New Unknown Rules?

[+cpttango30]

So I just had one of my listings archived. This cache GC1X4WNhad a cacher find it made a comment about high voltage and BANG archived with not even a courtesy email or something. No other reason given other than restricted area. I looked at the cache placement guidelines and underground transformer is not listed in the restricted areas part. It is getting so hard to place a cache with all the hidden rules and rules that just pop up out of nowhere. One fellow local cacher got an email DEMANDING he remove 6 or 8 of his caches because cachers had to park on the side of a back road. Really it is getting out of hand. Why is GS being so restrictive anymore? I know that when I geocache that I might get ticks, bug bites, I might meet a snake, other caches, cops, muggles, I might fall and injure myself. Heck my son got Lyme from caching. So what, that is the risk we take. Why is it that gs is trying to wrap us all in bubble wrap? Do we not agree to not hold GS accountable for injuries or death from caching?

 

My cache is next to a underground transformer. Is there high voltage inside? Yes. The transformer box is made so that it is grounded and it is locked. So really it doesn't pose any danger to a cacher. If for some reason the box did become electrified it would short to ground and throw a switch on the line killing all power. Which would alert the local power company. I just can't see any reason why it was archived other than someone ( A lackey what ever that is) has no darn clue about electricity. This person lives on the other side of the country and only has 25 finds. Has been a member for just over a year. This is what really pisses me off. That person has not clue where my cache is other than looking on a map. How can you effectively do this stuff if you haven't even seen or found it?

 

I really have half a mind to archive all 30 of my hides and just quit. It is too much of a hassle anymore to trying and find new exciting placed and spend my hard earned money making unique caches when I have to fight GS over it.

[+Walts Hunting]

I have to say I have never seen such a quick archive. Usually a disable with a note from a reviewer with questions.

 

I can't tell you how many times I have found caches ATTACHED TO A TRANSFORMER WTH A DANGER SGN.

 

The logger must have contacted the reviewer (which interestingly has lackey below the name and not reviewer) directly to get that action I would suggest a note to the lackey asking what happened.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Private property issues? If you look at the Google maps, it shows the cache inside an odd shaped piece of property that has a house on it.

Edited June 9, 2013 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+cheech gang]

Just let the Lackey know who you got the permission from and you should be good to go.

[Keystone]

The logger must have contacted the reviewer (which interestingly has lackey below the name and not reviewer) directly to get that action I would suggest a note to the lackey asking what happened.

Any land owner or geocacher can contact Geocaching.com directly, without going through a volunteer cache reviewer. It appears that's what happened here, since a Groundspeak Lackey archived the listing. We do not know, however, whether there was email conversation not visible to us.

[+The_Incredibles_]

You got permission to put it there, right?

[jholly]

So I just had one of my listings archived. This cache GC1X4WNhad a cacher find it made a comment about high voltage and BANG archived with not even a courtesy email or something. No other reason given other than restricted area. I looked at the cache placement guidelines and underground transformer is not listed in the restricted areas part.

 

...

 

 

That green box belongs to the power utility. It is therefore private property. Of course you contacted them and got permission to place your cache before you listed it, right? I'm sure you provided the contact person and information in the reviewer note before you submitted it. No? Then I would speculate that it was archived because it was placed on private property without permission. Nothing secret about that.

[+T.D.M.22]

In the guidelines it says a cache may be denied for proximity near certain places. It also say the list on not exhaustive- meaning they can add to it if they feel fit, without informing us.

[+Walts Hunting]

The logger must have contacted the reviewer (which interestingly has lackey below the name and not reviewer) directly to get that action I would suggest a note to the lackey asking what happened.

Any land owner or geocacher can contact Geocaching.com directly, without going through a volunteer cache reviewer. It appears that's what happened here, since a Groundspeak Lackey archived the listing. We do not know, however, whether there was email conversation not visible to us.

