Jump to content

Bringing attention to a potential problem


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I recently had occasion to be in a part of town that is home to an old and beloved cache, so I figured I would look into this "Buckhead Dragon" cache since it was so old and had so many favorite points and positive comments. Now, when I went into the Westin Hotel where it's located, I followed all the directions and when I got to "The Secret Door With The Magic Silver Bar", I saw there was a sign ON THE DOOR stating "Emergency Exit, Alarm Will Sound". Now...I get that this cache is some sort of landmark and everyone just loves it to death...but how is this one still allowed? I know in his description, he states "alarm will not sound", but in an earlier log someone stated it's a silent alarm and WILL alert security (http://coord.info/GLD1AJXR).

 

Instead of going further, I posted a note about it and just a little while ago it was deleted by the CO. Maybe to cover up the problem, maybe not...but there seems to be a problem here, particularly in light of the Found It log linked above talking about issues with hotel security. I don't WANT this to be a problem, but why should anyone searching for this cache be in the position to alert security when signage is clearly posted about the alarm? I don't want to be "that guy" that gets a cache archived, but should we really just let that stuff slide merely because it's an old cache?

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

Are you absolutely certain that there's not another way to access it?

 

If there is, then the solution is for the CO to say in the write-up, "Don't go through the alarmed door, go around the other way."

 

No. If you follow the directions, there is only one possible way...a double door to an exit stairway. He states in his description the alarm will not sound, but someone logging it claimed otherwise.

 

Like I said, I don't like being that guy that spoils the fun...but my fun was spoiled today when I went looking for it and saw that sign. And it would have been spoiled worse if I'd been waylaid by security. Of course, now if I post a NA log, not only am I a spoiler, I'll look like a vindictive spoiler because he deleted my note!

Link to comment

There are a bunch of logs on that page that specify it's a silent alarm that definitely gets set off, so they suggest not using that door. Evidently, there's another way out. The cache description needs to be corrected. Is there some sentimental reason that the text can't be fixed?

 

I planned to do some downtown Atlanta caches last year (I go caching there on New Year's Day for the low traffic), but it was raining, so I haven't been to that cache yet. I'm also pretty sure I'd get trapped or arrested. So I can't guarantee it's safe to do that cache, but the logs seem encouraging.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

There are a bunch of logs on that page that specify it's a silent alarm that definitely gets set off, so they suggest not using that door. Evidently, there's another way out.

 

I planned to do some downtown Atlanta caches last year (I go caching there on New Year's Day for the low traffic), but it was raining, so I haven't been to that cache yet. I'm also pretty sure I'd get trapped or arrested. So I can't guarantee it's safe to do that cache, but the logs seem encouraging.

 

The sign is on the door you use to enter the staircase.

Link to comment
An albeit brief scan down through the logs back to early 2013 and I couldn't see any other mentions of problems with security.

There are several logs that refer to the silent alarm, that it definitely sets off a silent alarm in a security office, and some suggest not using that door.

Link to comment

There are a bunch of logs on that page that specify it's a silent alarm that definitely gets set off, so they suggest not using that door. Evidently, there's another way out.

 

I planned to do some downtown Atlanta caches last year (I go caching there on New Year's Day for the low traffic), but it was raining, so I haven't been to that cache yet. I'm also pretty sure I'd get trapped or arrested. So I can't guarantee it's safe to do that cache, but the logs seem encouraging.

 

The sign is on the door you use to enter the staircase.

 

Yes, but the logs, at least the ones that are clear(ish) about what door they are talking about seem to be talking about the exit door *after* you find the cache.

 

Hence my suggestion about contacting the CO for clarification first before risking causing unnecessary trouble.

Edited by funkymunkyzone
Link to comment

There are a bunch of logs on that page that specify it's a silent alarm that definitely gets set off, so they suggest not using that door. Evidently, there's another way out.

 

I planned to do some downtown Atlanta caches last year (I go caching there on New Year's Day for the low traffic), but it was raining, so I haven't been to that cache yet. I'm also pretty sure I'd get trapped or arrested. So I can't guarantee it's safe to do that cache, but the logs seem encouraging.

 

The sign is on the door you use to enter the staircase.

 

Yes, but the logs, at least the ones that are clear(ish) about what door they are talking about seem to be talking about the exit door *after* you find the cache.

 

Hence my suggestion about contacting the CO for clarification first before risking causing unnecessary trouble.

 

I believe it's one of those stairwells where once the door from the interior to the stairwell is closed, you cannot go back through to the inside and pretty much have to exit to the outside.

 

Another aspect to consider is that this hotel has changed ownership since the cache was installed (it used to be a Swissotel). I sincerely doubt management is aware of the cache...and there's really no mention of permission. It's not only on private property, it's inside the building.

 

Whatever. I'll probably just put it on ignore. Let someone else deal with security and archiving and all that mess. I'm not really interested in being the one to ruin the fun. I posted a note about it...the CO took responsibility when he deleted it.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

I posted a note about it...the CO took responsibility when he deleted it.

