unsuitable?

[+madasa123]

Hi

I am very new to this and just have a couple of questions if anyone could help me please.

Do reviewers visit the sites of new caches before they publish them?

 

 

 

Also, are there any health and safety rules regarding placement of caches? I am asking because we went to find several caches close together yesterday. We didn't find them but the areas were surrounded by broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

 

I would be very concerned if children were involved in looking for these caches.

 

Thank you

[+Panther&Pine]

Reveiwers do not visit cache locations before publishing.

 

Geocaching is a choose your own adventure kind of game, I would hope the adults with children would make good choices about which caches to hunt with children. Really you don't have to find them all, so if the area makes you uncomfortable, just leave.

[+MartyBartfast]

As said above the reviewers don't visit sites when caches are placed. Of course what you found could have been fly tipping that occurred after the cache was placed, it may have been lovely and tidy when the CO placed the cache. You could mention the state of the place in your log and depending on the CO they may be grateful for the tip off and do something about it, or they could get a right strop on with you for mentioning it - both have happened in the past.

 

FYI there's a UK regional forum if you have any more local issues to discuss.

[+stijnhommes]

Also, are there any health and safety rules regarding placement of caches? I am asking because we went to find several caches close together yesterday. We didn't find them but the areas were surrounded by broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

 

I would be very concerned if children were involved in looking for these caches.

I would be worried if anyone went after these caches. Let the reviewer and CO know about ground zero, they might change their mind and move or archive the cache.

Reviewers can't visit every site. If they did, the rate of cache publication would grind to a halt.

[+Chief301]

The reviewers don't go out and check every cache (it would not be possible, most reviewers cover very large geographic regions). They only check your listing to make sure it meets the guidelines, i.e., no commercial content, promoting an agenda, non family friendly content, etc., and they also check that it is not closer than 528 feet (I forget what that is in meters for you UK guys....161?) to an existing cache. They do not judge on quality, either, only that it complies with the guidelines.

[+Chief301]

Of course what you found could have been fly tipping that occurred after the cache was placed, it may have been lovely and tidy when the CO placed the cache

 

Yeah, but probably not.....😠

[+Legochugglers]

I would include a polite summary of my experience within my found it/did not find it log. If it is really dangerous I may send further information by email to the cache owner or post a Needs Maintenance log if the rubbish/dangerous material is actually hampering the physical retrieval of the cache.

 

At this stage you have probably done enough to highlight the problem however, unfortunately, some owners may be unresponsive or no longer involved in geocaching so the problem may persist. If you feel the problem is serious enough to cause a real danger to other cachers and nothing has been done by the cache owner then the final resort is a Needs archive log which will alert the reviewer to the problem.

[+larryc43230]

... unfortunately, some owners may be unresponsive or no longer involved in geocaching so the problem may persist. If you feel the problem is serious enough to cause a real danger to other cachers and nothing has been done by the cache owner then the final resort is a Needs archive log which will alert the reviewer to the problem.

And then there are cache hiders who seem to think that such nasty areas are great places to hide a cache. We have one in my area who delights in hiding caches in rundown areas, like abandoned motels and trash dumps, just to thumb his nose at cachers like me who complain about such hides. As long as the hide isn't violating any Groundspeak guidelines, there's not much one can do about it. And complaining to the CO will simply get a chuckle from them.

 

I have a good number of such hides on my Ignore List.

 

--Larry

[+MartyBartfast]

You can report the rubbish/graffiti here fixmystreet.com and they will pass it on to the appropriate council. I'm assuming the cache was somewhere in Kent as that's where your other finds seem to be centred, and both Canterbury and Medway councils have places on their web site for reporting fly-tipping and a promise to go and clean it up. Of course they may also tidy up the cache at the same time, but that may be a risk worth taking if it gets the area cleaned up.