 

The OP stated no email conversation which is what I found surprising

[+FunnyNose]

Does not look like a common sense placement to me.

Is that underground transformer of any historical importance?

Why did you want me to come here ?

[nonaeroterraqueous]

You got permission to put it there, right?

 

You're a clever one, you know.

[+The_Incredibles_]

You got permission to put it there, right?

 

You're a clever one, you know.

 

Thanks for noticing.

[+The A-Team]

Any land owner or geocacher can contact Geocaching.com directly, without going through a volunteer cache reviewer. It appears that's what happened here, since a Groundspeak Lackey archived the listing. We do not know, however, whether there was email conversation not visible to us.

The OP stated no email conversation which is what I found surprising

I believe Keystone was referring to an email conversation between the Lackey and whoever contacted the Lackey, be it a land owner, a concerned cacher, etc.

[+Don_J]

So, is this a new policy? Does it only apply if someone complains? We can sit here and quote private property guidelines all day long, but let's be real. When it comes to power transformers and Lamp posts in common areas, there is no real enforcement of the guidelines. I have never heard of a cache being archived for the simple fact that it was on a transformer.

 

A good guess is that there are over a 100 of these within five miles of my home GZ. Probably just as many LPCs.

[+wmpastor]

Does not look like a common sense placement to me.

Is that underground transformer of any historical importance?

Why did you want me to come here ?

Hmmm...if anyone pushed these "why come here?" suggestions, many caches would be archived!

 

Note to OP: next time, out-wit these "high-brow types" and include some educational information about electrical distribution systems and equipment!

 

Edited June 9, 2013 by wmpastor

[+wmpastor]

I have to say I have never seen such a quick archive. Usually a disable with a note from a reviewer with questions.

I can't tell you how many times I have found caches ATTACHED TO A TRANSFORMER WTH A DANGER SGN.

 

The logger must have contacted the reviewer (which interestingly has lackey below the name and not reviewer) directly to get that action I would suggest a note to the lackey asking what happened.

I guess the reviewer believed that the problem could not be corrected. But yes, one would hope that reviewers would give the CO a chance to respond first, and either explain the situation or correct the problem.

 

By the way, archiving can be appealed, first to the reviewer, and then to GS headquarters.

[Clan Riffster]

New Unknown Rules?

The permission guidelines have been in place for years.

As an experienced geocacher, I'm assuming you got permission from the power company.

Not sure why your cache got archived...

I really have half a mind to archive all 30 of my hides and just quit.

Okay. Your call.

If that's how you want to teach your kid to deal with adversity, go for it.

[+mertat]

I have to say I have never seen such a quick archive. Usually a disable with a note from a reviewer with questions.

I can't tell you how many times I have found caches ATTACHED TO A TRANSFORMER WTH A DANGER SGN.

 

The logger must have contacted the reviewer (which interestingly has lackey below the name and not reviewer) directly to get that action I would suggest a note to the lackey asking what happened.

I guess the reviewer believed that the problem could not be corrected. But yes, one would hope that reviewers would give the CO a chance to respond first, and either explain the situation or correct the problem.

 

By the way, archiving can be appealed, first to the reviewer, and then to GS headquarters.

As was pointed out in post #5 above, the cache was archived by a Lackey not a reviewer and probably because a land owner complained.

[Pup Patrol]

( A lackey what ever that is) has no darn clue about electricity. This person lives on the other side of the country and only has 25 finds. Has been a member for just over a year. This is what really pisses me off. That person has not clue where my cache is other than looking on a map. How can you effectively do this stuff if you haven't even seen or found it?

 

Help Center → Business → General Information

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=96

 

1.4. Lackey

 

What's a Lackey?

 

A "Groundspeak Lackey" is a term used to refer to the employees and founders of Groundspeak who do the most basic tasks to support the overall needs of the community. This willingness to serve each other and provide recreation for a worldwide community is a core value of our company.

