Does this cache need to be archived?

October 8, 2012

This is about a LPC cache with a yellow jackets nest.

Prior to our visit, logs showed that the container was broken and there was a yellow jacket nest. There was a NM log but no action. Someone put a needs archived log because of the situation but the reviewer said that was not grounds for archiving.

Then some cachers got stung and the situation was so bad that they could not put the cache back. The next person put an NM log. When we went the cache was no longer there but the bees sure were.

Because of the bees and the fact that the cache was missing, we suggested that it be archived for safety reasons. The reviewer stated: I was summoned here by the "needs archived" log. There is nothing in the listing guidelines about bees or safety, so I am leaving this for the cache owner to handle as they best see fit.

As a response, I put a NM log.

The next cacher had a DNF and a bee sting. The next one wrote a note and said they found the remnants of the cache and replaced everything. The next one found a large nest and no cache, so they placed a new one and claimed a find. The latest logs indicate a missing cache and presence of bees.

I still think that this one should be archived. Cachers are being stung, the cache is missing and the CO has done nothing about any of the NM logs.

http://coord.info/GC2QD3J

1.1k · October 8, 2012

Unfortunately, it's the throw downs and finds that are keeping this one from getting archived. The bees are not the problem, it's the neglect by the CO (based on what you provided).

6.1k · October 8, 2012

The reviewer probably would like to archive it, but cannot simply because of a bees nest. If it is missing, put that in the NA note and it will probably take a month or so..

5.7k · October 8, 2012

Add Wasp spray to your cache bag.

3.7k · October 8, 2012

A container that's missing for months is certainly grounds for archiving. Unfortunately, the reviewers don't archive for safety reasons.

Best you can do is #1 try emailing the cache owner #2 posting warning notes on the cache page #3 posting a warning note on the lamppost itself.

Not sure where you live but winter's coming, the wasps should be dying soon.

22k · October 8, 2012

The bees are not the problem, it's the neglect by the CO (based on what you provided).

Bingo.

How about a three month no response, it's not the reviewers fault your cache was disabled and archived another three months later policy?

Granted I've been working on those two years no response cache owners.

Edited October 8, 2012 by BlueDeuce

7.3k · October 8, 2012

Sounds like it should be archived for a couple of reasons, just not the "safety" aspect.

At the very least it should be disabled.

The last 3 logs:

Didn't find it
10/07/2012

Went to ground zero. Have seen plenty of these before but didn't find. GZ was freshly painted and had plastic tape wrapped around it. Guessing maybe due to the live yellow jackets nest that is present. Be careful when checking this one.

Write note
08/19/2012

Parking lot has recently been paved and ground zero is caution taped off.

Didn't find it
08/16/2012

I would suspect that the cache is missing. The hiding place has been tampered with as well as wasps present.

B.

14k · October 8, 2012

This is about a LPC cache with a yellow jackets nest.

Prior to our visit, logs showed that the container was broken and there was a yellow jacket nest. There was a NM log but no action. Someone put a needs archived log because of the situation but the reviewer said that was not grounds for archiving.

Then some cachers got stung and the situation was so bad that they could not put the cache back. The next person put an NM log. When we went the cache was no longer there but the bees sure were.

Because of the bees and the fact that the cache was missing, we suggested that it be archived for safety reasons. The reviewer stated: I was summoned here by the "needs archived" log. There is nothing in the listing guidelines about bees or safety, so I am leaving this for the cache owner to handle as they best see fit.

As a response, I put a NM log.

The next cacher had a DNF and a bee sting. The next one wrote a note and said they found the remnants of the cache and replaced everything. The next one found a large nest and no cache, so they placed a new one and claimed a find. The latest logs indicate a missing cache and presence of bees.

I still think that this one should be archived. Cachers are being stung, the cache is missing and the CO has done nothing about any of the NM logs.

http://coord.info/GC2QD3J

All this drama over an LPC?

A couple of years ago the oldest cache in my area (placed in 2001) was archived by the CO due to a ground bees nest near the cache. It didn't even have a recent needs maintenance log on it but a recent Found it log had mentioned the bees. The CO didn't live real close but still had managed to maintain it for several years after she moved and the community helped out occasionally but the bees were the last straw I guess.