[+Viajero Perdido]

broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

Groundspeak doesn't get involved in that. It's up to the good judgement (ahem) of the hider and the finder.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Also, are there any health and safety rules regarding placement of caches? I am asking because we went to find several caches close together yesterday. We didn't find them but the areas were surrounded by broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

 

If I went looking for a cache and the location was a dump like you describe, I would probably DNF without more than a brief search. I would then also explain the condition of the area in my log, probably accompanied by some photos from my smartphone.

 

While there is technically nothing against the Guidelines about putting a cache in a very unpleasant area, it is very frowned upon by the community because almost nobody will enjoy their experience with the cache. More than likely the area has changed since the cache was originally placed and the CO is unaware or inactive.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

As said above the reviewers don't visit sites when caches are placed. Of course what you found could have been fly tipping that occurred after the cache was placed, it may have been lovely and tidy when the CO placed the cache. You could mention the state of the place in your log and depending on the CO they may be grateful for the tip off and do something about it, or they could get a right strop on with you for mentioning it - both have happened in the past.

 

FYI there's a UK regional forum if you have any more local issues to discuss.

:laughing: I had to Google fly tipping. I grew-up on the edge of cow-tipping USA and fly tipping conjured-up funny mental images. :laughing:

[+kunarion]

we went to find several caches close together yesterday. We didn't find them but the areas were surrounded by broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

That sounds like a wonderful cache area, but I'd pass. There's local Geocacher who has many caches in such places, and I skip most of that person's caches.

[+madasa123]

Thank you all for your replies. I didn't think to take a photo.

Was only published yesterday so I think it was placed in an area as described (two other by same CO in same area, all published yesterday )

 

It is not fly tipping, just loads of rubbish.

 

Was the rats that bothered me most and once seen we left sharpish.

 

I guess I was just shocked as all others found have been in lovely places and this was such an extreme.

 

Ah well, you live and learn .

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Sounds as though you have area candidate(s) for CITO Events.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

As said above, you don't have to get them all. We DNFed the final of a recent multi because we were weary of GZ. Our log:

We don't know the area very well and made a trek from parking at stage one straight in until we spotted the third sleeping shelter. We turned back and found a very quick McPath. We then found stage 1 quickly and chuckled about the then discovered nice path we should have taken. Once again, not knowing the area, balked at stage 2. Maybe another time. Thanks for a fun adventure.

 

Our impression of what is acceptable is based upon our reality. Keep in mind that people live in areas that you may not think is appropriate for a cache. Those people can't have local caches?

Edited April 7, 2013 by Sharks-N-Beans

[+Off Grid]

Reveiwers do not visit cache locations before publishing.

 

Geocaching is a choose your own adventure kind of game, I would hope the adults with children would make good choices about which caches to hunt with children. Really you don't have to find them all, so if the area makes you uncomfortable, just leave.

But they should go and review the cache or get volunteers under them to

[+The A-Team]

Reveiwers do not visit cache locations before publishing.

But they should go and review the cache or get volunteers under them to

Sorry, it just isn't feasible. What about a cache like this one? Are you really seriously expecting a reviewer or other volunteer to go on a 5-day round-trip, 60 km hike with almost 6 km of total elevation gain to make sure this cache is acceptable before making it available to the general public?

 

Not gonna happen.

[+larryc43230]

Reveiwers do not visit cache locations before publishing.

But they should go and review the cache or get volunteers under them to

Sorry, it just isn't feasible. What about a cache like this one? Are you really seriously expecting a reviewer or other volunteer to go on a 5-day round-trip, 60 km hike with almost 6 km of total elevation gain to make sure this cache is acceptable before making it available to the general public?

 

Not gonna happen.

Besides, I haven't met a reviewer yet who claimed to have any "volunteers under them."

 

Are there any reviewers out there who have minions?

 

--Larry

[+Semper Questio]

Reveiwers do not visit cache locations before publishing.

