Why was this locationless cache grandfathered?

[4wheelin_fool]

Inconceivable how y'all are acting here.

 

Before anyone gets permabanned, maybe some voluntary forum vacations are in order.

 

The cache isn't getting archived, but some of your accounts might be if you keep this up.

 

 

It may take a while, since Sandy has moved to Australia.

Edited January 10, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+wavector]

Why did you post a SBA on my cache in the first place? What did you think would happen?

I am not sure if you can see the irony in this statement, for those connecting the dots it is pretty obvious.

Did it actually never occur to you that posting an SBA on a cache with 79 Favourite points, 40+ watchers and 15,000 find logs might get a reaction. Were you looking for that reaction?

So I posted an SBA in error. Why did you simply not sent me a note saying "What's your problem, stay off my cache page" and then delete the SBA. Do you see a problem with that course of action?

Congratulations. You just proved Sockpuppet accounts really are needed.

But your friend "O Evil Rant" isn't a sockpuppet and you don't have a sockpuppet account, so now you are going to make a sockpuppet account and continue posting SBA's on caches thousands of miles away from your home that you don't bother to look for, tell me how that works out for you.

As this thread had become a flame war, I will lock it tomorrow morning my time.

I agree you have been flamed but I don't see a war.

I am amazed you came back onto the Brass Cap Cache cache page yesterday after inviting me to the discussion here and made some comment about geocachers and numbers. If you understood that a smiley has no value then you might be able to prevent future repetitions of this type of activity. A smiley isn't a coin or point, it is a ...smiley..... it means you had some fun finding a cache. Having a large number of finds isn't a measure of worth or a score declaring you a winner, it is a sign of your dedication to embracing this activity, warts and all.

Take things as they come, enjoy yourself.

 

Perhaps I posted an SBA on your geocache because I wasn't aware that virtual caches were allowed, perhaps it was just a simple honest error made by a geocacher just out having some fun, did that ever occur to you?

I hesitate to imagine what actions you take when a geocacher forgets a pencil and logs a find on one of your caches.

 

sorry I posted the single SBA

You should be.

 

As far as the photoshop thing, I have to say, thousands of geocachers all over the world know Brian (outforthehunt) and have enjoyed his caches since the inception of this activity. You may be able to convince your friend and confidante "O Evil Rant" that you have been maligned but in light of this whole affair and your demonstrated tendencies I have trouble believing that you are going to convince anyone else.

 

Please go ahead and lock this thread now that I have had the last word (I am just being facetious), you can leave it open if you want.

[BlueRajah]

It would be well to remember to take a breath before posting/commenting. If I can point out the forum guidelines

 

4 Personal attacks and inflammatory or antagonistic behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to post criticism, please do so constructively. Generalized, vicious or veiled attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

There have been a number of rude and derogatory comments posted. Calm discussion that is on topic is encouraged. Using this forum, or changing the topic to slap another kid with a train track is not. Time outs will be issued if cooler, calmer discussions do not commence forthwith.

Edited January 10, 2013 by BlueRajah

[+captnemo]

 

I'm embarrassed for my hobby. I hope some nice long vacations get handed out.

 

+1

+2 I was going to add more but really there is nothing more to be said or should be said.

[Andronicus]

The cache in question is not really a locationless cache at all. It is closer to a multi cache (with 500+ waypoints). Traditionaly, a Found log is made each time a waypoint is found. Personaly, I think I have found 107 of these. They are my favorit cache type. Virtyaly always there, but often very difficult to find. They can be in super accessable locations, or on the top of some ultra remote mountain top. I did a 16h scramble to get just one of these (no othere cache on route). These work very well to help seed remote locations with caches, as finders usualy leave a cache or two on the way in. It is likely the reason Alberta has so many awsome remote caches. The CO is always on top of any issues, and always confirms correct loging verification information.

 

Check out these related websites

 

http://members.shaw.ca/brasscaps

http://calgarycachers.net/brasscaps

 

Here is my personal statistics related to this cache.

http://calgarycachers.net/brasscaps/cacherbreakdown/899ab382-4a62-45d4-9690-b692c9162a4f.html

 

I am number 38 on the most finds list of a total of 256 cachers who have found this more than once (314 total cachers have found it).

 

So.... Still think it should be archived?

[+T.D.M.22]

... on the top of some ultra remote mountain top. I did a 16h scramble to get just one of these (no othere cache on route). ...

 

I am number 38 on the most finds list of a total of 256 cachers who have found this more than once (314 total cachers have found it).

 

So.... Still think it should be archived?

I've heard that at the Brass Cap Convention in 2011 tried to find a cap at the top of the mountain, and no-one managed to get it. I'm curious how the CO get the info on these-aside from locals finding them and emailing him.

[+CanadianRockies]

I've heard that at the Brass Cap Convention in 2011 tried to find a cap at the top of the mountain, and no-one managed to get it. I'm curious how the CO get the info on these-aside from locals finding them and emailing him.

I believe much of the information is available on Alberta's survey databases, such as Spin 2 (IE browser required).

[Andronicus]

... on the top of some ultra remote mountain top. I did a 16h scramble to get just one of these (no othere cache on route). ...

 

I am number 38 on the most finds list of a total of 256 cachers who have found this more than once (314 total cachers have found it).

 

So.... Still think it should be archived?

I've heard that at the Brass Cap Convention in 2011 tried to find a cap at the top of the mountain, and no-one managed to get it. I'm curious how the CO get the info on these-aside from locals finding them and emailing him.

Ocationaly these are destroyed by construction etc. This is not the first one on a mountain top to be destroyed. The one on top of Porqupine Hills seems to have been destroyed. Not sure what would cause that. Mabe someone in the benchmarking forum could answer that. And yes, the Alberta Gvt. web site, SPIN2, has all the data.

[+T.D.M.22]

Oh of course it's on that SPIN2 website. Only because I've spent a couple hours on the Canadian govt website trying to find that exact thing.

[+wavector]

I see that a geocacher from Belgium has logged the Brass Cap Cache as "I saw from my office". I suppose the desire to be part of any story is universal. I thought it would be a good idea to give people some idea of what a Brass Cap Cache hunt can be like so I am linking a story that tells the tale of my search for a Brass Cap. This is a search for single Brass Cap out of the 650 targets that are available on this moving virtual. It started with a log on a cache placed by Alberta cacher Sleepy_hollow and my intentionally understated comment was "This looks totally doable...I think I will skip out and grab this one tomorrow."

So it began.... I did eventually find that cache but I did not find Brass Cap 465 - Mt. Loomis, that was what I was trying to find.

So before you log a find on the Brass Cap, or denigrate the people who look for them, you should pay some skin, maybe get a few scratches, actually give it a try. I am amazed that we have Alberta cachers that have found 400+ Brass Caps, some of them much harder than Brass Cap 465.

Here is my story, along with pictures, about trying to find ONE Brass Cap.

A Mastercard Friday

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Easy, hard, moderate...I still don't see why there needs to be a cache available to allow people to log the fact that they found a brass cap (i.e. benchmark). Won't a Wyamark category be sufficient?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Did it actually never occur to you that posting an SBA on a cache with 79 Favourite points, 40+ watchers and 15,000 find logs might get a reaction.

 

If a cache deserves a SBA (and I am not saying this one does), it shouldn't matter if it has 100% favorite ratio and 1,000 finds. There should not be any reaction to the person posting the SBA. Again, as long as it is warranted.

[+NeverSummer]

Easy, hard, moderate...I still don't see why there needs to be a cache available to allow people to log the fact that they found a brass cap (i.e. benchmark). Won't a Wyamark category be sufficient?

This is a cache that came before Waymarking, no?

 

Did it actually never occur to you that posting an SBA on a cache with 79 Favourite points, 40+ watchers and 15,000 find logs might get a reaction.

A reaction? Of course.

 

If a cache deserves a SBA (and I am not saying this one does), it shouldn't matter if it has 100% favorite ratio and 1,000 finds. There should not be any reaction to the person posting the SBA. Again, as long as it is warranted.

_{Rhymes with} Bingo. Very true. But, if a cache needs to be archived, watchlists, favorites, find number, or nostalgia should not count more than the guidelines for cache maintenance, placement, or laws that might be involved in maintenance or placement.

[+geodarts]

Easy, hard, moderate...I still don't see why there needs to be a cache available to allow people to log the fact that they found a brass cap (i.e. benchmark). Won't a Wyamark category be sufficient?

 

I am not sure if there "needs" to be a cache anywhere. But I have found another benchmark virtual and I suppose the answer is that these were published before Waymarking existed and grandfathered as a result. This particular cache makes me want to visit Alberta, which a waymark category probably would not do, but there are too many threads about that out there as it is.