38.2k · October 8, 2012

No because of the bees, yes because the owner isn't maintaining the cache.

5.7k · October 8, 2012

I have found a listing with ground dwelling yellow jackets at GZ where the owner wanted the cache left exactly in place, but others moved it and a few got stung. We also have a listing that some yellow jackets that build nests above ground came after we placed the cache last Fall. I have the listing Temp Disabled now waiting out the bees, and seems one stage with UV ink has become moist and needs replacement. I do like to be warned about bees, and when we were allowed to place guardrail hides here in Virginia, Wasps were a common problem with hide-a-key P&G's. If the owner is not maintaining it, then it should be archived. Too much "community" help with the throw down caches keep others from placing and maintaining a listing. Is the listing or location that important that it is allowed to remain because of age and photo uploads or something?

1.3k · October 8, 2012

They won't archive for safety reasons, but will for permission issues.

Does the CO have permission from the bees yellow jackets to place the cache?

Edited October 8, 2012 by frinklabs

October 8, 2012

All this drama over an LPC?

A couple of years ago the oldest cache in my area (placed in 2001) was archived by the CO due to a ground bees nest near the cache. It didn't even have a recent needs maintenance log on it but a recent Found it log had mentioned the bees. The CO didn't live real close but still had managed to maintain it for several years after she moved and the community helped out occasionally but the bees were the last straw I guess.

We had a DNF on a cache in Calif because rattler was sharing the same hole as the cache. That one did not get archived either but I really had no problem with that one as it was located in the hills and would draw a certain kind of cacher.

The Pennsylvania cache however seems to be located in an area easily accessible to families and children, some of whom have been stung. I realize that bees are certainly not as much of a safety factor as a rattler, however, I think the location and the type of cacher attempting it should be taken into consideration.

19k · October 8, 2012

They won't archive for safety reasons, but will for permission issues.

Does the CO have permission from the bees to place the cache?

I agree with 99% of the responses in this thread.

1.4k · October 8, 2012

I'd put money on the CO not having permission to have a cache in that particular lamp post.

19k · October 8, 2012

I'd put money on the CO not having permission to have a cache in that particular lamp post.

I assume you are referring to explicit permission?

1.3k · October 8, 2012

I'd put money on the CO not having permission to have a cache in that particular lamp post.

I assume you are referring to explicit permission?

If the bees yellow jackets do not sting you, is permission implicit?

Edited October 8, 2012 by frinklabs

4.4k · October 8, 2012

Yellow jackets are not bees. Bees are beneficial; we need them.

A little shot of carbaryl (ant dust) and patience (a day or two) will get rid of wasps.

I got attacked by wasps at a cache this summer. They won the battle, but I won the war. :bad:

1.3k · October 8, 2012

Yellow jackets are not bees. Bees are beneficial; we need them.

A little shot of carbaryl (ant dust) and patience (a day or two) will get rid of wasps.

I got attacked by wasps at a cache this summer. They won the battle, but I won the war.

Sorry about that. In the interest of entomological accuracy, I have edited my previous posts.

And apparently, yellow jackets are also beneficial; they are "important predators of pest insects":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_jackets which cites Akre, R.D. et al. (1980) The yellowjackets of America north of Mexico. USDA Agriculture Handbook 552. 102 pp.

But can they give permission for placing a cache?

6.5k · October 8, 2012

Archive because of yellow jackets-no.

Archive because the CO isn't maintaining their cache and hasn't even logged on in a few months-maybe.

What if the wasp nest was 5' from the cache-archive it then?

How about 15' or 25'?

Nope-safety isn't a guideline issue.

Caches shouldn't be archived on safety issues.

October 8, 2012

I wouldn't archive it but I would probably disable it and send an e-mail to the C.O. requesting maintenance be performed and let the owner re-enable when done. That way it would be in the hands of the owner. But that's just me and my opinion. Everyone has one and the thing to remember is that we all need to respect the decisions made by the reviewers.