 

We accept the term Lackey with pride since we are beholden to the community for our success.

 

While the posters here are talking about "private property", the Groundspeak Lackey did not cite that as the reason for archival.

 

Archive

06/07/2013

 

Archived for being in an off-limits area.

 

Which sort of sounds like this Guideline:

 

6. Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations.

 

Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict cache placement. A cache may be disabled or archived if one or more of the following is true. Please note that the list is not exhaustive; there are many reasons why a cache may be disabled or archived.

 

1. If your cache is reported by the land owner or land manager as being an unwanted intrusion, Groundspeak will respect the wishes of the land owner or manager.

 

2. The cache placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and/or vehicular traffic including, but not limited to, archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries. Note that some cemeteries permit cache placement.

 

3. The cache is on property belonging to a railroad. In the United States we generally require a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from active tracks. Local laws may vary.

 

4. The cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, major roadways, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

 

The big problem, to me, is the lack of communication with the cache owner. Perhaps the Lackey was acting quickly, but still...

 

 

B.

[Mr.Yuck]

So, is this a new policy? Does it only apply if someone complains? We can sit here and quote private property guidelines all day long, but let's be real. When it comes to power transformers and Lamp posts in common areas, there is no real enforcement of the guidelines. I have never heard of a cache being archived for the simple fact that it was on a transformer.

 

A good guess is that there are over a 100 of these within five miles of my home GZ. Probably just as many LPCs.

 

So you have 200 caches to report? Better get busy.

 

I'm a well-known old school type cacher, and you wouldn't catch me dead fondling a transformer behind someones house in the name of Geocaching, but I have to agree with the OP and Walt's hunting; this was a very fast response, and highly unusual. Can we confidently say there are thousands of caches on transformers in the U.S.? I think we can.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have to say I have never seen such a quick archive. Usually a disable with a note from a reviewer with questions.

I can't tell you how many times I have found caches ATTACHED TO A TRANSFORMER WTH A DANGER SGN.

 

The logger must have contacted the reviewer (which interestingly has lackey below the name and not reviewer) directly to get that action I would suggest a note to the lackey asking what happened.

I guess the reviewer believed that the problem could not be corrected. But yes, one would hope that reviewers would give the CO a chance to respond first, and either explain the situation or correct the problem.

 

By the way, archiving can be appealed, first to the reviewer, and then to GS headquarters.

As was pointed out in post #5 above, the cache was archived by a Lackey not a reviewer and probably because a land owner complained.

 

So the takeaway from this is that communication between volunteer reviewers and geocachers is better that communication between Groundspeak and geocachers. And this is news?

 

 

[+cpttango30]

I really have half a mind to archive all 30 of my hides and just quit.

Okay. Your call.

If that's how you want to teach your kid to deal with adversity, go for it.

 

Do you live in my area?

 

Do you have to deal with the triple standards in my area?

 

I see caches get placed that are in clear violation of rules and guidelines. I also see reviewers making up their own rules as they go along and then contact CO and DEMAND they archive and remove those caches not even a month after they (The Reviewer) approved every one of the hides. Stating that parking along a road is unsafe.....

 

I just don't get the whole no contact. How can you effectively do this to me when you haven't laid eyes on my hide?

 

I also do this for FUN. I could care less about numbers I do it to get outdoors with my kids. If they are going to make it NOT FUN then I am not going to do it.

[Mr.Yuck]

I really have half a mind to archive all 30 of my hides and just quit.

Okay. Your call.

If that's how you want to teach your kid to deal with adversity, go for it.

 

Do you live in my area?

 

Do you have to deal with the triple standards in my area?

 

I see caches get placed that are in clear violation of rules and guidelines. I also see reviewers making up their own rules as they go along and then contact CO and DEMAND they archive and remove those caches not even a month after they (The Reviewer) approved every one of the hides. Stating that parking along a road is unsafe.....