 

If a cache deserves a SBA (and I am not saying this one does), it shouldn't matter if it has 100% favorite ratio and 1,000 finds. There should not be any reaction to the person posting the SBA. Again, as long as it is warranted.

 

Even if a cache does not need an SBA, there should not be an emotional reaction against the poster. A needs archived log simply alerts the reviewer to another cacher's concern. It does not mean that a favorite cache will disappear. If someone is abusing this type of log, then the reviewer or Groundspeak can take appropriate action. But an unwarranted SBA is simply that and nothing more.

[Andronicus]

Easy, hard, moderate...I still don't see why there needs to be a cache available to allow people to log the fact that they found a brass cap (i.e. benchmark). Won't a Wyamark category be sufficient?

There is a wyamark category, but wyamarking is lame. I actualy published a wyamark 3 years ago for a brass cap I ran into in a sidewalk. No one has ever found it.

 

Also, a benchmark find would be more appropriate, but GS will not publish the benchmarks outside of the USA, and no new ones even in the USA. I suspect that is why they let this cache stand. Personaly, I kind of like it this way better, because I like getting the smiley. These account for over 16% of all of my smileys.

Edit to add:

It also fracks up my statistics. As the cache is usualy rated quite easy, the difficult caps I have found count as easy ones for my stats, and they don't help me for my D/T matrix. Also, km traveled is all messed up.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Andronicus

[+T.D.M.22]

Easy, hard, moderate...I still don't see why there needs to be a cache available to allow people to log the fact that they found a brass cap (i.e. benchmark). Won't a Wyamark category be sufficient?

 

True. As was mentioned, this was (true?)placed before Waymarking. Now this cache caters to 2 people-those who like to hunt Brass caps and would do so if this is a geocache, waymark, benchmark, or not even part of Groundspeak. But-and I believe this is most important of all. This cache will bring people to places they never in their life would have a reason to go to. I'm not talking about a marker in a sidewalk in Medicine Hat or Calgary, placed for an event. I'm talking about the brass cap mentioned in Wayvectors last post. The caps located at a ghost town that once was a booming city. The Caps where you drive 3 hours with a couple friends, hike a another 2 hours to get to the top of a mountain to find a cap that seems to have dissapeared, and yet it was all worth it to log that DNF. And you'll be back next year. The caps that take you somewhere with a view that you wouldn't see anywhere else in the world. After all isn't that what everyone says that's what they want from a Geocache? To take you somewhere special? IF you've never been to Alberta you will not know just how special it can be. This is not about the swag. It's not about the numbers. It's about that experience. And IMO if you think this cache should be archived or doesn't belong, then you are caching for the wrong reasons.

 

Now don't get me wrong if you don't see a need for it, that's fine. Like I said if you don't agree with this cache then don't find it. But just because you don't want to find it doesn't mean it should be archived. Now if the CO lets tons of armchair logs and stops caring then yes it should be archived.

 

Now I invite you ALL to come out and attempt a Brass Cap or even a regular cache in Banff, or Canmore. It would be well worth the trip, where ever you live.

[+wavector]

Did it actually never occur to you that posting an SBA on a cache with 79 Favourite points, 40+ watchers and 15,000 find logs might get a reaction.

 

If a cache deserves a SBA (and I am not saying this one does), it shouldn't matter if it has 100% favorite ratio and 1,000 finds. There should not be any reaction to the person posting the SBA. Again, as long as it is warranted.

My point was that the cache was obviously active and popular, well maintained and had a history of finds extending back to 2001.

If a responsible SBA is placed then there should be no reaction to the person placing the SBA.

Prior to posting an SBA a cacher should at the very least;

Look for the cache.

Attempt to contact the cache owner.

RIClimber was being irresponsible when he placed an SBA on the Brass Cap Cache, so was O Evil Rant (apparently not a sockpuppet).

RIClimber placed an SBA on the cache because like you, he didn't get it, he didn't understand that people might enjoy finding the Brass Cap Cache.

Moving caches are not available everywhere, the moving caches in Alberta are very popular, people enjoy them, I fail to see why this is hard to understand?

RIClimber's reaction to the SBA I placed on his cache was not warranted by any stretch of the imagination.

Satisfying your need to understand each cache placement isn't part of the activity and probably never will be.

No one is objecting to your use of Waymarks to log your benchmark finds, feel free.

[+NeverSummer]

Did it actually never occur to you that posting an SBA on a cache with 79 Favourite points, 40+ watchers and 15,000 find logs might get a reaction.

 

If a cache deserves a SBA (and I am not saying this one does), it shouldn't matter if it has 100% favorite ratio and 1,000 finds. There should not be any reaction to the person posting the SBA. Again, as long as it is warranted.

My point was that the cache was obviously active and popular, well maintained and had a history of finds extending back to 2001.

If a responsible SBA is placed then there should be no reaction to the person placing the SBA.

Prior to posting an SBA a cacher should at the very least;

Look for the cache.

Attempt to contact the cache owner.

RIClimber was being irresponsible when he placed an SBA on the Brass Cap Cache, so was O Evil Rant (apparently not a sockpuppet).

RIClimber placed an SBA on the cache because like you, he didn't get it, he didn't understand that people might enjoy finding the Brass Cap Cache.

Moving caches are not available everywhere, the moving caches in Alberta are very popular, people enjoy them, I fail to see why this is hard to understand?

RIClimber's reaction to the SBA I placed on his cache was not warranted by any stretch of the imagination.

Satisfying your need to understand each cache placement isn't part of the activity and probably never will be.

No one is objecting to your use of Waymarks to log your benchmark finds, feel free.

Everything you said above makes a great case for why this situation should have just been dealt with calmly, and had both parties move on from the get-go.

 

Perhaps the only consideration would be to add some more information to the cache page about being a grandfathered cache type, and that it has Groundspeak's "Ok" to continue. If those are the facts, then there isn't much someone who posts a NA log for whatever reason has to go on. So long as the owner is active and maintaining the listing, that's it.

 

It didn't need to get so out of hand on the cache page, or here in the forums. But, now that it did, more of us at least know about a Virtual cache in Canada we can hunt that isn't at the coordinates.

[+CanadianRockies]

It didn't need to get so out of hand on the cache page, or here in the forums. But, now that it did, more of us at least know about a Virtual cache in Canada we can hunt that isn't at the coordinates.

This Virtual cache is at the posted coordinates. The coordinates will take you to a brass cap (i.e. survey benchmark) located somewhere in Alberta. This cache's previous posted coordinates will take you to about 600 other Alberta brass caps.

[+NeverSummer]

It didn't need to get so out of hand on the cache page, or here in the forums. But, now that it did, more of us at least know about a Virtual cache in Canada we can hunt that isn't at the coordinates.

This Virtual cache is at the posted coordinates. The coordinates will take you to a brass cap (i.e. survey benchmark) located somewhere in Alberta. This cache's previous posted coordinates will take you to about 600 other Alberta brass caps.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant that the Virtual doesn't stay at the listed coordinates.

[+T.D.M.22]

 

Everything you said above makes a great case for why this situation should have just been dealt with calmly, and had both parties move on from the get-go.

 

Perhaps the only consideration would be to add some more information to the cache page about being a grandfathered cache type, and that it has Groundspeak's "Ok" to continue. If those are the facts, then there isn't much someone who posts a NA log for whatever reason has to go on. So long as the owner is active and maintaining the listing, that's it.

 

It didn't need to get so out of hand on the cache page, or here in the forums. But, now that it did, more of us at least know about a Virtual cache in Canada we can hunt that isn't at the coordinates.

 

I see your point but why do we need to post a note saying that it is grandfathered. Just the fact that it's a virtual and in the guidelines and all over the forums it is pointed out that virtuals are grandfathered. IMO if you haven't read and understood the guidelines(in this case the part about virtuals) then you have no need to say the cache needs archived. Now of course if this kind of thing keeps honestly coming up-and not someone trying to cause trouble- then maybe it would be a good idea. This was-as far as I'm aware-the only incident with this cache and it just happened to get blown up due to some less than kind comments on both sides of the story, and if it had happened a more decent way there would be no need for a note to explain that it is grandfathered.

[+NeverSummer]

 

Everything you said above makes a great case for why this situation should have just been dealt with calmly, and had both parties move on from the get-go.

 

Perhaps the only consideration would be to add some more information to the cache page about being a grandfathered cache type, and that it has Groundspeak's "Ok" to continue. If those are the facts, then there isn't much someone who posts a NA log for whatever reason has to go on. So long as the owner is active and maintaining the listing, that's it.

 

It didn't need to get so out of hand on the cache page, or here in the forums. But, now that it did, more of us at least know about a Virtual cache in Canada we can hunt that isn't at the coordinates.