9.3k · October 9, 2012

Since it's an LPC, the answer is most emphatically "Yes", regardless of the yellow jackets😄

But seriously, if you really want this to go away, head into the anchor store where the cache is located. Poke around till you identify several people in management. Find the one who looks the most paranoid. Explain to them that there is a 'deadly danger' present in their parking lot, (widen your eyes for maximum dramatic effect), and that if they allow it to continue, they could be personably liable. Tell them about the cache, and the yellow jackets, whilst hinting at anaphylactic shock. Show them the section of the guidelines which require explicit permission for hides on private property, then ask, with a lowered, secretive tone and many furtive glances, " Were you the one who gave permission for that hide?".

Assuming your acting skills are up to par, you should then be able to post a "Needs Archived" log expressing that the property manager did not authorize the cache, and demands it be removed immediately. Hopefully, your success in this endeavor will motivate you to try the same method on every LPC in your neighborhood. Within just a short time, the average quality of caches local to you will skyrocket.😉

October 9, 2012

Another thought is to log a DNF, post in the DNF logs that others who attempt this should also post DNF's (not sure if this would help as the many people looking for this cache don't seem to heed the bee warnings). Our reviewer will request the owner check on a cache that has a lot of DNFs. Eventually if the owner does not respond, they will archive the cache. Just a thought.

1.4k · October 9, 2012

Since it's an LPC, the answer is most emphatically "Yes", regardless of the yellow jackets😄

But seriously, if you really want this to go away, head into the anchor store where the cache is located. Poke around till you identify several people in management. Find the one who looks the most paranoid. Explain to them that there is a 'deadly danger' present in their parking lot, (widen your eyes for maximum dramatic effect), and that if they allow it to continue, they could be personably liable. Tell them about the cache, and the yellow jackets, whilst hinting at anaphylactic shock. Show them the section of the guidelines which require explicit permission for hides on private property, then ask, with a lowered, secretive tone and many furtive glances, " Were you the one who gave permission for that hide?".

Assuming your acting skills are up to par, you should then be able to post a "Needs Archived" log expressing that the property manager did not authorize the cache, and demands it be removed immediately. Hopefully, your success in this endeavor will motivate you to try the same method on every LPC in your neighborhood. Within just a short time, the average quality of caches local to you will skyrocket.😉

I don't know if this is the right answer! Kind of gives caching a bad name IMO. Still really funny. :anibad: Sure it can be handled without getting everyone upset. I think if the CO is not responding it should be archived without all this mess.

5.7k · October 9, 2012

Everyone has one and the thing to remember is that we all need to respect the decisions made by the reviewers.

Indeed. I agree. Support your local reviewers.

3.1k · October 9, 2012

Caches shouldn't be archived on safety issues.

If the safety issue rises to the level of gross negligence, then reviewers should archive a cache (and have done so).

9.3k · October 9, 2012

Caches shouldn't be archived on safety issues.

If the safety issue rises to the level of gross negligence, then reviewers should archive a cache (and have done so).

But not for the safety aspect. Rather, (typically), for permission issues.

Amounts to the same thing though.

5k · October 9, 2012

Everyone has one and the thing to remember is that we all need to respect the decisions made by the reviewers.

Indeed. I agree. Support your local reviewers.

Just because I respect someone doesn't mean that I have to always respect their decisions. I can disagree with someone's decision or opinion without losing respect for them, or what they represent as a whole.

The fact is, this cache would have been archived if someone, who refused to take a DNF, had not replaced it. I had a similar situation where a Glad ware container was placed at the edge of what would be described as a dog poo field, (you had to brave the poo to get to GZ), directly in the sun. Three months later, it had disintegrated and I posted NA. Before the reviewer could respond, someone from out of town on a numbers run replaced it with another Gladware container. The reviewer saw this and said that if a container was there and people were finding it, there was no need to archive it. Three months later, it was again disintegrated and the reviewer responded to my NA log by actually archiving it.

October 9, 2012

There's no reason to archive an unsafe cache. If reviewers did that, no 5/5 D/T caches would survive, but a cacher is responsible for properly listing a cache and placing a dangerous animal attribute on their cache.

This CO appears to have not responded to NM and NA logs. That IS a reason for archiving a cache. Safety is a serious issue if cachers travelling to ground zero are not properly prepared for the hunt because the CO failed to mention crucial information, like the need for climbing gear, or a risk of dangerous animals in the area.

