New Unknown Rules?

[+ChileHead]

If a complaint was made by the land owner or the utility about the cache placement, then immediate archival by Groundspeak IS the right thing to do. I'd be a bit PO'd if I called GS about a cache on my property or property I manage, and they delayed delisting it and people kept coming because they wanted to check with the reviewer, or give the opportunity for the CO to move it.

 

Archived caches can be unarchived if an error was made in the cache's archival.

[+cpttango30]

I wouldn't have been angry if I was given some choice in the matter. Or if they would have just asked me to move it. But, to archive it for no reason other than in a restricted area. When restricted areas are not listed. How am I supposed to know it is a restricted area? Let me guess read the mind of some LACKEY?

 

This is a game I do for fun with my kids. All these hidden and always popping up rules make it NOT FUN.

 

Just got an email from the last finder. They reported it to GS as being unsafe. Though not so unsafe as to stop them from retrieving the cache and signing the log.

[4wheelin_fool]

I can see you being upset if you spent a significant amount of time setting it up, as well as a considerable amount of money on the effort. A time consuming project of building a custom container, and getting permission...you know several cachers have done that and have been shot down still. But this?? They gave you a little more communication than what you did to the power company when you placed it, as well as the families that pay taxes and live there 24/7 a few feet away.

Edited June 10, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Mn-treker]

I have found a few of these green box hides here in Minnesota. None of them a a good idea to do. When you make a hide you should be thinking about the cops vs the geocache seeker.

I have seen it said here that the transformer is underground. It is not, it is in the green box. Department of homeland security has told LEO that all utility control devises are to be watched.

Any one hanging around these are in for a world of hurt. Why lure your fellow cacher into this kind of trouble. Think before you hide, all utility property should be off limits.

There are lots of other places to place a hide. This is not a spot to make a hide and those at Groundspeak know it. That is why it was archived. In one city here child playground hides are forbiden

by city ordinance. Why? Because it is not safe for the kids that an adult is poking around. Can you say pervert? Just use plain common sense in where you place a hide. Ask yourself could this cause

a problem? If even a little of you says maybe then don't do it. Go hide someplace else.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I wouldn't have been angry if I was given some choice in the matter. Or if they would have just asked me to move it. But, to archive it for no reason other than in a restricted area. When restricted areas are not listed. How am I supposed to know it is a restricted area? Let me guess read the mind of some LACKEY?

The bolded part says ALOT about you. What better reason is there to archive a cache?

 

And you were given a choice. Before you placed the cache, you had a choice to either ask for permission (and know that it probably wouldn't be granted) or to place the cache without talking to anyone and hope it didn't turn into an issue. You gambled with the latter and lost.

 

You would've known it was a restricted area by talking to whoever owns the land and/or transformer. This is all on you. You failed as a cache owner. Don't try to blame this on anyone else. Own up to your responsibilities as a cache owner.

 

I applaud the cacher who reported the cache and got it archived. The "secret society'' of geocaching isn't so secret anymore. If we want to have the same freedoms to hide caches as we've had the past decade, we need to be upfront with the people who allow us to place caches on their property. Trying to sneak around and place them without permission is only going to lead to problems. Geocaching is a hobby we enjoy and we think nothing of spending an entire Saturday or Sunday finding caches. But, to most landowners and public officials, geocaching is small potatoes and if problems arise, they'll quickly shut the gates and keep geocaching off their property. Much easier to ban it outright than deal with any of our petty drama.

[+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.

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.

 

Yeah, I was talking about the first part. I kind of missed the geocide part. Quitting the game over one cache seems a bit over the top. I honestly didn't mean to single you out. It was just the fifth or sixth response that seemed to want to dismiss the issue with a simple, "did you have permission", and I happen to think that it is more complex than that. I think that this forum has a habit of quickly dismissing anyone that the perceive to be whining without looking at the issue that they are whining about. In this case, on the surface, it looks like a lackey decided that a cache was "off limits" because a new player was concerned over safety. There are a lot of issues to be examined there.

 

As far as permission, I would be surprised if more than 1% of urban micro hides that are on private property actually have permission, so I thought it strange that one out of all of them gets archived because of a complaint from a newbie. Of course, I understand why it got archived, Groundspeak will always error on the side of caution. I just think that there were a lot of opportunities to educate everyone involved and all of them were missed.

[+Don_J]

If a complaint was made by the land owner or the utility about the cache placement, then immediate archival by Groundspeak IS the right thing to do. I'd be a bit PO'd if I called GS about a cache on my property or property I manage, and they delayed delisting it and people kept coming because they wanted to check with the reviewer, or give the opportunity for the CO to move it.

 

Archived caches can be unarchived if an error was made in the cache's archival.

 

I absolutely agree. Since the lackey didn't really bother to explain why she archived it, we really don't know if that happened.