 

I just don't get the whole no contact. How can you effectively do this to me when you haven't laid eyes on my hide?

 

I also do this for FUN. I could care less about numbers I do it to get outdoors with my kids. If they are going to make it NOT FUN then I am not going to do it.

 

Yeah, you're taking some hits for sure here. Even I said "I would never fondle a transformer behind someone's house in the name of Geocaching". Keystone, a well-known long time reviewer has the correct answer in post #5 By the way, I'm not a stalker, and this is normal around here, but the cache is very easy to find in your hides in your profile, and you just look for an archived cache that was found a few days ago. You know what I think? The complainer either works for the power company, or maybe he even contacted the power company and had THEM contact Groundspeak. And obviously HQ was contacted, as the cache was archived by someone identified as a Lackey under their avatar.

[+cheech gang]

I do not live in your area but I can see where the cache is placed.

 

According to the property lines that are depicted on Google Maps this is placed on the private lot of a homeowner. Google gets their property line info from the county auditors real estate records and maps.

 

I happen to have an electrical distribution box on my property. Of course the electric company owns the box and has an easement to place the box there and to have ready access to it. But the land is still my property.

 

The complaint to Groundspeak could have been from the electric company, or from the landowner in which case it was justified in being archived.

 

If; however, it was due to solely to "safety" reasons based upon comments from a previous seeker then I would say you have a valid point forf discussion here. We just don't know, all we have to go on is what YOU are telling us.

[Pup Patrol]

If; however, it was due to solely to "safety" reasons based upon comments from a previous seeker then I would say you have a valid point forf discussion here. We just don't know, all we have to go on is what YOU are telling us.

 

We do have the Lackey's archive note, which I quoted back in post #19. "off limits area".

 

Now, perhaps this Lackey doesn't have a lot of experience in archiving caches (I don't know), but "private property" was not the reason given.

 

Two things are troublesome in this situation for me:

 

--a Lackey archiving a cache, not a Reviewer

 

--lack of communication with the CO. *Usually* when a Reviewer archives a cache, there's some sort of communication with the CO. If nothing else, communication with the CO demonstrates common courtesy, and is also perhaps educational and much more clear in their reasoning.

 

But, going on Groundspeak's history of effectively communicating with its members, perhaps it's not unusual that a Lackey also demonstrates this deficiency.

 

B.

Edited June 9, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[+cheech gang]

If; however, it was due to solely to "safety" reasons based upon comments from a previous seeker then I would say you have a valid point forf discussion here. We just don't know, all we have to go on is what YOU are telling us.

 

We do have the Lackey's archive note, which I quoted back in post #19. "off limits area".

 

Now, perhaps this Lackey doesn't have a lot of experience in archiving caches (I don't know), but "private property" was not the reason given.

 

Two things are troublesome in this situation for me:

 

--a Lackey archiving a cache, not a Reviewer

 

--lack of communication with the CO. *Usually* when a Reviewer archives a cache, there's some sort of communication with the CO. If nothing else, communication with the CO demonstrates common courtesy, and is also perhaps educational and much more clear in their reasoning.

 

But, going on Groundspeak's history of effectively communicating with its members, perhaps it's not unusual that a Lackey also demonstrates this deficiency.

 

B.

 

PupPatrol. You are correct. I obviously skimmed over your post.

 

"Off Limits Area" could mean a lot of things, Regardless, it still could have been reported to Groundspeak by the electric company, or the homeowner, OR the previous seeker. I agree there should have been more communication from the Lilypad.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Electrical equipment (and power poles) are private property of the power company. I am skeptical any power company would be okay with caches on their property. The problem is this is not adequately enforced.

 

And while this is similiar to LPCs, those I think are owned by the property owner not the power company.

 

As for the backroad caches that is a seperate issue. It may not be the whim of the Reviewer; a DOT or similiar may have complained.

[4wheelin_fool]

Hidden in someone's yard on a transformer box? You dont want us to judge the hide negatively without being there, but I'm sure you want us to be outraged over the archival? Thanks for the entertainment.

 

I am also absolutely outraged that the power company would put those pesky DANGER stickers on perfectly safe equipment to play on. Suspicious fondling of electrical boxes on private property is a geocaching rite of passage.

[+SwineFlew]

You're welcome.

[+kunarion]

You're welcome.

Electricians can cache there. Maybe have a "Cache is suitable for workers officially working on the high-voltage equipment" icon.

 

The blog from 2/28/07 has good info:

http://johnnygeo-blog.blogspot.com/2007/02/geocaching-electrical-safety-examples.html

Edited June 9, 2013 by kunarion

[+Don_J]

New Unknown Rules?

The permission guidelines have been in place for years.

As an experienced geocacher, I'm assuming you got permission from the power company.

Not sure why your cache got archived...

I really have half a mind to archive all 30 of my hides and just quit.

Okay. Your call.

If that's how you want to teach your kid to deal with adversity, go for it.

 

Clan, with all due respect, this is a ridiculous response. You know that he didn't get permission. You know that every single one of these caches, which when you include LPCs, could number in the hundreds of thousands, do not have permission. It's my guess that these caches represent a good chunk of Groundspeak's precious database.

 

The discussion should be, why did a lackey at headquarters pick one cache out of all of them and archive it without notice? Does this indicate that headquarters does not approve of these caches and they should all be archived? Should I compile a list of a couple hundred of these and email them to that lackey through her profile?

 

Personally, I think that the lackey should have forwarded the message to the area's reviewer and let him/her act accordingly.

[+Don_J]

I really have half a mind to archive all 30 of my hides and just quit.

Okay. Your call.

If that's how you want to teach your kid to deal with adversity, go for it.

 

Do you live in my area?

 

Do you have to deal with the triple standards in my area?

 

I see caches get placed that are in clear violation of rules and guidelines. I also see reviewers making up their own rules as they go along and then contact CO and DEMAND they archive and remove those caches not even a month after they (The Reviewer) approved every one of the hides. Stating that parking along a road is unsafe.....

 

I just don't get the whole no contact. How can you effectively do this to me when you haven't laid eyes on my hide?

 

I also do this for FUN. I could care less about numbers I do it to get outdoors with my kids. If they are going to make it NOT FUN then I am not going to do it.

 

Safe parking should not be a concern. As a responsible geocacher, I'm expected to park where it is safe and legal and walk, or perhaps bike to the cache. Were the cache descriptions encouraging people to park in an unsafe manner? I would expect my reviewer to address that if he were notified.

[+tozainamboku]

So the takeaway from this is that communication between volunteer reviewers and geocachers is better that communication between Groundspeak and geocachers. And this is news?

Pretty much this is what I get from this discussion as well.

 

There is nothing new about the permission guidelines. And there is nothing new about Groundspeak archiving a chache if a property owner makes a complaint. And, at least for the past few years, their is nothing new about the lackey doing the archive leaving a terse ans often confusing note.

 

Many reviewers will quote scripture and verse from the guidelines when they archive a cache. We may disagree with the interpretation but at least we are aware there is no new, secret, guideline.

 

On the other hand, Groundspeak lackeys seem to have been told to archive the cache and be terse in their comments.

 

The cache was archive with the comment that it is "in an off-limits area". While this seems to confuse some people, the relevant section of the guidelines list a number of reasons that an area can be off-limits. The list is not exhaustive, however it includes:

1. If your cache is reported by the land owner or land manager as being an unwanted intrusion, Groundspeak will respect the wishes of the land owner or manager.

 

It may be confusing to see this here as the permission section of the guidelines has similar text:

If Groundspeak is contacted and informed that your cache has been placed inappropriately, your cache may be temporarily disabled or permanently archived.

 

It seems that the two rules are slightly different. The permission rule refers to the cache being place inappropriately (i.e. without adequate permission or in violation of additional property owner/land manager guidelines), while the off-limits rule refer to the cache being an unwanted intrusion. IANAL, but perhaps this difference allows these rules to applied in different situations.

[4wheelin_fool]

it seems that a new cacher complained to a new lackey which is why. However there are plenty of caches in grey areas, which could be archived at any time if someone complained about it. Not only is this on private property, but it is not a commercial area open to the public either. I'm certain that someone could get hundreds of caches archived if they sent letters to property managers, and they in turn contacted Groundspeak. Most are on case by case basis. This one has an angry person, private property, a warning sign, and no permission. The easiest thing to do is archive it. If not, the complaintant would likely go outside of Groundspeak and have the electric company, or the homeowner contacted, making the situation much worse.

[+cpttango30]

The cache is the size of a match box roughly (It is an Outdoor Products SMALL pink waterproof container from walmart that I painted green). Here is a screen shot of the location. It is not in anyone's yard so I am not sure where all that is coming from. All I wanted was the courtesy of being offered to move the cache. If they determined it was unsafe then so be it. I know no one cache sets a precedent for others. Which in my eyes is complete utter BS. If my cache on a transformer is unsafe why are any other caches on transformers safe? Shoot every Boring LPC in the world needs to be removed because you have more of a chance of getting electrocuted by the bare wires in there than by touching the outside of a sealed transformer enclosure. Who's job is it to keep us all safe?

 

This is more than a few years old because there are trees around it now.

 

 

So I guess the next cache placement I was going to do is out now as well seeing as I was in the process of purchasing a cable protection vault to make into a travel bug hotel.

[+Semper Questio]

I'd like to know the full story on this one. We have caches exactly like this all over Central Texas and have had for years. I sure hope someone can shed some light on this one. On the surface it seems like an inappropriate archiving based on a single flimsy report from an inexperienced cacher to an inexperienced and/or overzealous Lackey. There has got to be more to this story.

[+cpttango30]

I contacted the original cache reviewer and she/ he is contacting GS and will let me know the results of that inquire. They were confused as to why the archival as well and stated that GS normally contacts the local reviewers when this happens. Once I get more info I will post it here.

[+cerberus1]

Some of our first finds were hides like that, though most were in parks and not so close to people's homes.

My other 2/3rds said she's found hundreds like that (I don't bother) over the years.

I'd like to believe a homeowner or power company said something and this wasn't due to a new cacher with only 12 finds and a new lackey, both maybe not fully aware of how things are normally handled. It's possible she might have served the Company and PR best by sending info to the (more knowledgeable) Reviewer.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Here is a screen shot of the location. It is not in anyone's yard so I am not sure where all that is coming from.

 

Are you sure it's not on someone's property? Did you check the local land/tax records? I'd bet a nickel it is.

[+T.D.M.22]

*snip* All I wanted was the courtesy of being offered to move the cache. *Snip*

 

This is more than a few years old because there are trees around it now.

 

 

So I guess the next cache placement I was going to do is out now as well seeing as I was in the process of purchasing a cable protection vault to make into a travel bug hotel.

 

 

My cache is next to a underground transformer. Is there high voltage inside? Yes. The transformer box is made so that it is grounded and it is locked. So really it doesn't pose any danger to a cacher.

 

Looks underground to me...

 

Anyway, you still have the option of moving it and having a reviewer unarchive it...

[+Harry Dolphin]

According to the property lines that are depicted on Google Maps this is placed on the private lot of a homeowner. Google gets their property line info from the county auditors real estate records and maps.

 

As if that were even close to being true. Google takes whatever it can find, and never questions the validity. Google has many major mistakes. But, it's on the Internet, so it must be true?

[+cheech gang]

Not that it makes much difference, but the one in the photo is across the street.

[+Harry Dolphin]

You got permission to put it there, right?