1.4k · October 9, 2012

I'd put money on the CO not having permission to have a cache in that particular lamp post.

I assume you are referring to explicit permission?

Explicitly explicit.

3.1k · October 9, 2012

Caches shouldn't be archived on safety issues.

If the safety issue rises to the level of gross negligence, then reviewers should archive a cache (and have done so).

But not for the safety aspect. Rather, (typically), for permission issues.

Amounts to the same thing though.

Wrong. Gross negligence is about safety, injury, and harm. Even if the cache hider has permission, they (and in some cases, Groundspeak) can be liable for gross negligence. The person granting permission might be grossly negligent as well.

Edited October 9, 2012 by CanadianRockies

1.2k · October 10, 2012

I have been stung by wasps at a LPC...lift and swarm!!! I ran but a couple got me before I was able to get in the vehicle and close the door. Came back later (in the winter) and got my revenge...

19k · October 10, 2012

Since it's an LPC, the answer is most emphatically "Yes", regardless of the yellow jackets😄

But seriously, if you really want this to go away, head into the anchor store where the cache is located. Poke around till you identify several people in management. Find the one who looks the most paranoid. Explain to them that there is a 'deadly danger' present in their parking lot, (widen your eyes for maximum dramatic effect), and that if they allow it to continue, they could be personably liable. Tell them about the cache, and the yellow jackets, whilst hinting at anaphylactic shock. Show them the section of the guidelines which require explicit permission for hides on private property, then ask, with a lowered, secretive tone and many furtive glances, " Were you the one who gave permission for that hide?".

Assuming your acting skills are up to par, you should then be able to post a "Needs Archived" log expressing that the property manager did not authorize the cache, and demands it be removed immediately. Hopefully, your success in this endeavor will motivate you to try the same method on every LPC in your neighborhood. Within just a short time, the average quality of caches local to you will skyrocket.😉

Have you got a flow chart that demonstrates the decision making process of the bee squad?

19k · October 10, 2012

I wouldn't archive it but I would probably disable it and send an e-mail to the C.O. requesting maintenance be performed and let the owner re-enable when done. That way it would be in the hands of the owner. But that's just me and my opinion. Everyone has one and the thing to remember is that we all need to respect the decisions made by the reviewers.

Not sure how you intend to disable a cache that you don't own. It already IS in the hands of the owner. Or do I misunderstand your suggestion?

Another thought is to log a DNF, post in the DNF logs that others who attempt this should also post DNF's (not sure if this would help as the many people looking for this cache don't seem to heed the bee warnings). Our reviewer will request the owner check on a cache that has a lot of DNFs. Eventually if the owner does not respond, they will archive the cache. Just a thought.

If your reviewer does that, it is something that is not an ordinary part of their job. Posting a N/A (Needs Archived) log automatically sends them an alert by email, but unless they put a watch on a particular cache or use some sort of GSAK macro (perhaps?), they have no way of knowing how many DNFs any random cache has.

9.3k · October 11, 2012

Caches shouldn't be archived on safety issues.

If the safety issue rises to the level of gross negligence, then reviewers should archive a cache (and have done so).

But not for the safety aspect. Rather, (typically), for permission issues.

Amounts to the same thing though.

Wrong. Gross negligence is about safety, injury, and harm. Even if the cache hider has permission, they (and in some cases, Groundspeak) can be liable for gross negligence. The person granting permission might be grossly negligent as well.

Wrong.

The discussion was regarding why caches some seemingly dangerous caches were archived.

Typically, the reason cited in these archivals is permission.

Not safety.

When I say "Amounts to the same thing", I'm talking end results.

The 'dangerous' cache gets archived.

October 11, 2012

Regardless of whether the cache should be archived or not...

if you know there are bees, wasps, yellow jackets, or any other stinging critter we generally call 'bees' in or very close by a cache, please mention it in your logs.

I'm very allergic and read the logs to see if I need to be even more alert about my stinging enemies.

I'm sure other allergic cachers do the same.

Thank you!

Edited October 11, 2012 by mdplayers

3.6k · October 11, 2012

If the CO is active you they can to move it. If the CO is not active, you can try a NA it and see what the reviewer does.

Does this cache need to be archived?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation