Found or Not Found - Or am I just being grumpy?!

[+SwineFlew]

I would delete all the logs. And since they are being rude I personally wouldn't even send them an email explaining why, but that's just me. your friends can do it my way, but since he is new he should probably do it the nice polite way and email all those who logged it asking they change their logs or he will delete them.

 

I agree with this. If it was me, I would delete the rude notes, as well as the fake "found it" logs.

 

A cache page is not a forum thread, and it's inappropriate to use it as such.

 

Mind you, the cache owner should remove that bit that basically said it was okay to write notes:

 

ALSO, If you are not prepared to sign the logbook then don't log it as FOUND By all means write a note saying you found it but do not log it as found!

 

That is a bad, bad thing to put on a cache page...as witnessed by people bashing the cache hide.

 

And, yes, the cache owner can edit the cache page, as well as delete logs.

 

B.

 

Those people bashing the hide should stop their entitled whinging and accept that they're not gonna have all caches plopped in their laps to sign with zero effort.

 

Just got to post a note on a similar hide in Idaho today -- seems like new cachers need to do some more reading of the rules.

I got bad news for you, turning the cache page into a forum is a big no no as well. You might wanna do a little more reading as well. That note of yours was wrong since it isnt your cache or the community's.

[+GeoBain]

I got bad news for you, turning the cache page into a forum is a big no no as well. You might wanna do a little more reading as well. That note of yours was wrong since it isnt your cache or the community's.

 

Actually, it is kind of the community's. At least that's what the reviewer implies.

[+SwineFlew]

I got bad news for you, turning the cache page into a forum is a big no no as well. You might wanna do a little more reading as well. That note of yours was wrong since it isnt your cache or the community's.

 

Actually, it is kind of the community's. At least that's what the reviewer implies.

I see that but look at the date of the reviewer log and plus, the CO logged back in. I dont think reviewer are allow to be a cache police like they use to. GS seems to getting away from it over time if the cache become owner less.

 

The best thing is to archive that cache.

Edited September 30, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+Valeites]

I started this thread as a way to gain advice and perspective as to what I thought where harsh posts, claiming finds when the log clearly (and was stated) had not been signed. I wanted other opinions as I thought i may have been over reacting because it was a friend that placed the cache. I looked to people that have been caching for a much longer time then myself, and have a greater experience of the different types of hiding places. Guernsey has a large amount of tupperware hidden in relatively easy places, it's good to see something different from time to time! But to see someone else's idea berated as being stupid I found to be upsetting (Again, I likely took that harder then I should due to the friendship.)

 

I have no issue that Valeites and others did not feel it was safe to try to receive the cache, I myself will not attempt this until I have the help of others/climbers. I believe the issue has come from the rudeness of the original posts (which have now been archived) and that several finds had been wrongly claimed.

 

Hopefully we've all learned something!

 

Agreed all round, and lessons learned by all; and the "Write Note" post wording has been revised.

 

The point was simply to recognise that the GC community here is largely young families with small kids - as evidenced by the predominance of tupperware boxes hidden where young kids can find them. Easy finds for most reasonable adults in most cases. Therefore, a cache of this sort needs to be flagged as such to identify it as outside the range of the majority.

 

We have no issue with difficult cache placement; indeed the challenge is more than welcomed - the issue is simply with the seeming safety issues around it.

 

Perhaps a little tolerance all round is the solution; particularly as we seem to be the sole target of the criticism although others posted similarly. Rest assured that the volume of vile messages received is an indication of far more extreme views than those posted in the log. Time for everyone to move on.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Valeites

[+MartyBartfast]

Edit: the point I made has been addressed now so no need to continue.

Edited September 30, 2012 by MartyBartfast

[+niraD]

Therefore, a cache of this sort needs to be flagged as such to identify it as outside the range of the majority.

That's a good point. Maybe the cache owner should have listed it as 4.5-star terrain, and maybe added the "difficult climb" attribute.

 

Oh, wait, he did.

 

We have no issue with difficult cache placement; indeed the challenge is more than welcomed - the issue is simply with the seeming safety issues around it.

As has been mentioned before in the forums, safety is not a concern of the cache listing guidelines. If it were, then most high-terrain caches (like this one) would be archived because they're generally unsafe for anyone without the necessary skills, equipment, and preparation.

[Mr.Yuck]

I would delete all the logs. And since they are being rude I personally wouldn't even send them an email explaining why, but that's just me. your friends can do it my way, but since he is new he should probably do it the nice polite way and email all those who logged it asking they change their logs or he will delete them.

 

I agree with this. If it was me, I would delete the rude notes, as well as the fake "found it" logs.

 

A cache page is not a forum thread, and it's inappropriate to use it as such.

 

Mind you, the cache owner should remove that bit that basically said it was okay to write notes:

 

ALSO, If you are not prepared to sign the logbook then don't log it as FOUND By all means write a note saying you found it but do not log it as found!

 

That is a bad, bad thing to put on a cache page...as witnessed by people bashing the cache hide.

 

And, yes, the cache owner can edit the cache page, as well as delete logs.

 

B.

 

Just got to post a note on a similar hide in Idaho today -- seems like new cachers need to do some more reading of the rules.

 

Wow, that is really strange (and interesting). People have been harping back and forth about that one for over 5 years!! Is that really what happens when someone puts out a tree climbing cache, forgets about it, and never maintains it? I don't know, I guess I've never come across such a situation before.

 

 

Perhaps a little tolerance all round is the solution; particularly as we seem to be the sole target of the criticism although others posted similarly. Rest assured that the volume of vile messages received is an indication of far more extreme views than those posted in the log. Time for everyone to move on.

 

Vile messages? You mean here in this forum, or you have actually received emails over this situation?

Edited September 30, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+Valeites]

I would delete all the logs. And since they are being rude I personally wouldn't even send them an email explaining why, but that's just me. your friends can do it my way, but since he is new he should probably do it the nice polite way and email all those who logged it asking they change their logs or he will delete them.

 

I agree with this. If it was me, I would delete the rude notes, as well as the fake "found it" logs.

 

A cache page is not a forum thread, and it's inappropriate to use it as such.

 

Mind you, the cache owner should remove that bit that basically said it was okay to write notes:

 

ALSO, If you are not prepared to sign the logbook then don't log it as FOUND By all means write a note saying you found it but do not log it as found!

 

That is a bad, bad thing to put on a cache page...as witnessed by people bashing the cache hide.

 

And, yes, the cache owner can edit the cache page, as well as delete logs.

 

B.

 

Just got to post a note on a similar hide in Idaho today -- seems like new cachers need to do some more reading of the rules.

 

Wow, that is really strange (and interesting). People have been harping back and forth about that one for over 5 years!! Is that really what happens when someone puts out a tree climbing cache, forgets about it, and never maintains it? I don't know, I guess I've never come across such a situation before.

 

 

Perhaps a little tolerance all round is the solution; particularly as we seem to be the sole target of the criticism although others posted similarly. Rest assured that the volume of vile messages received is an indication of far more extreme views than those posted in the log. Time for everyone to move on.

 

Vile messages? You mean here in this forum, or you have actually received emails over this situation?

 

Emails ... now deleted; and profile settings adjusted. Forum posts, whilst some are possibly able to be read as aggressive, have been helpful ... even those referring to other similar caches elsewhere, and an innocent mistake has now been adjusted.

Edited September 30, 2012 by Valeites

[+NYPaddleCacher]

That is indeed the Concrete Stack! It's located next to a small parking area next to the coast. I went this evening to have a look, and can understand peoples misgivings about trying to locate the cache! The first line of steel hand holds (the rusty lines of spots) is just above my head (i'm 5'8"). The other two sides of the stack are plain concrete. I would be tempted to try it with the local climbing club, or people with those skills! I certainly won't be getting a smiley on this in a while!

 

I assume that the container is at the top of the structure (a magnetic cache stuck on one of those pipes?).

 

IF that first set if rusted spots is about 6' from the ground, it seems to me that a 24 foot ladder (I've got a 20 foot ladder in my back yard) would get you very close to the top. Combine a tall ladder with a partner on the ground and some good rope and you could probably figure out how to get to the cache.

 

There's a cache on a similar tower (but probably twice as high) placed by Vinny&Sue that's on a small island in the middle of a river. It hasn't been found very often but some have managed to do it. Unlike this one, however, I don't believe that the container is visible from the ground. I wonder if the CO on the cache discussed here might not have had as many issues if they just put it at the top of the tower where it wasn't visible from the ground. It would have avoided all the "I saw the cache so I'm logging it as a find" logs.