 

I see your point but why do we need to post a note saying that it is grandfathered. Just the fact that it's a virtual and in the guidelines and all over the forums it is pointed out that virtuals are grandfathered. IMO if you haven't read and understood the guidelines(in this case the part about virtuals) then you have no need to say the cache needs archived. Now of course if this kind of thing keeps honestly coming up-and not someone trying to cause trouble- then maybe it would be a good idea. This was-as far as I'm aware-the only incident with this cache and it just happened to get blown up due to some less than kind comments on both sides of the story, and if it had happened a more decent way there would be no need for a note to explain that it is grandfathered.

Simply because not everyone knows the history of geocaching, or the current guidelines. And, on top of that, many don't read the description completely.

 

That said, it is a simple, direct way to nip it in the bud. One can always point to the listing in situations like this, and then let it go.

 

If one simple thing might help to make it better, why wouldn't someone give it a try?

[+T.D.M.22]

 

Simply because not everyone knows the history of geocaching, or the current guidelines. And, on top of that, many don't read the description completely.

 

That said, it is a simple, direct way to nip it in the bud. One can always point to the listing in situations like this, and then let it go.

 

If one simple thing might help to make it better, why wouldn't someone give it a try?

True, true. Especially the part I bolded. VERY true.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

RIClimber placed an SBA on the cache because like you, he didn't get it, he didn't understand that people might enjoy finding the Brass Cap Cache.

Moving caches are not available everywhere, the moving caches in Alberta are very popular, people enjoy them, I fail to see why this is hard to understand?

 

The fact that people enjoy finding the brass cap or any other cache is irrelevant. If someone posts an SBA on a cache it should be done if someone feels that the cache in some way violates the guidelines. If the reviewer or Groundspeak decides that there are no guideline issues then the cache will not be archived based upon the SBA log. If the reviewer *does* decide that a guideline has been violated, the cache should be archived no matter how popular it happens to be. Whatever the outcome, if someone posts an SBA on a cache because they feel it violates the guidelines, they should never get a hostile response or retaliation in the form of SBA logs on their caches from the CO or anyone else. Period.

[+wavector]

RIClimber placed an SBA on the cache because like you, he didn't get it, he didn't understand that people might enjoy finding the Brass Cap Cache.

Moving caches are not available everywhere, the moving caches in Alberta are very popular, people enjoy them, I fail to see why this is hard to understand?

 

The fact that people enjoy finding the brass cap or any other cache is irrelevant. If someone posts an SBA on a cache it should be done if someone feels that the cache in some way violates the guidelines. If the reviewer or Groundspeak decides that there are no guideline issues then the cache will not be archived based upon the SBA log. If the reviewer *does* decide that a guideline has been violated, the cache should be archived no matter how popular it happens to be. Whatever the outcome, if someone posts an SBA on a cache because they feel it violates the guidelines, they should never get a hostile response or retaliation in the form of SBA logs on their caches from the CO or anyone else. Period.

 

Geocaching 101 on the Geocaching.com website explains what to do when you find a problematic cache, it says "If you find a problematic cache, please contact the owner directly or contact us."

People shouldn't post SBA logs on caches until they make some attempt to contact the cache owner.

You can extrapolate from the word "find" that a person should "look" for a cache before they attempt to contact the owner or post an SBA log.

It also says on the Geocaching.com website in Geocaching 101 section "We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area."

People shouldn't post SBA's on caches they didn't look for thousands of miles away from their home area.

 

An SBA log isn't a tool to express your disagreement with a cache placement.

If Groundspeak wanted everyone to review every cache they would make that clear.

The SBA was irresponsible.

 

You appear to be an experienced geocacher so where did you come up with...

"If someone posts an SBA on a cache it should be done if someone feels that the cache in some way violates the guidelines."

That is totally incorrect and gross misinterpretation of the actual directives, perhaps you should review Geocaching 101 area from the Geocaching.com website and you will see that I am quoting what is actually said, I am not making things up.

It may suit your feelings personally but please don't pass off your feelings as facts.

 

The SBA placed by RICLimber was irresponsible.

The SBA placed by O Evil Rant was irresponsible.

 

Mine was too, I will admit that I never looked for his virtual cache.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

Geocaching 101 on the Geocaching.com website explains what to do when you find a problematic cache, it says "If you find a problematic cache, please contact the owner directly or contact us."

People shouldn't post SBA logs on caches until they make some attempt to contact the cache owner.

You can extrapolate from the word "find" that a person should "look" for a cache before they attempt to contact the owner or post an SBA log.

