals might get to know who he is. None of us yet knows where he lives, as we do with many of our caching friends (if treknschmidt told me their neighbor didn't like my cache being in front of their property I would know exactly which one it was...OP, haven't a clue...) It all comes back to effective communication with a true desire to resolve the issue, if the OP refuses to provide the information needed solve the problem, and instead decides to escalate the problem by sending more hostile emails and starting forum threads nothing will get resolved...though it does make for amusing reading for those of us outside of the situation.

 

That's funny. I have exactly 45 hides myself. I was going to say something like "do you know how ridiculous it sounds to someone with 45 hides that you need a GC number to know which one of your caches has a problem"? But I guess I'd better not. I guess it boils down to myself being of the opinion rural roadside micro power trails are silly, and you being of the opinion "it's all caching, man". And don't worry, there are a lot more it's all caching, man people out there. I'm just grumpy.

 

Yes, I hang around here, I know you have a new "cache cop" who hasn't attended any social functions, who once even publicly accused the President of the OGA of breaking their first hide (that one lasted about 5 posts before being locked). But from what the original post says, your friend ignored her emails? Twice? You have to at least respond.

That's great that you can keep up with your 45 hides, but there are over 300 hides in the London Loop trail. The OP not given the cache name or the GC# to the CO was irresponsible.

[Mr.Yuck]

Yes, I hang around here, I know you have a new "cache cop" who hasn't attended any social functions, who once even publicly accused the President of the OGA of breaking their first hide (that one lasted about 5 posts before being locked). But from what the original post says, your friend ignored her emails? Twice? You have to at least respond.

 

Scroll back. The CO cannot respond to the OP because the OP has been badgering theem and harassing them, and Groundspeak told the CO not to respond to the OP.

The only thing that needs to happen here, is for the OP to stop playing drama cop and give the CO a link to which cache it is. It is so simple, this could have been dealt with days ago, but the OP is more interested in stirring the pot around here, than in taking care of business. This is getting tiresome.

 

I found it, even though it gave me a headache doing so.

 

That would boil down to, in my opinion, to whether or not the "ignore the complainer" declaration came before the 2 emails quoted in the OP.

[knowschad]

Show me a CO who has NEVER had a problem with any of their caches and I'll show you someone who has placed very few, if any caches.

(raises hand) I have never had private property disputes on any of my caches. Not even close.

[+Totem Clan]

Yes, I hang around here, I know you have a new "cache cop" who hasn't attended any social functions, who once even publicly accused the President of the OGA of breaking their first hide (that one lasted about 5 posts before being locked). But from what the original post says, your friend ignored her emails? Twice? You have to at least respond.

 

Scroll back. The CO cannot respond to the OP because the OP has been badgering theem and harassing them, and Groundspeak told the CO not to respond to the OP.

The only thing that needs to happen here, is for the OP to stop playing drama cop and give the CO a link to which cache it is. It is so simple, this could have been dealt with days ago, but the OP is more interested in stirring the pot around here, than in taking care of business. This is getting tiresome.

 

I found it, even though it gave me a headache doing so.

 

That would boil down to, in my opinion, to whether or not the "ignore the complainer" declaration came before the 2 emails quoted in the OP.

From my understaning it was before this.

 

The OP is very brazen about using email to take, what he thinks are secret jabs at anyone who doesn't agree with him. He seems think that becuase it's not on the forum it's not GC's business. I know this from a personal attack he launched on me.

[+Totem Clan]

Show me a CO who has NEVER had a problem with any of their caches and I'll show you someone who has placed very few, if any caches.

(raises hand) I have never had private property disputes on any of my caches. Not even close.

I've never had a property dispute.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

That's great that you can keep up with your 45 hides, but there are over 300 hides in the London Loop trail. The OP not given the cache name or the GC# to the CO was irresponsible.

 

True. I am guilty of not absorbing every piece of drama-filled evidence introduced in the thread. I did link to another London Loop cache that was archived last summer (twice) because the cache owner couldn't figure out what cache it was, and obviously talked to the wrong irate land owner for permission!

 

The OP withholding which cache it is, yes, irresponsible.

[Mr.Yuck]

On a side note, can I have a London Loop cache named after me? C'mon, please? I mean I have to have a better chance than AneMae.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[Clan Riffster]

Show me a CO who has NEVER had a problem with any of their caches and I'll show you someone who has placed very few, if any caches.

(raises hand) I have never had private property disputes on any of my caches. Not even close.

<stands next to the bespecled pooch. raises hand) I only have about 60 active hides. Never had a private property dispute.

[+Castle Mischief]

Show me a CO who has NEVER had a problem with any of their caches and I'll show you someone who has placed very few, if any caches.

(raises hand) I have never had private property disputes on any of my caches. Not even close.

<stands next to the bespecled pooch. raises hand) I only have about 60 active hides. Never had a private property dispute.

 

...that couldn't be settled with a walk in the swamp and a quick game of "feed Mr. Gator", am I right?

Edited March 7, 2012 by Castle Mischief

[knowschad]

Show me a CO who has NEVER had a problem with any of their caches and I'll show you someone who has placed very few, if any caches.

(raises hand) I have never had private property disputes on any of my caches. Not even close.

<stands next to the bespecled pooch. raises hand) I only have about 60 active hides. Never had a private property dispute.

 

...that couldn't be settled with a walk in the swamp and a quick game of "feed Mr. Gator", am I right?

 

You forgot to mention the wet manssiere.

[+danielwest76]

Mr. Yuck, I'll put your name in with the CO, I'm pretty sure he's still looking for names, and I like your style here. Lol

[+Totem Clan]

Mr. Yuck, I'll put your name in with the CO, I'm pretty sure he's still looking for names, and I like your style here. Lol

Name one after me and the OP will trash it or stay away from it. One or the other.