 

BTW, I've seen a young, fit, college student scale structures like that without the use of ropes. It was pretty impressive, but there's no way that I could do it.

[+steben6]

These are definitely not found! One of the basic requirements listed in the guidelines is that a "found" log can only happen on physical caches once the cache is found and the cache log is signed:

 

"3.1. Logging of All Physical Geocaches

 

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

[updated 4/23/2012]

 

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

The cache owner may delete the bogus logs, if they desired. I would first email those who logged the find and give them the opportunity to change their "found it" log to a "note." If they don't, I would delete their logs. The cache description pretty much says it is a tough find.

 

I'm waiting for the official Toz response.

 

I'm waiting for the official Toz response.

 

The official Toz response does not apply. If the found it logs were posted by some that didn't find the cache and sign the log, the cache owner is justified in deleting the logs. The official Toz response would apply if the CO owner allowed the found it logs for those that "saw the cache" but didn't sign the log.

While steben6 is misinterpreting (and quoting out of context) that section of the guideline, NYPaddleCacher is correct that the cache owner may delete find logs if the physical log is not signed. What's more is the cache owner may delete logs for being off topic or otherwise inappropriate. It is generally considered inappropriate to use the cache page as a discussion forum as to whether or not a certain cache is a good idea.

 

If there is any doubt about toz's official position on this cache, I refer to this cache that I was FTF on back in 2004.

Not sure how I was misinterpreting or quoting out of context. I cut and pasted the quote directly from the Knowledge Books. And the intent seems pretty clear. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[+OZ2CPU]

please also tell your CO friend, to delete alle notes and not-smart comments.

a cache log page is NOT a forum to discuss maters..

I would LOVE to go and find this cache,

looks exactly like the kind of phycical challenge I LOVE to see how I can handle it with my equipment.

[+hzoi]

The point was simply to recognise that the GC community here is largely young families with small kids - as evidenced by the predominance of tupperware boxes hidden where young kids can find them. Easy finds for most reasonable adults in most cases. Therefore, a cache of this sort needs to be flagged as such to identify it as outside the range of the majority.

 

Isn't that what the difficulty/terrain ratings are for? The owner specified it'd be a climb and he gave high ratings for both difficulty and terrain. Are Guernsey cachers so unable to fend for themselves that they need additional guidance? They must be made of tougher stuff in Jersey, I never saw any of these histrionics when I cached there.

 

And speaking of singling out, if you're that concerned about Guernsey caches that may not be child friendly, why have you singled out this cache? What about Chateau Gateau, or On the Edge, or any of the kayak caches around the island?

[+Valeites]

The point was simply to recognise that the GC community here is largely young families with small kids - as evidenced by the predominance of tupperware boxes hidden where young kids can find them. Easy finds for most reasonable adults in most cases. Therefore, a cache of this sort needs to be flagged as such to identify it as outside the range of the majority.

 

Isn't that what the difficulty/terrain ratings are for? The owner specified it'd be a climb and he gave high ratings for both difficulty and terrain. Are Guernsey cachers so unable to fend for themselves that they need additional guidance? They must be made of tougher stuff in Jersey, I never saw any of these histrionics when I cached there.

 

And speaking of singling out, if you're that concerned about Guernsey caches that may not be child friendly, why have you singled out this cache? What about Chateau Gateau, or On the Edge, or any of the kayak caches around the island?

 

lol ... love your post and your infatuation with Jersey ... obviously not read all the relevant previous ones ... as previously stated, kayak ones are fine, have also done Chateau Gateau and On the Edge without any qualms ... they're not the same at all ... but feel free to continue the bashing

Edited October 1, 2012 by Valeites

[+GeoBain]

The point was simply to recognise that the GC community here is largely young families with small kids - as evidenced by the predominance of tupperware boxes hidden where young kids can find them. Easy finds for most reasonable adults in most cases. Therefore, a cache of this sort needs to be flagged as such to identify it as outside the range of the majority.

 

Isn't that what the difficulty/terrain ratings are for? The owner specified it'd be a climb and he gave high ratings for both difficulty and terrain. Are Guernsey cachers so unable to fend for themselves that they need additional guidance? They must be made of tougher stuff in Jersey, I never saw any of these histrionics when I cached there.