But they should go and review the cache or get volunteers under them to

Sorry, it just isn't feasible. What about a cache like this one? Are you really seriously expecting a reviewer or other volunteer to go on a 5-day round-trip, 60 km hike with almost 6 km of total elevation gain to make sure this cache is acceptable before making it available to the general public?

 

Not gonna happen.

Besides, I haven't met a reviewer yet who claimed to have any "volunteers under them."

 

Are there any reviewers out there who have minions?

 

--Larry

 

The volunteers under reviewers that check the cache placements are those cachers who are not afraid to ruffle feathers by posting honest logs and making reports as need via NM and/or NA logs or direct reviewer contacts.

[+Don_J]

As said above, you don't have to get them all.

 

Geocaching is so much more enjoyable once you figure that out.

 

As long as the cache meets the guidelines, there is really not much you can do except try to set a better example yourself. My real objection to such caches is the impression that it leaves on new cachers. If my first cache hunt had led me to such a place I probably would have given up on the whole geocaching idea at that point.

 

When I read "rats" my first reaction was that it had to be some kind of guideline violation. Rats are dangerous. Then I realized that you could possibly get bitten by a rattlesnake while looking for almost all of my hides. It's just part of the landscape and if you are not comfortable with that landscape, turn around and leave. There are plenty of caches in good locations. As you find more caches, you'll figure who the hiders are and realize who's caches that you want to look for and who's are best to ignore.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As said above, you don't have to get them all.

 

Geocaching is so much more enjoyable once you figure that out.

 

As long as the cache meets the guidelines, there is really not much you can do except try to set a better example yourself. My real objection to such caches is the impression that it leaves on new cachers. If my first cache hunt had led me to such a place I probably would have given up on the whole geocaching idea at that point.

 

When I read "rats" my first reaction was that it had to be some kind of guideline violation. Rats are dangerous. Then I realized that you could possibly get bitten by a rattlesnake while looking for almost all of my hides. It's just part of the landscape and if you are not comfortable with that landscape, turn around and leave. There are plenty of caches in good locations. As you find more caches, you'll figure who the hiders are and realize who's caches that you want to look for and who's are best to ignore.

 

Yes. I contracted Lyme Disease hunting a great cache. Contracted poison ivy shortly thereafter. That turned into allergic dermatitis. (Note to doctors: Don't ever proscribe prednisone for me!)

But, hey. That's my problem. I know several cachers who will not hunt for many of my caches because "there are black bears." That's their problem.

I once logged that 'This is the second ugliest place I've ever found a cache." There was some historical significance, but it was in an industrial development, under a rock, in the mud, on the side of a road. CO was offended, and wanted to know which one was worse. Dilapidated piers on the side of the river. Jumbles of concrete pieces, which shifted. (Okay. We did not actually find that cache.) Remnants of a homeless person living nearby.. Just north of a sanitation pier. It was the rats that scared us off. These were very large rats! Larger than a lot of dogs. We DNFed that one. Our choice of which caches we want to look for. And that's it in a nut shell: We decide which caches we want to search for. That is our responsibility.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I know several cachers who will not hunt for many of my caches because "there are black bears." That's their problem.

There are bears in Jersey?...Crap, we were thinking of planning a trip east. I don't like bears. Don't know what to do if I ever wandered into one. There goes our dream of filling that state grid.

[+wmpastor]

I know several cachers who will not hunt for many of my caches because "there are black bears." That's their problem.

There are bears in Jersey?...Crap, we were thinking of planning a trip east. I don't like bears. Don't know what to do if I ever wandered into one. There goes our dream of filling that state grid.

The only bears in New Jersey are teddy bears.

[+JL_HSTRE]

The volunteers under reviewers that check the cache placements are those cachers who are not afraid to ruffle feathers by posting honest logs and making reports as need via NM and/or NA logs or direct reviewer contacts.

 

Yes! Too many cachers afraid of making someone angry at them or totally indifferent to the Guidelines. Have no fear; help your geo-community.

