Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Team Sagefox

What about ECs with major errors

Recommended Posts

I searched the guidelines and the forums but could not find a prior topic on this subject. I know it must be out there somewhere.

 

I discovered some Earthcaches, all by the same owner, that have gross errors. The wrong bedrock, impossible rock type contacts, applying information gleaned from geology books to the wrong terrain and inconsistencies between their own ECs. These caches are in an area that I know well and it kills me to think that hundreds of folks have read the information thinking it must be true.

 

I have contacted the EC owner twice giving them a lengthy, logical discussion with comments specific to multiple errors on each EC. This was done without an emotional or accusational tone - once about two years ago and again more recently. There have been no changes to the EC pages and no reply from the owner.

 

I have thought about this at length, tried to forget about it for a couple of years and finally came to the conclusion that it should not be ignored. It puts a shadow over many of the earthcaches I visit in areas I am not familiar with.

 

Is there a place to report to? Do I post a Needs Maintenance or Needs Archived log?

 

I have specifically excluded reference to the ECs in question because it would not be appropriate to discuss them here. It is a matter for the EC review team to examine.

Share this post


Link to post

Your last line hits the nail on the head. If discussing it with the owner doesn't help, bring it up with the reviewer who published the cache (you can find them in the very first logbook post).

Share this post


Link to post

Guideline 2 states that EarthCaches must provide accurate information. If an EarthCache contains incorrect information or plain errors, then this must be corrected by the Cache Owner.

 

The first step should be to contact the CO (either directly or through a 'Needs Maintenance' log) and provide him/her with the correct information, preferable backed by (scientific) sources.

 

When the CO doesn't update the description, and thus the error(s) remain in the listing, bringing the EarthCache in question to the attention of the reviewers is indeed the way to go. You can do this by either by posting a 'Needs Archive' note or contacting an EarthCache reviewer though his/her profile.

 

Cheers,

 

Peter / GeoawareGBL / Global EarthCache Reviewer

 

edit: correcting a topy

Edited by GeoawareGBL

Share this post


Link to post

I did run into this situation a couple of years ago. I would recommend trying to get the issues corrected via private email thereby keeping everything under the radar and away from public scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post

I have contacted the EC owner twice giving them a lengthy, logical discussion with comments specific to multiple errors on each EC.

OK, whew -- so it's not me.

 

Seriously, though, this was the biggest hurdle I had to overcome before I started publishing earthcaches, the fear of talking out of my fourth point of contact. I'm no

, and the more in depth I read about geology, the less I understand, so I'm always paranoid I've screwed something up.

Share this post


Link to post

I have contacted the EC owner twice giving them a lengthy, logical discussion with comments specific to multiple errors on each EC.

...and the more in depth I read about geology, the less I understand, so I'm always paranoid I've screwed something up.

That rings a bell. I have crawled all over the subject areas of these caches and have taken local three-day geology courses/field trips and read books and papers. Early on I felt I knew a ton about those areas but the more I read and think about them the deeper the mystery goes. I've been humbled by how much there is yet to learn. But what a beautiful journey.

 

For the ECs I am concerned about it appears to me to be a situation where someone was more interested in publishing a large number of ECs rather than spending the extra research time needed to make each site accurate.

Share this post


Link to post

The first step should be to contact the CO (either directly or through a 'Needs Maintenance' log) and provide him/her with the correct information, preferable backed by (scientific) sources.

 

When the CO doesn't update the description, and thus the error(s) remain in the listing, bringing the EarthCache in question to the attention of the reviewers is indeed the way to go. You can do this by either by posting a 'Needs Archive' note or contacting an EarthCache reviewer though his/her profile.

 

This is what I was looking for. Since I have already made two PM contacts I will next post Need Maintenance logs on the earthcaches I'm concerned about. The NMs will be short and non-specific with the details in another PM to keep it off the cache page. If there is no action I will then post detailed NA logs which will make my concerns known to the reviewers.

 

Thanks for the recommendations.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Team Sagefox for bringing up this topic, and thanks to the others for their recommendations. The course of action you plan to take is the best one. PM --> NM --> NA, and then let the reviewers take it from there.

Best wishes,

Matt

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Team Sagefox for bringing up this topic, and thanks to the others for their recommendations. The course of action you plan to take is the best one. PM --> NM --> NA, and then let the reviewers take it from there.

Best wishes,

Matt

 

The PMs were done earlier as mentioned above so I posted NMs. The cache owner has contacted me to go over and work out the concerns. We are both doing further research.

 

There is soooooo much new information available on the web now and my eyes are just about permanently crossed after reading multiple papers and visiting geology websites. It's fun though. This topic has been helpful. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...