 

And speaking of singling out, if you're that concerned about Guernsey caches that may not be child friendly, why have you singled out this cache? What about Chateau Gateau, or On the Edge, or any of the kayak caches around the island?

 

lol ... love your post and your infatuation with Jersey ... obviously not read all the relevant previous ones ... as previously stated, kayak ones are fine, have also done Chateau Gateau and On the Edge without any qualms ... they're not the same at all ... but feel free to continue the bashing

 

Other than the fact that this one seems to be outside of your comfort zone, what is different?

 

There is nothing wrong with looking at a cache location and deciding it's too difficult or dangerous for you to do. But there is already a FTF on this cache, so it looks like it is doable without dying. Why is this terrain 4.5 with climbing attribute different than the other 4.5 terrain climbing attribute caches?

[+mountainman38]

 

I got bad news for you, turning the cache page into a forum is a big no no as well. You might wanna do a little more reading as well. That note of yours was wrong since it isnt your cache or the community's.

 

Actually, it is a community cache -- hence my reason for posting. It's understandable that you wouldn't know the history of the cache, but the CO hasn't found a cache since 2005, so they are not considered to be actively caring for it (don't know how the "Last Online Activity" thing works).

 

Cachers, generally ones with little experience, will periodically go look for this cache, complain bitterly about how unsafe and ridiculous it is, then claim it as a find since they saw it (60 feet or so up a tree). People from the community will let them know this isn't how it works, they will get angry about it, a reviewer will step in to help them see the light and change their logs, and the reviewer will then delete the extra postings.

 

So yeah, it is a community issue.

[+mountainman38]

...The best thing is to archive that cache.

 

Why would this be exactly, Swineflew? Do you have some sort of sixth sense that tells you these difficult caches, which are very much appreciated by a certain segment of the geocaching community, should be done away with because it causes some controversy with entitled cachers who think they should be able to claim all caches everywhere, whether they can get to them or not?

 

Spare us your armchair quarterbacking.

[+mountainman38]

SNIP

Wow, that is really strange (and interesting). People have been harping back and forth about that one for over 5 years!! Is that really what happens when someone puts out a tree climbing cache, forgets about it, and never maintains it? I don't know, I guess I've never come across such a situation before.

 

I'm glad that it's still in play, and think it's a rather nice testament to the responsibility of the community that it's still up and running. I also appreciate the fact that Groundspeak has allowed it to continue, since (from my perspective) there are far too few tough caches like this.

[+GeoBain]

People from the community will let them know this isn't how it works, they will get angry about it, a reviewer will step in to help them see the light and change their logs, and the reviewer will then delete the extra postings.

 

...The best thing is to archive that cache.

 

Why would this be exactly, Swineflew? Do you have some sort of sixth sense that tells you these difficult caches, which are very much appreciated by a certain segment of the geocaching community, should be done away with because it causes some controversy with entitled cachers who think they should be able to claim all caches everywhere, whether they can get to them or not?

 

Spare us your armchair quarterbacking.

 

I don't know about Swineflew and I don't know much about this particular cache. But as a general rule I think that once the CO stops caring for the cache it should be archived.

 

Of course, this may be a special cache of some sort. I know nothing about it. Perhaps it deserves to be kept going. But I think the fact that a reviewer has to step in from time to time and clean things up shows why caches should generally be archived once there is no CO to care for the cache and/or the listing.

 

But back to the OP. There IS an active CO. This is a brand new cache. The CO has properly listed the terrain and even added the climbing attribute as a bonus. So he is well within his rights to delete any found logs admitting to not signing the log. It would kind of dilute Gary the goat's victory if he didn't.

 

(Well, I bet Gary the goat would feel quite accomplished regardless of any bogus find logs.)

[Yogi bear (GSY)]

Not to restart the thread, but i was asked whether i had attempted this cache because of this 'palava'. I successfully found it. No safety equipment used. I am certaintly not old, but am not 'spritely' any more either. The cache IS NOT VISIBLE from ground level, so getting photos of it are as difficult / more difficult than signing the log. There are two entries in the log, Gary the goat and mine.

 

Keep at it TOMGSY (though you should have called yourself GSYTOM)