It also says on the Geocaching.com website in Geocaching 101 section "We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area."

People shouldn't post SBA's on caches they didn't look for thousands of miles away from their home area.

 

 

I don't agree with everything you've said.

 

If a new cache pops up and it is clear from maps it is on private property, military property, property that is off limits (such as Audubon Society of RI property in my area), etc, I will contact my local reviewer with my concerns.

 

If I go to find a cache and it is behind No Trespassing signs, I will stop my search and contact the reviewer.

 

In any case where I contact the reviewer, I will provide as much information as I can (plat maps, photos etc).

 

The reviewer then can do with that information as he sees fit. They may disable it and ask for more info from the cache owner (such as an explicit POC for permission issues), or retract it immediately if it clearly violates guidelines (clearly after I provide info - they may not know if it is violation from their computer).

 

So, I don't see a need to visit a cache in every case to know there are issues. In fact, visiting the cache may actual mean I am breaking the law in some cases.

[Mr.Yuck]

Something just popped into my head. People may say I'm wrong, but I'm 100% confident my theory is correct. It would take one of the handful of old-timer volunteer reviewers from like 2001 to verify this. I would consider The Brass Cap cache to be a "local locationless cache". Although I can't remember any other specific "local locationless caches", or provide a link to them, I'll bet I've stumbled on the listings for at least a dozen others over the years. According to my theory, it would have been standard operating procedure for a "local locationless cache" to be listed as a virtual, so as to keep the locationless cache listings clean, and doable anywhere in the world. The locationless caches were locked in 2005, of course, but the "local locationless caches" lived on as Grandfathered virtuals. Makes sense at least, doesn't it?

[+sidekeck]

 

Geocaching 101 on the Geocaching.com website explains what to do when you find a problematic cache, it says "If you find a problematic cache, please contact the owner directly or contact us."

People shouldn't post SBA logs on caches until they make some attempt to contact the cache owner.

You can extrapolate from the word "find" that a person should "look" for a cache before they attempt to contact the owner or post an SBA log.

It also says on the Geocaching.com website in Geocaching 101 section "We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area."

People shouldn't post SBA's on caches they didn't look for thousands of miles away from their home area.

 

 

I don't agree with everything you've said.

 

If a new cache pops up and it is clear from maps it is on private property, military property, property that is off limits (such as Audubon Society of RI property in my area), etc, I will contact my local reviewer with my concerns.

 

If I go to find a cache and it is behind No Trespassing signs, I will stop my search and contact the reviewer.

 

In any case where I contact the reviewer, I will provide as much information as I can (plat maps, photos etc).

 

The reviewer then can do with that information as he sees fit. They may disable it and ask for more info from the cache owner (such as an explicit POC for permission issues), or retract it immediately if it clearly violates guidelines (clearly after I provide info - they may not know if it is violation from their computer).

 

So, I don't see a need to visit a cache in every case to know there are issues. In fact, visiting the cache may actual mean I am breaking the law in some cases.

 

Seems like this is an apples/oranges comparison. The OP is about an existing cache with active finders that as far as I can tell has no other apparent issues.

 

I would guess that if the good folks of Alberta started armchair logging N/A logs on active RI caches, you might have something to say about it.

 

I don't understand the original activity, rather than an email to the CO. There's either more to the story or I'm a complete idiot.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

Geocaching 101 on the Geocaching.com website explains what to do when you find a problematic cache, it says "If you find a problematic cache, please contact the owner directly or contact us."

People shouldn't post SBA logs on caches until they make some attempt to contact the cache owner.

You can extrapolate from the word "find" that a person should "look" for a cache before they attempt to contact the owner or post an SBA log.

It also says on the Geocaching.com website in Geocaching 101 section "We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area."

People shouldn't post SBA's on caches they didn't look for thousands of miles away from their home area.

 

 

I don't agree with everything you've said.

 

If a new cache pops up and it is clear from maps it is on private property, military property, property that is off limits (such as Audubon Society of RI property in my area), etc, I will contact my local reviewer with my concerns.

 

If I go to find a cache and it is behind No Trespassing signs, I will stop my search and contact the reviewer.

 

In any case where I contact the reviewer, I will provide as much information as I can (plat maps, photos etc).

 

The reviewer then can do with that information as he sees fit. They may disable it and ask for more info from the cache owner (such as an explicit POC for permission issues), or retract it immediately if it clearly violates guidelines (clearly after I provide info - they may not know if it is violation from their computer).