 

You're a clever one, you know.

 

Thanks for noticing.

 

Yes. We all enjoy sarcasm, instead of constructive help.

[+cheech gang]

According to the property lines that are depicted on Google Maps this is placed on the private lot of a homeowner. Google gets their property line info from the county auditors real estate records and maps.

 

As if that were even close to being true. Google takes whatever it can find, and never questions the validity. Google has many major mistakes. But, it's on the Internet, so it must be true?

 

A. I certainly do not believe everything on the internet.

B. I certainly believe my statement to be true.

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

Found it06/05/2013

Found it BUT it is underneath equipment clearly marked DANGER High Voltage Area!

 

Could the problem be in the way the found it log was written? It states the cache is UNDER the equipment.since the picture shows there is no way to put something under the green box my guess is just wording.

[+The A-Team]

My cache is next to a underground transformer.

Looks underground to me...

It's a transformer for an underground power system, so I guess it could be correct to call it an underground transformer, with the word "underground" specifying the type of system it's attached to, not describing its position.

 

According to the property lines that are depicted on Google Maps this is placed on the private lot of a homeowner. Google gets their property line info from the county auditors real estate records and maps.

As if that were even close to being true. Google takes whatever it can find, and never questions the validity. Google has many major mistakes. But, it's on the Internet, so it must be true?

In this case, Google seems to have gotten it right. I just looked up the position on the Stafford County online GIS map, and the position of the posted coordinates matches on both that map and Google's. That little jut-in in the fence line is actually part of the property of 7 Woods Edge Court.

[+briansnat]

The cache is the size of a match box roughly (It is an Outdoor Products SMALL pink waterproof container from walmart that I painted green). Here is a screen shot of the location. It is not in anyone's yard so I am not sure where all that is coming from. All I wanted was the courtesy of being offered to move the cache.

 

You already have that courtesy. They didn't blow your cache up, they didn't confiscate it. They archived the listing. You can move it and submit a new listing. Simple resolution.

Edited June 10, 2013 by briansnat

[Clan Riffster]

Do you live in my area?

I don't know. Where do you live?

Do you have to deal with the triple standards in my area?

I haven't seen any triple standards.

I haven't even seen any double standards.

I see at least one person hides caches in off limit areas.

Can you provide a link to the triple standards you reference in your rant?

I see caches get placed that are in clear violation of rules and guidelines.

As do we all. Hopefully you are reporting these violations.

I also see reviewers making up their own rules as they go along

Can you provide a source?

and then contact CO and DEMAND they archive and remove those caches not even a month after they (The Reviewer) approved every one of the hides.

As you know, our Reviewers are not able to physically inspect every cache listing prior to publishing them. If they tried, the reasonable expectation for publication would go from 72 hours to about 72 weeks. Oft times, they go by the information provided by the hider, such as when someone hides a cache on private property, claiming that they have permission, then they learn otherwise, and, as representatives of Groundspeak, they do their job and archive the cache. Other times they publish caches which, on their face, seem perfectly legitimate, such as the original ET Power Trail, and discover later that the placements are bad, in that they create unreasonable hazards, as dictated by the property owner, such as Nevada DOT. I'm sure, when these were first published, the Reviewer didn't think twice about it. But when the property owner complained about a safety issue, the Reviewer archived them.

Stating that parking along a road is unsafe.....

Sometimes, parking along a road is unsafe. Since we, as cachers, accept the hazards inherent in the game, caches aren't generally archived because they are hazardous, in and of themselves. What I've seen more often with these is that a property owner/manager decides that a cache is creating an undue hazard and what might be considered presumed permission gets upgraded to a need for explicit permission. Since the owner/manager won't give said permission, the cache goes away.

I just don't get the whole no contact. How can you effectively do this to me when you haven't laid eyes on my hide?