 

There are bears in Jersey?...Crap, we were thinking of planning a trip east. I don't like bears. Don't know what to do if I ever wandered into one. There goes our dream of filling that state grid.

 

I think NJ has some kind of black bear density record due to them being all crammed into one section of the state (the part with the AT).

Edited April 8, 2013 by Joshism

[+OZ2CPU]

a few pictures take away the personal aspect of it all

simply contact the CO, ask for a private EMAIL adr, where you can attach a few pictures of the GZ,

let him judge the locaton him self..

 

if you dont have a picture, try to be as honost as possible about the site in your log,

then you did your part of it.

[+cerberus1]

I know several cachers who will not hunt for many of my caches because "there are black bears." That's their problem.

There are bears in Jersey?...Crap, we were thinking of planning a trip east. I don't like bears. Don't know what to do if I ever wandered into one. There goes our dream of filling that state grid.

The only bears in New Jersey are teddy bears.

We spot more black bears on North Jersey trails than any other State we've visited.

Whenever we had a sighting/problem with a bear that didn't eventually run away, it was in Jersey.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I know several cachers who will not hunt for many of my caches because "there are black bears." That's their problem.

There are bears in Jersey?...Crap, we were thinking of planning a trip east. I don't like bears. Don't know what to do if I ever wandered into one. There goes our dream of filling that state grid.

 

There are also bears in New York State. I haven't seen one while caching but I saw some rather large recent bear tracks in the snow in between stages on a multi and some bear scat near a cache close to where my son goes for gymnastics. My inlaws saw one wander through their property (they live on 25 forested acres about 4 miles from me) a couple of years ago. That said, bear sightings are still pretty rare in both states.

 

Most likely, if you saw a bear while caching in NJ or NY it would run the other way as soon as it saw you. There are also a lot of pretty nice spots in New Jersey where there wouldn't be even a slight chance you'd encounter a bear.

[+Off Grid]

Hi

I am very new to this and just have a couple of questions if anyone could help me please.

Do reviewers visit the sites of new caches before they publish them?

 

 

 

Also, are there any health and safety rules regarding placement of caches? I am asking because we went to find several caches close together yesterday. We didn't find them but the areas were surrounded by broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

 

I would be very concerned if children were involved in looking for these caches.

 

Thank you

that's nothing compared to half the junk ive found at caches sleeping bags needles glass trash etc

[+Off Grid]

a few pictures take away the personal aspect of it all

simply contact the CO, ask for a private EMAIL adr, where you can attach a few pictures of the GZ,

let him judge the locaton him self..

 

if you dont have a picture, try to be as honost as possible about the site in your log,

then you did your part of it.

How do you take pictures down they post n your site with trash ?

[+Off Grid]

Reveiwers do not visit cache locations before publishing.

But they should go and review the cache or get volunteers under them to

Sorry, it just isn't feasible. What about a cache like this one? Are you really seriously expecting a reviewer or other volunteer to go on a 5-day round-trip, 60 km hike with almost 6 km of total elevation gain to make sure this cache is acceptable before making it available to the general public?

 

Not gonna happen.

no but I do expect if the cache is published anywhere The Duncan Vic saanich etc to be looked at and than you have someone up the island look at the Sidney one than you get someone to do port alberni area its called getting volunteers more people involved. Than you would have some goood quality csches and they wouldn't be placed on a military base where they were not supposes to be.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Reveiwers do not visit cache locations before publishing.

But they should go and review the cache or get volunteers under them to

Sorry, it just isn't feasible. What about a cache like this one? Are you really seriously expecting a reviewer or other volunteer to go on a 5-day round-trip, 60 km hike with almost 6 km of total elevation gain to make sure this cache is acceptable before making it available to the general public?

 

Not gonna happen.

no but I do expect if the cache is published anywhere The Duncan Vic saanich etc to be looked at and than you have someone up the island look at the Sidney one than you get someone to do port alberni area its called getting volunteers more people involved. Than you would have some goood quality csches and they wouldn't be placed on a military base where they were not supposes to be.