 

So, I don't see a need to visit a cache in every case to know there are issues. In fact, visiting the cache may actual mean I am breaking the law in some cases.

 

Seems like this is an apples/oranges comparison. The OP is about an existing cache with active finders that as far as I can tell has no other apparent issues.

 

I would guess that if the good folks of Alberta started armchair logging N/A logs on active RI caches, you might have something to say about it.

 

I don't understand the original activity, rather than an email to the CO. There's either more to the story or I'm a complete idiot.

 

I was talking problematic caches in general, not the Albert Brass Caps cache. wavector stated that a person should visit a cache before a SBA is logged. I don't agree that needs to be done in all cases.

[+tozainamboku]

Something just popped into my head. People may say I'm wrong, but I'm 100% confident my theory is correct. It would take one of the handful of old-timer volunteer reviewers from like 2001 to verify this. I would consider The Brass Cap cache to be a "local locationless cache". Although I can't remember any other specific "local locationless caches", or provide a link to them, I'll bet I've stumbled on the listings for at least a dozen others over the years. According to my theory, it would have been standard operating procedure for a "local locationless cache" to be listed as a virtual, so as to keep the locationless cache listings clean, and doable anywhere in the world. The locationless caches were locked in 2005, of course, but the "local locationless caches" lived on as Grandfathered virtuals. Makes sense at least, doesn't it?

Nice theory. But a recent entry in the off-topic "In Passing" thread reminded me that there was a Huell Howser locationless cache that was to visit locations in California that Huell Howser had visited in his shows. So there were clearly locationless caches that weren't worldwide.

 

I don't think it's important why the Alberta Brass Caps is listed as virtual. But back in the day, the reviewers allowed more creativity in caches. I recall several photo goals virtuals that worked a bit like Brass Caps in allowing the finder to provide and another goal at a new location. There are no guidelines that forbid caches (virtual or physical) having multiple goals and allowing cachers to log the cache for each goal. The rule of one found it per cache that has no basis in the guidelines and is simply a puritan invention. Let just say that multi-target and moving virtual caches were allowed and have been grandfathered like any other virtual cache. If the puritans get their knicker in a twist over people logging them multiple times that's their problem - not a reason to have the cache archived.

Edited January 14, 2013 by tozainamboku

[+NYPaddleCacher]

RIClimber placed an SBA on the cache because like you, he didn't get it, he didn't understand that people might enjoy finding the Brass Cap Cache.

Moving caches are not available everywhere, the moving caches in Alberta are very popular, people enjoy them, I fail to see why this is hard to understand?

 

The fact that people enjoy finding the brass cap or any other cache is irrelevant. If someone posts an SBA on a cache it should be done if someone feels that the cache in some way violates the guidelines. If the reviewer or Groundspeak decides that there are no guideline issues then the cache will not be archived based upon the SBA log. If the reviewer *does* decide that a guideline has been violated, the cache should be archived no matter how popular it happens to be. Whatever the outcome, if someone posts an SBA on a cache because they feel it violates the guidelines, they should never get a hostile response or retaliation in the form of SBA logs on their caches from the CO or anyone else. Period.

 

Geocaching 101 on the Geocaching.com website explains what to do when you find a problematic cache, it says "If you find a problematic cache, please contact the owner directly or contact us."

People shouldn't post SBA logs on caches until they make some attempt to contact the cache owner.

You can extrapolate from the word "find" that a person should "look" for a cache before they attempt to contact the owner or post an SBA log.

It also says on the Geocaching.com website in Geocaching 101 section "We rely on the geocaching community to let us know the status of caches in their area."

People shouldn't post SBA's on caches they didn't look for thousands of miles away from their home area.

 

An SBA log isn't a tool to express your disagreement with a cache placement.

If Groundspeak wanted everyone to review every cache they would make that clear.

The SBA was irresponsible.

 

You appear to be an experienced geocacher so where did you come up with...

"If someone posts an SBA on a cache it should be done if someone feels that the cache in some way violates the guidelines."

That is totally incorrect and gross misinterpretation of the actual directives, perhaps you should review Geocaching 101 area from the Geocaching.com website and you will see that I am quoting what is actually said, I am not making things up.

It may suit your feelings personally but please don't pass off your feelings as facts.

 

The SBA placed by RICLimber was irresponsible.

The SBA placed by O Evil Rant was irresponsible.

 

Mine was too, I will admit that I never looked for his virtual cache.

 

That statement was just my opinion. As I see it, the SBA log is the tool that Groundspeak has given us to "contact a reviewer" when one encounters a cache that appears to violate the guidelines. I agree that an SBA should never be used by someone that disagrees with the cache placement (unless, of course, they feel the cache placement violates the guidelines). It also should *never* be used in retaliation for someone posting an SBA log on a cache that you own or care about.

 

As I see it, the SBA log is just a tool that has a valid purpose. If I encounter a cache that is behind a no trespassing, is buried in the ground, or defaces the object upon with it is hidden, as a responsible geocacher I should report it, and the SBA log not only reports it to the reviewer but also the cache owner. I don't care how many favorite points the cache has, how many finds it has, or how respected that cache owner might be. None of those things trump guideline violations, and I strongly suspect that when the reviewer considers the SBA log, the popularity of the cache is not considered.

[+T.D.M.22]

 

I don't agree with everything you've said.

 

If a new cache pops up and it is clear from maps it is on private property, military property, property that is off limits (such as Audubon Society of RI property in my area), etc, I will contact my local reviewer with my concerns.

 

If I go to find a cache and it is behind No Trespassing signs, I will stop my search and contact the reviewer.

 

In any case where I contact the reviewer, I will provide as much information as I can (plat maps, photos etc).

 

The reviewer then can do with that information as he sees fit. They may disable it and ask for more info from the cache owner (such as an explicit POC for permission issues), or retract it immediately if it clearly violates guidelines (clearly after I provide info - they may not know if it is violation from their computer).

 

So, I don't see a need to visit a cache in every case to know there are issues. In fact, visiting the cache may actual mean I am breaking the law in some cases.

 

Yes but you understand what may be wrong and are able to say to the reviewer-I didn't find it because this cache looks like it's on private property. Just want to make sure there is permission so I don't get in trouble for trespassing. this would be a legitimate concern with the proper course of action, all justifiable. and the reviewer could pull the cache(or CO could prove permission) or could tell you that there is permission. Your opinion was wrong but you did everything right and was given an explanation because you were able to back up your thoughts with a good reason.

 

Now the CO logged a NA on a cache he never intended to visit. Didn't even know if there really where potential guideline violations because he didn't understand why I-and others-would want to find the cache. And didn't even think that there was a possibility that the reviewers/Groundspeak maybe ok with this cache. He just assumed he was right.

It's like you finding a cache that may private property and you don't know if there is permission, and you saying it needs to be archived, but won't give a reason. The reviewer will be like, ya whatever. I'll just ignore this because I don't know what the problem is.

 

 

If you understand what I'm getting at . If not then just ignore my whole post

Edited January 14, 2013 by T.D.M.22

[+wavector]

That statement was just my opinion. As I see it, the SBA log is the tool that Groundspeak has given us to "contact a reviewer" when one encounters a cache that appears to violate the guidelines.

 

Nothing you can dream up is going to convince anyone that RIClimber was in any way justified for placing an SBA log on the Brass Cap Cache. You appear to be an experienced cacher but I am beginning to have doubts about your actual level of knowledge concerning the basics. From the Knowledge Base on the use of the Needs Archived log

(I added the bold)

 

FINDERS:...Please use this log only when there are serious problems with the cache or its location. Do not use it if the cache needs repairs, or you didn't find it, or the location made you uncomfortable. Please consider first contacting the owner of the geocache with your concerns. Use the profile link next to the cache owner's name at the top of the cache page to send an email, as well as logging to the cache page about your visit.

 

An SBA isn't used to contact the cache owner, you contact the cache owner first, at least that is what Groundspeak says you should please consider doing, but hey, what do they know. Well they know how to contact the local reviewer and you know what, they don't suggest the SBA log, they have a method...again, from the Knowledge Base

 

If you wish to contact a volunteer reviewer for your area, load a list of local caches and look for a recently published cache.

Find the Publish log near the bottom of the logs. Usually it will just say Publish; its icon is a green circle like you see here.

That Publish log generally belongs to an area reviewer. Occasionally the cache owner will have deleted that log, so you may have to try another cache page. You can use the link of their name to get to their profile page, and email them from their profile. You don't need to know their email address.

 

Clearly the cache RIClimber placed an SBA on had no serious problems. I believe he said he was doing it because he was the only one with the "stones" to do it but hey, that is his explanation.

Both you guys should read the Knowledge Base more frequently, it will help clarify the basics.