[+cpttango30]

The whole point of this thread is that GS doesn't clearly state what a restricted area is. How are we supposed to know what is restricted and what isn't.

 

About the whole geocide thing. It is not just ONE cache. It is a series of events that have been happening over the last 7 or 8 months that are not only pushing myself away but a few cachers in my area.

 

Like I said in my last post that a few of you didn't bother to read. The last finder reported it to GS. It was so dangerous that this person needed to report it yet it wasn't so dangerous to keep them from retrieving the cache and signing the log and replacing it. If the log entry would have said. Arrived at this one and seen that it was on a big green box that said DANGER High Voltage so I contacted GS about it and didn't retrieve. I would have been OK if that's what happened. No big deal I'll move it and all will be well with the world. It is the fact that no communication was tried between the finder or the lackey to me about the cache. The rules on restricted areas are not clearly defined as to help CO's place their cache. Communication is key in this world.

[+larryc43230]

The last finder reported it to GS. It was so dangerous that this person needed to report it yet it wasn't so dangerous to keep them from retrieving the cache and signing the log and replacing it. If the log entry would have said. Arrived at this one and seen that it was on a big green box that said DANGER High Voltage so I contacted GS about it and didn't retrieve. I would have been OK if that's what happened. No big deal I'll move it and all will be well with the world.

I've seen that sort of log, and they've always struck me as incredibly hypocritical. I've also seen Find logs where someone complains that they had to trespass to find the cache. They still found the cache, signed the log, and claimed the smiley. Before complaining about it, of course.

 

The rules on restricted areas are not clearly defined as to help CO's place their cache.

This general topic (the specificity of definitions in the guidelines) has been discussed many times in these forums. How detailed and how specific would you like them to get? We're lucky if new cachers read the guidelines as they exist now; make them any longer and even fewer will bother to plow through them all. They have to draw the line somewhere, and (just my opinion), I think they've done a decent job with what they provide.

 

--Larry

[+ChileHead]

The whole point of this thread is that GS doesn't clearly state what a restricted area is. How are we supposed to know what is restricted and what isn't.

 

GS isn't going to know the list of restricted areas world wide. From the looks of things, it appears (my assumption) that the owner of the property called GS directly and said "remove it".

 

It is up to YOU, as the cache owner, to determine what areas are ok to have a cache on it. For the most part, GS is a listing service and they rely on the common sense of cache owners to put caches in reasonable locations. If they know about restricted areas such as national parks, or state parks that require permits, etc ... they will gladly communicate this.

[+cpttango30]

The whole point of this thread is that GS doesn't clearly state what a restricted area is. How are we supposed to know what is restricted and what isn't.

 

GS isn't going to know the list of restricted areas world wide. From the looks of things, it appears (my assumption) that the owner of the property called GS directly and said "remove it".

 

It is up to YOU, as the cache owner, to determine what areas are ok to have a cache on it. For the most part, GS is a listing service and they rely on the common sense of cache owners to put caches in reasonable locations. If they know about restricted areas such as national parks, or state parks that require permits, etc ... they will gladly communicate this.

 

Because reading and comprehension is so difficult for some on here. The last finder called and reported it to geocaching.com. It was so dangerous as to call it in yet not so dangerous to keep that cacher from retrieving the cache and replacing it.

 

How can they not know, are they not in charge of this? How do you run something like this and not know your own rules?

[+larryc43230]

How can they not know, are they not in charge of this? How do you run something like this and not know your own rules?

So Groundspeak reviewers are expected to be omniscient, and know everything there is to know about every cache hide? Not on their salaries.

 

It's not a matter of knowing their own rules, that has nothing to do with it. By necessity, they have to rely on cachers, like you and me, to inform them of guidelines violations. Yes, some violations are easily detected by the reviewer before a cache is published. Others are impossible to detect without actually visiting the cache. For these others, they have no choice to rely on geocachers (and sometimes, sadly, property owners).

 

--Larry

[+wimseyguy]

I'm curious, how much info about the cache's location did you give your reviewer so that they could ensure that this placement met all of the 'rules'?

[+cerberus1]

The whole point of this thread is that GS doesn't clearly state what a restricted area is. How are we supposed to know what is restricted and what isn't.

 

<snip>

 

Communication is key in this world.

Maybe for some. I bet most don't want to see any more guidelines than we have already.

 

I see the point of this thread as... As a reminder, per guidelines, be sure you ask for permission to hide a cache.

Communication with property owners is key.

 

I agree it could have been handled differently and definitely through a Reviewer, so they keep abreast of what's happening in their areas.

- But I don't agree that Groundspeak should have to hold our hands, or give us something the size of a Sears catalog with rules, regs and restrictions.

[+Mudfrog]

 

Not on topic but,, i feel sorry for the land owner in this case. That box took out quite a chunk of his property.

 

On topic, and i quote,

 

"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."