"Quality" is not a reviewer's concern. Their concern is placement according to the guidelines (or some resemblance thereof).

To require more than that is a bit of a stretch for a "volunteer". As it stands, they have plenty of work to do.

[+The A-Team]

...its called getting volunteers more people involved.

There are already millions of volunteers involved. Every cacher has the ability (duty?) to bring problems to the attention of the CO and the reviewers.

[+Off Grid]

...its called getting volunteers more people involved.

There are already millions of volunteers involved. Every cacher has the ability (duty?) to bring problems to the attention of the CO and the reviewers.

Answer for everything eh

 

Cause that worked out well eh I've been to places where I'm scratching my head wondering why the cache is there because its on private property etc. And people seem to have a weird fetish with caches that are illegal they get favorite points and told to everyone....so what happened to the catchers reviewing??

[+bflentje]

Also, are there any health and safety rules regarding placement of caches? I am asking because we went to find several caches close together yesterday. We didn't find them but the areas were surrounded by broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

 

I would be very concerned if children were involved in looking for these caches.

I would be worried if anyone went after these caches. Let the reviewer and CO know about ground zero, they might change their mind and move or archive the cache.

Reviewers can't visit every site. If they did, the rate of cache publication would grind to a halt.

 

Thanks for protecting us from ourselves.

[+hzoi]

no but I do expect if the cache is published anywhere The Duncan Vic saanich etc to be looked at and than you have someone up the island look at the Sidney one than you get someone to do port alberni area its called getting volunteers more people involved. Than you would have some goood quality csches and they wouldn't be placed on a military base where they were not supposes to be.

 

Second time you've mentioned this without an explanation. This seems to be upsetting you. Can you please post a link to the cache(s) you're concerned about?

[+The A-Team]

they wouldn't be placed on a military base where they were not supposes to be.

Second time you've mentioned this without an explanation. This seems to be upsetting you. Can you please post a link to the cache(s) you're concerned about?

I can answer that one.

The Canadian Navy's Pacific coast base is in this town. There are a few uncontrolled (ie. not fenced/gated) parts of the base that are a bit more remote from the ocean, and aren't necessarily clearly part of the base. About a month ago, at the request of the base, one of our reviewers archived 5 caches in one such area. At the time these caches were originally published, the reviewers must not have been aware that it was military land (I didn't realize it until recently). Even Off Grid must not have realized it, because they had found and logged all 5 of them (and one twice). Everyone makes mistakes, and once the reviewers became aware of the situation, they promptly dealt with it.

[Pup Patrol]

...its called getting volunteers more people involved.

There are already millions of volunteers involved. Every cacher has the ability (duty?) to bring problems to the attention of the CO and the reviewers.

Answer for everything eh

 

Cause that worked out well eh I've been to places where I'm scratching my head wondering why the cache is there because its on private property etc. And people seem to have a weird fetish with caches that are illegal they get favorite points and told to everyone....so what happened to the catchers reviewing??

 

what happened to finders posting "Needs Archived" logs?

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=56

 

FINDERS:

 

If you feel that a cache listing needs to archived, log onto the cache page, use "log your visit" and select the log type, "needs archived". Please explain in your log why the listing needs to be archived. This log will be received by both the cache owner and a local reviewer. The log will not automatically cause the listing to be archived. You may not see any public response to your log.

 

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.

 

 

B.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[+L0ne.R]

they wouldn't be placed on a military base where they were not supposes to be.

Second time you've mentioned this without an explanation. This seems to be upsetting you. Can you please post a link to the cache(s) you're concerned about?

I can answer that one.

The Canadian Navy's Pacific coast base is in this town. There are a few uncontrolled (ie. not fenced/gated) parts of the base that are a bit more remote from the ocean, and aren't necessarily clearly part of the base. About a month ago, at the request of the base, one of our reviewers archived 5 caches in one such area. At the time these caches were originally published, the reviewers must not have been aware that it was military land (I didn't realize it until recently). Even Off Grid must not have realized it, because they had found and logged all 5 of them (and one twice). Everyone makes mistakes, and once the reviewers became aware of the situation, they promptly dealt with it.

 

Thanks. It's good to know the whole story.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I know several cachers who will not hunt for many of my caches because "there are black bears." That's their problem.

There are bears in Jersey?...Crap, we were thinking of planning a trip east. I don't like bears. Don't know what to do if I ever wandered into one. There goes our dream of filling that state grid.

 

There are also bears in New York State. I haven't seen one while caching but I saw some rather large recent bear tracks in the snow in between stages on a multi and some bear scat near a cache close to where my son goes for gymnastics. My inlaws saw one wander through their property (they live on 25 forested acres about 4 miles from me) a couple of years ago. That said, bear sightings are still pretty rare in both states.

 

Most likely, if you saw a bear while caching in NJ or NY it would run the other way as soon as it saw you. There are also a lot of pretty nice spots in New Jersey where there wouldn't be even a slight chance you'd encounter a bear.

Thanks. I carry a knife just for the rare occasion that a local coyote goes rogue, but that wouldn't work w/ a bear. Wolves could present an issue in the future too. We don't have wolves.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Most likely, if you saw a bear while caching in NJ or NY it would run the other way as soon as it saw you. There are also a lot of pretty nice spots in New Jersey where there wouldn't be even a slight chance you'd encounter a bear.

 

Well, my point was that you choose your adventure. If you don't like bears, then don't do caches with bears nearby. New Jersey bears number around 2000-3000. Mostly in the northwest corner. "West of I-287 & north of I-80."

And, no. Most of the ones I've met do not run away. They stare at you. (Though I did feel sorry for poor Stumpy. He took off through the mountain laurel, whcih is nasty stuff! I missed him by about 10 feet. Took my 15 minutes before I could move again.)

I have a series of caches about two miles north, in a old iron mining area. (Yes, about a half mile from the shopping center, across the Interstate.) I've seen Amparo Oso a few times. (We named her after a neighbor of a friend of mine. Amparo is a nosy lady. Seemed the right name for this bear.)

I've met twenty or thirty bear. Three on the AT in Maine. Six on the AT in Virginia. The rest in NJ.

But, my point is that you choose your adventure. If you don't want to hunt caches where there may be bears nearby, then don't. (Which would exclude a fair number of my caches.)

If you don't want to hunt a cache in an area with needles and broken glass. Then don't.

If you don't want to climb a tree, or a cliff. Then don't.

If you don't want to hunt urban micros (and I have a number of them as well...), then don't.

And I don't hunt for kayaking caches. That's my prerogative.

For the OP to claim 'unsuitable', means that the OP expects all caches to be 1/1, or is incapable of using discretion. That's rather sad. Hey! Use common sense!

[+Don_J]

 

For the OP to claim 'unsuitable', means that the OP expects all caches to be 1/1, or is incapable of using discretion. That's rather sad. Hey! Use common sense!

 

And thus the reason why this forum has a bad reputation for being hostile. The OP is new, was curious about the situation they encountered and was asking for advice. What's "sad" is that some can't simply answer a question without making judgements of those that asked it.

[+Legochugglers]

Hi

I am very new to this and just have a couple of questions if anyone could help me please.

Do reviewers visit the sites of new caches before they publish them?

 

 

 

Also, are there any health and safety rules regarding placement of caches? I am asking because we went to find several caches close together yesterday. We didn't find them but the areas were surrounded by broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

 

I would be very concerned if children were involved in looking for these caches.