I can't speak for the Lackey, but I can certainly imagine a scenario by which a cache would be archived, no questions asked. Not saying this is the case with yours. Just offering it as an example. BillyBobNosePicker finds a transformer, and having really bad taste, decides that this would be a great place for a geocache. An electric company employee finds it, and throws a fit, complaining at a corporate level. The electric company's lawyer sends a cease and desist order to Groundspeak, demanding that the cache be removed from their property. At that point, Groundspeak isn't going to banter with you. They are going to do the only reasonable thing open to them and pull the trigger.

I do it to get outdoors with my kids. If they are going to make it NOT FUN then I am not going to do it.

Whilst I applaud you for bringing your kids outdoors for recreation, I hope you'll focus on what aspect made this suddenly NOT fun. In this case, it appears you may have made a minor bad judgement call regarding a cache placement. (Just guessing based on what you've written) This has been happening for many years, to gobs of cachers. You are not alone here. But my original statement still stands. The ball is in your court. You participated in a hobby which you claimed to enjoy. Then you hit a snag. A tiny bump in the road of life. You can learn from your mistake, like an adult, or you can become petulant, like a child. It's entirely up to you. But whatever you decide, know that this is a lesson you are teaching your children.

[Clan Riffster]

New Unknown Rules?

The permission guidelines have been in place for years.

As an experienced geocacher, I'm assuming you got permission from the power company.

Not sure why your cache got archived...

I really have half a mind to archive all 30 of my hides and just quit.

Okay. Your call.

If that's how you want to teach your kid to deal with adversity, go for it.

 

Clan, with all due respect, this is a ridiculous response.

Which one?

My first quoted response was done in snark mode. I knew he didn't have permission.

 

Though openly questioning such is not something I would call ridiculous. I believe that caches placed on private property should have explicit permission. Since Groundspeak states a similar belief in their guidelines, I feel I'm in good company. I just wish the Reviewers would enforce that section of the guidelines. If that means a sudden and severe decrease in the number of P&Gs available, I don't have a problem with that. It's a pet peeve of mine when organizations, corporations and/or government entities create rules with no plans to enforce them.

 

Or was it my second quoted response you found ridiculous?

Threatened geocide is not something I respond well to. If I ever reach a point in my life where I feel this hobby is no longer working for me, I will simply fade away, not rant and rave in the forums. Perhaps I could have acted with compassion, but that doesn't seem to be the typical response to geocide in these forums. Especially when the person threatening geocide has only themselves to blame for their angst.

 

Caches are placed without permission all the time. Just because it's common, doesn't suddenly shift the burden away from the hider. When a cache, hidden without permission, faces scrutiny from The Lily Pad, the end result is likely to be archival. If the person creating the scrutiny is high enough up some food chain, that archival could happen suddenly. Anyone who hides caches without permission should take this into consideration, and respond accordingly, with humility, rather than with anger.

 

What I would expect from the cache owner is something to the effect of, "My bad...".

 

What we got instead was a rant, coupled with a threatened geocide.

[AZcachemeister]

The cache is the size of a match box roughly (It is an Outdoor Products SMALL pink waterproof container from walmart that I painted green). Here is a screen shot of the location. It is not in anyone's yard so I am not sure where all that is coming from. All I wanted was the courtesy of being offered to move the cache. If they determined it was unsafe then so be it. I know no one cache sets a precedent for others. Which in my eyes is complete utter BS. If my cache on a transformer is unsafe why are any other caches on transformers safe? Shoot every Boring LPC in the world needs to be removed because you have more of a chance of getting electrocuted by the bare wires in there than by touching the outside of a sealed transformer enclosure. Who's job is it to keep us all safe?

 

This is more than a few years old because there are trees around it now.

 

 

So I guess the next cache placement I was going to do is out now as well seeing as I was in the process of purchasing a cable protection vault to make into a travel bug hotel.

 

I have seen (found) MORE THAN A FEW caches hidden in places like that in the photo above.

Apparently nobody complained. (yet)