 

Gotta say that i'm in perfect agreement with the above paragraph!

[+nthacker66]

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?

 

M

Edited June 10, 2013 by nthacker66

[+cerberus1]

I can tell you exactly why, the same reasons everyone else is so G-D afraid to say it - it is the reviewers. Groundspeak gives them way too much headroom to subjectively interpret the rules. So one taste of power leads to more corruption. They tend to let it all get to their head and start to review the way they cache - if they don't like an aspect about caching, even if it is within the guidelines - boom - they will change it to the way they see fit. Think I am just yapping off? I have very recent examples of this and I am not afraid to call out the jerk reviewers that do this.

What on Earth does this have to do with Reviewers?

A Groundspeak Lackey archived his hide.

[+The A-Team]

 

Not on topic but,, i feel sorry for the land owner in this case. That box took out quite a chunk of his property.

Okay, I need to fix something here. The image above posted by the CO that keeps being quoted isn't even of the correct box. This one across the street is where the cache is hidden.

[4wheelin_fool]

Okay, I need to fix something here. The image above posted by the CO that keeps being quoted isn't even of the correct box. This one across the street is where the cache is hidden.

 

Geez, I wonder how he got that confused, or did he want the pic of the much nicer transformer?

 

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

 

Kids: Daddy, I don't want to play out back. Why are there people creeping around that box in the backyard all the time?

Edited June 10, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+cheech gang]

 

Not on topic but,, i feel sorry for the land owner in this case. That box took out quite a chunk of his property.

Okay, I need to fix something here. The image above posted by the CO that keeps being quoted isn't even of the correct box. This one across the street is where the cache is hidden.

 

Already fixed back in post #42

[+dprovan]

The last finder called and reported it to geocaching.com.

Wow. The last finder must have thought it was really important. No wonder GS archived it immediately instead of having a debate with you about it first. This is a clear and reasonable application of "better safe than sorry".

 

It was so dangerous as to call it in yet not so dangerous to keep that cacher from retrieving the cache and replacing it.

Eh. I often find a cache and sign the log in the heat of the search, then only later consider what problems the hide had. Furthermore, the seeker recognized the danger, since he reported it, so he may have been more concerned about future seekers that might not recognize the danger.

 

Anyway, this sounds like a really minor part of why you're mad. Right? In fact, I'm not really convinced you wouldn't just be saying, "...and he didn't even look for it!" if he'd walking away and filed a DNF before reporting it.

 

How can they not know, are they not in charge of this? How do you run something like this and not know your own rules?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The rule being applied here is, "If someone goes to all the trouble to call us and complain, we archive immediately and work out the issues later." Now I'm completely onboard with the complaint about you not being provided any information about the archival. Your recourse is not remotely obvious. How do you appeal a ruling made without comment by the ultimate authority? But the other side of that coin is that that means you haven't had any rules discussions with anyone involved -- at least none you've mentioned -- so I don't see how you can say anything one way or another about the rules and how well they're being applied.

 

Because reading and comprehension is so difficult for some on here.

Well, that's certainly going to get a lot of people on your side (he said sarcastically).

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Not on topic but,, i feel sorry for the land owner in this case. That box took out quite a chunk of his property.

Okay, I need to fix something here. The image above posted by the CO that keeps being quoted isn't even of the correct box. This one across the street is where the cache is hidden.

 

Already fixed back in post #42

 

That still doesn't explain why he uploaded a pic to his photobucket account of the wrong spot. I see an unmaintained lot covered in weeds with a creepy view of the neighbors backyard and play equipment.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Just got an email from the last finder. They reported it to GS as being unsafe.

 

I wonder why they reported it directly to Groundspeak rather than the Reviewer?

[+J the Goat]

All this fuss over a carppy power box hide? That falls into my eye rolling category. Squarely.

 

While they're not very clear about restricted areas, one restricted area is very clearly outlined: Private Property. Whether it's permission from the land owner, or permission from the company who's in charge of that tremendously interesting green box, I'm willing to bet you didn't have the permission that makes a hide on private property not restricted. If people would follow the dadgum rules, these issues would essentially cease to come up.

 

As far as taking your ball and going home, that's your call. Silly in my eyes, but if you're not having fun, good luck finding something else, there's plenty out there.

[+geodarts]

Just got an email from the last finder. They reported it to GS as being unsafe.

 

I wonder why they reported it directly to Groundspeak rather than the Reviewer?

 

Perhaps because the last finder has 12 finds, has not seen any other caches on green electrical boxes, believed it to be unsafe, and took the most direct course available.

 

I am not a fan of these hides - and they are on private property - but if I wanted clarification or believed that the Groundspeak lackey was incorrect, then I would politely contact Groundspeak.

[+Don_J]

The whole point of this thread is that GS doesn't clearly state what a restricted area is. How are we supposed to know what is restricted and what isn't.

 

<snip>

 

Communication is key in this world.

Maybe for some. I bet most don't want to see any more guidelines than we have already.

 

I see the point of this thread as... As a reminder, per guidelines, be sure you ask for permission to hide a cache.

Communication with property owners is key.

 

I agree it could have been handled differently and definitely through a Reviewer, so they keep abreast of what's happening in their areas.

- But I don't agree that Groundspeak should have to hold our hands, or give us something the size of a Sears catalog with rules, regs and restrictions.

 

No, they shouldn't. But I also think that they should at least state what guideline caused a cache is being archived. "Off limits"? Why? Is it because of real property issues, equipment property issues, too close to residences, terrorist target? Or, was it archived for the simple fact that a new cacher was concerned about theirs and others safety?

[+cpttango30]

So to add more to this discussion.

 

1. It has been unarchived and I have been asked to move the cache. I will do so ASAP. No problem with that.

2. I have talked to the finder and they reported it. Again they found it to be unsafe yet they still proceeded to retrieve the cache and replace it. I find that Odd.

3. No where does it say DANGER. The warning stickers clearly read WARNING STAY OUT Hazardous Voltage. Meaning don't cut the lock off and go playing with the innards of the transformer.

4. These Warnings are on the front and the back (Where the cache was located) Mind you on the ground slightly under the concrete slab. You can clearly see the warnings while approaching the cache.

5. Here are photos of the warnings and the LOCK.

 

 

 

As you can see in the picture it clearly state STAY OUT of the box. The danger is inside the box not outside the box.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

And it's still private property.

[+Maingray]

It even has it's own proximity rule. No shrub hunts within 10 feet.

[+thetoxiczone]

Okay I have put off posting on this for a while, but as another post has stated. "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." You put it near a small sub-station (as they are known in my country) they either transform the high voltage distribution to the lower voltages, or it could be a sort of large junction box with or without remote switching. Either way I see that as a public structure even if belongs to the power company, have you any idea what it supplies, maybe traffic lights or something else sensitive, or maybe just a whole load of houses.

[+J the Goat]

So to add more to this discussion.

 

1. It has been unarchived and I have been asked to move the cache. I will do so ASAP. No problem with that.

2. I have talked to the finder and they reported it. Again they found it to be unsafe yet they still proceeded to retrieve the cache and replace it. I find that Odd.

3. No where does it say DANGER. The warning stickers clearly read WARNING STAY OUT Hazardous Voltage. Meaning don't cut the lock off and go playing with the innards of the transformer.

4. These Warnings are on the front and the back (Where the cache was located) Mind you on the ground slightly under the concrete slab. You can clearly see the warnings while approaching the cache.

5. Here are photos of the warnings and the LOCK.

 

 

 

As you can see in the picture it clearly state STAY OUT of the box. The danger is inside the box not outside the box.

 

Wonderful. Now who gave you permission to put the cache there? If you can't answer that question, then the cache shouldn't be there.

[mac367]

Permission, no permission...explicit rule for or against hiding a cache by this type of equipment....give me a break...if the other 29 hides are in any way similar, please archive them all and don't look back.

[Mr.Yuck]

It even has it's own proximity rule. No shrub hunts within 10 feet.

 

And don't forget to call before you dig.

[+kunarion]

2. I have talked to the finder and they reported it. Again they found it to be unsafe yet they still proceeded to retrieve the cache and replace it. I find that Odd.

“Needs Archived” is separate from a find. Upon finding it, it is suitable to log “Found It”. The cacher could certainly decide to not log the find, on principle, but it's his call. This cache does not negate the find, but it had to be found first, or the NA would be a guess. At which point, it is not odd. It's a Find.

Edited June 11, 2013 by kunarion

[4wheelin_fool]

The danger is inside the box not outside the box.

 

Most of the time it is. Lately there have been a rash of people electrocuted to death while attempting to steal copper wires from those things and sell to the scrap yard. Sometimes they are successful. When they are, the box is a hazard as it is internally butchered. But you wont notice that from the outside unless you see the padlock is missing, or until you touch it..

 

 

Teaching electrical safety to children is an ongoing program at Union Power Cooperative. Each year, we talk to thousands of school children across our service area and teach them how electricity is wonderful to have in our lives but that it can also be dangerous. When talking to your kids about electrical safety, keep these tips in mind:

•Never fly a kite near power lines.

•Never build a tree house in a tree near power lines.

•Never, ever touch a line of any kind. It could be a live power line. If you see a line hanging from a pole or tree or on the ground, tell your parents or a neighbor to call the power company.

•Stay away from substations, power poles, and green pad mount transformers.

•Never put an appliance in or near water.

•Don't put your fingers or any object in an electrical outlet. (Parents please use safety outlet plugs to protect your children from power outlets in your home.)