 

Thank you

I did a bit of research and located the cache in question. The COs are relatively new and the cache is one of three (their first hides) in an urban park. I do not think that they have specifically chosen to place the cache in an unsuitable area and it may be that it is an inaccurate coordinate problem rather than poor placement. Two other cachers have also posted DNF logs after giving the area a good search and commenting that the terrain rating doesn't seem correct. They also specifically comment about the hint which mentions a "bus stop" which clearly doesn't fit with the gz (unless the hint is very cryptic).

 

IIt is disappointing that the CO has not responded to this initial problem with the cache although they could be away for a few days.

I suggest a Needs Maintenance log is posted straight away and maybe a note to the reviewer simultaneously. If there is still no response after a few days then post a Needs Archive.

[+madasa123]

Hi

I am very new to this and just have a couple of questions if anyone could help me please.

Do reviewers visit the sites of new caches before they publish them?

 

 

 

Also, are there any health and safety rules regarding placement of caches? I am asking because we went to find several caches close together yesterday. We didn't find them but the areas were surrounded by broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

 

I would be very concerned if children were involved in looking for these caches.

 

Thank you

I did a bit of research and located the cache in question. The COs are relatively new and the cache is one of three (their first hides) in an urban park. I do not think that they have specifically chosen to place the cache in an unsuitable area and it may be that it is an inaccurate coordinate problem rather than poor placement. Two other cachers have also posted DNF logs after giving the area a good search and commenting that the terrain rating doesn't seem correct. They also specifically comment about the hint which mentions a "bus stop" which clearly doesn't fit with the gz (unless the hint is very cryptic).

 

IIt is disappointing that the CO has not responded to this initial problem with the cache although they could be away for a few days.

I suggest a Needs Maintenance log is posted straight away and maybe a note to the reviewer simultaneously. If there is still no response after a few days then post a Needs Archive.

 

Thank you for your response and advice (apologies if I have not used the quote feature correctly)

I will do as suggested.

The hint is correct. It is in inverted commas which I took to mean a bit of thinking outside the box was required.

Having said that it was Mr Madasa that spotted it....grrr

[+madasa123]

For the OP to claim 'unsuitable', means that the OP expects all caches to be 1/1, or is incapable of using discretion. That's rather sad. Hey! Use common sense!

 

 

That was neither helpful nor constructive.

Did you mean to be so rude?

If you look at the title of my post you will notice that it includes a question mark. This means it was a question!

So your assumption of what I 'meant' was way off mark.

It's 'rather sad' that someone can't respond to a question in the same polite manner in which it was asked.

 

(and yes I know that I have not used the quote feature. I have tried but am clearly incapable)

Edited April 9, 2013 by madasa123

[+Off Grid]

they wouldn't be placed on a military base where they were not supposes to be.

Second time you've mentioned this without an explanation. This seems to be upsetting you. Can you please post a link to the cache(s) you're concerned about?

I can answer that one.

The Canadian Navy's Pacific coast base is in this town. There are a few uncontrolled (ie. not fenced/gated) parts of the base that are a bit more remote from the ocean, and aren't necessarily clearly part of the base. About a month ago, at the request of the base, one of our reviewers archived 5 caches in one such area. At the time these caches were originally published, the reviewers must not have been aware that it was military land (I didn't realize it until recently). Even Off Grid must not have realized it, because they had found and logged all 5 of them (and one twice). Everyone makes mistakes, and once the reviewers became aware of the situation, they promptly dealt with it.

Yes dealt with it after the fact and how in gods name with the no tresspassin sign that has been there for years did you not know it was DND property did the no trespassing sign or PMQ give it away or the military base right beside it. When they were contacted they were shocked. Even as a kid I knew that pmq meant military property and military police

[+Off Grid]

they wouldn't be placed on a military base where they were not supposes to be.

Second time you've mentioned this without an explanation. This seems to be upsetting you. Can you please post a link to the cache(s) you're concerned about?

I can answer that one.

The Canadian Navy's Pacific coast base is in this town. There are a few uncontrolled (ie. not fenced/gated) parts of the base that are a bit more remote from the ocean, and aren't necessarily clearly part of the base. About a month ago, at the request of the base, one of our reviewers archived 5 caches in one such area. At the time these caches were originally published, the reviewers must not have been aware that it was military land (I didn't realize it until recently). Even Off Grid must not have realized it, because they had found and logged all 5 of them (and one twice). Everyone makes mistakes, and once the reviewers became aware of the situation, they promptly dealt with it.

 

Thanks. It's good to know the whole story.

actual that's not the whole story and there was a reason to getting the smiley

Edited April 9, 2013 by Off Grid

[+T.D.M.22]

Hi

I am very new to this and just have a couple of questions if anyone could help me please.

Do reviewers visit the sites of new caches before they publish them?

 

 

 

Also, are there any health and safety rules regarding placement of caches? I am asking because we went to find several caches close together yesterday. We didn't find them but the areas were surrounded by broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

 

I would be very concerned if children were involved in looking for these caches.

 

Thank you

that's nothing compared to half the junk ive found at caches sleeping bags needles glass trash etc

 

And tents?

 

To answer your other question you can click on view log( the one with the picture ) and I think there is a button to delete just the picture- having never done it I could be wrong though...

[+bflentje]

 

For the OP to claim 'unsuitable', means that the OP expects all caches to be 1/1, or is incapable of using discretion. That's rather sad. Hey! Use common sense!

 

And thus the reason why this forum has a bad reputation for being hostile. The OP is new, was curious about the situation they encountered and was asking for advice. What's "sad" is that some can't simply answer a question without making judgements of those that asked it.

 

I agree that the forums are more and more hostile. But more often than not, people come into the forums wanting to change the game to accommodate their lack of discretion or judgement or motivation. The only thing worse than the "so called" old timers (I probably am one) acting as if they own the game are the new comers who think the world needs to accommodate them; provide me with a FTF, don't change the ratings, don't do this, don't do that.. blah blah blah.

 

- Rant complete.

[+Legochugglers]

Hi

I am very new to this and just have a couple of questions if anyone could help me please.

Do reviewers visit the sites of new caches before they publish them?

 

 

 

Also, are there any health and safety rules regarding placement of caches? I am asking because we went to find several caches close together yesterday. We didn't find them but the areas were surrounded by broken glass, rubbish, graffiti, an animal carcass and rats.

 

I would be very concerned if children were involved in looking for these caches.

 

Thank you

I did a bit of research and located the cache in question. The COs are relatively new and the cache is one of three (their first hides) in an urban park. I do not think that they have specifically chosen to place the cache in an unsuitable area and it may be that it is an inaccurate coordinate problem rather than poor placement. Two other cachers have also posted DNF logs after giving the area a good search and commenting that the terrain rating doesn't seem correct. They also specifically comment about the hint which mentions a "bus stop" which clearly doesn't fit with the gz (unless the hint is very cryptic).

 

IIt is disappointing that the CO has not responded to this initial problem with the cache although they could be away for a few days.

I suggest a Needs Maintenance log is posted straight away and maybe a note to the reviewer simultaneously. If there is still no response after a few days then post a Needs Archive.

 

Thank you for your response and advice (apologies if I have not used the quote feature correctly)

I will do as suggested.

The hint is correct. It is in inverted commas which I took to mean a bit of thinking outside the box was required.

Having said that it was Mr Madasa that spotted it....grrr

 

Hold your horses! I put the cache on my watch list and noticed that someone has now found the cache and they thought it was really good (even gave it a favourite). The 'bus stop' reference is apparently very clever so there is obviously more to the cache than you originally thought. The finder's do comment on seeing some rubbish but don't feel it interferes with the search so they obviously were not put off searching.

I guess this is a typical example of how two perceptions of a cache/GZ can be so different although I wonder if the FTFers were swayed by their success.