That is definitely true. I didn't mean to personally discourage you from highlighting a potential issue, just that IMO not having first hand knowledge that there really is an issue, posting a NA would be OTT. There may be a way around that door there and the cache may even have permission, perhaps unlikely but we don't know for sure, so if you still cared to, I reckon a private message to the CO for clarification and/or suggestion of clarifying on the cache page. Of course they might have got their back up because of your note, but that's their problem.

Link to comment
I believe it's one of those stairwells where once the door from the interior to the stairwell is closed, you cannot go back through to the inside and pretty much have to exit to the outside.

When I ran my risk assessment of that cache, I was almost convinced that the logs about people "going another way out" meant that there was another way out besides the alarmed door. Or these people used the door and didn't want to admit it.

 

So my plan (which I've never tried) is to test each door as I find it, and decide if I might be trapped. If so, I'll stop. My DNF would be as... diplomatic... as I can make it, but if it gets deleted, it's coming back. I'd be annoyed if GS approves deletion of constructive logs that refer to cache issues, regardless of how grandfathered the cache is.

 

But I agree with funkymunkyzone, that it must be a log about first-hand knowledge of the issue.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
I believe it's one of those stairwells where once the door from the interior to the stairwell is closed, you cannot go back through to the inside and pretty much have to exit to the outside.

When I ran my risk assessment of that cache, I was almost convinced that the logs about people "going another way out" meant that there was another way out besides the alarmed door. Or these people used the door and didn't want to admit it.

 

So my plan (which I've never tried) is to test each door as I find it, and decide if I might be trapped. If so, I'll stop. My DNF would be as... diplomatic... as I can make it, but if it gets deleted, it's coming back. I'd be annoyed if GS approves deletion of constructive logs that refer to cache issues, regardless of how grandfathered the cache is.

 

But I agree with funkymunkyzone, that it must be a log about first-hand knowledge of the issue.

 

Perhaps if someone held the door to the interior open while I retrieved it...but that's the only way I know to have an alternate way out. It's an exterior stairwell, meant for emergency egress only. I suppose once you are out of the building, security isn't an issue...but it bothers me that the CO puts people in the position to set off an alarm, silent or not.

Link to comment
it bothers me that the CO puts people in the position to set off an alarm, silent or not.

This is not the only historic cache that has a non-standard issue. And people are kind of discouraged from making an issue of said issue :ph34r:. I don't want the historic caches archived, but I do need the heads-up that, say, a door that "won't sound an alarm", causes a silent alarm. Even if nobody else seems to care.

Link to comment
it bothers me that the CO puts people in the position to set off an alarm, silent or not.

This is not the only historic cache that has a non-standard issue. And people are kind of discouraged from making an issue of said issue :ph34r:. I don't want the historic caches archived, but I do need the heads-up that, say, a door that "won't sound an alarm", causes a silent alarm. Even if nobody else seems to care.

 

So are you saying I ought to dispute his deleting my post?

Link to comment

This cache may very well need archiving, but if it were me hunting it, I would be absolutely certain of my facts before pulling the trigger. A simple conversation with management, with security present, would sort out any possible issues, such as alternate routes, permissions, and alarms. Once armed with these facts, I'd decide what to do.

Link to comment

This cache may very well need archiving, but if it were me hunting it, I would be absolutely certain of my facts before pulling the trigger. A simple conversation with management, with security present, would sort out any possible issues, such as alternate routes, permissions, and alarms. Once armed with these facts, I'd decide what to do.

 

I feel so ignored. I know I'm annoying, but every poster after post 8 can't possibly have me on their ignore list. :ph34r:

 

The cache was found by a Georgia reviewer last Spring, and he said in his find log:

 

I needed some information about this cache so "why not go and find it?"

 

Why not contact him? His log is linked to in post #8, unless you have me on ignore. :lol:

Link to comment

Think the logs do need to be read.

It's one you need to see yourself, before making judgements.

 

The log you quote ends:

They are REALLY TIRED of people going out that door and causing them a disturbance. Please do NOT go out the door!

 

REMEMBER: PLEASE DO NOT GO OUT THE DOOR!

 

An earlier log ends:

 

Find the tongue but then spotted a new? Sign that said basically said I had to retrace my steps to escape or else the dragons minions would be alerted.

Sl. Left a going caving card. Tftc.

 

And another:

After dotting the scroll with ink, we brought the prize back up to return it. It made a large noise but we could tell the servant was busy talking to a fair maiden.

 

Then we continued on our way, hoping the beast would let us free. And with a click of a magic door, we were transported to safety.

 

Which suggests to me, that the alarmed door is AFTER the cache...

 

Maybe all the CO needs to do is write on the cache page that you need to retrace your steps after finding the cache (Or not finding it!)

 

And, yes, a reviewer has found it, and didn't raise any objections.

 

*My bolds.

Link to comment

There is something on the cache page thats AGAINST the guideline.

 

I’m a trainer and speaker from San Diego. (www.byreferralonly.com) I am at a seminar/workshop in Buckhead from Aug 19-26, 2001. .

 

:ph34r:

 

 

Oh thou reviewers, where are ya?

 

Unless you are Mr Peabody (I KNOW you are not Sherman) I do not think a seminar in 2001 is germane to this discussion.

Link to comment

There is something on the cache page thats AGAINST the guideline.

 

I’m a trainer and speaker from San Diego. (www.byreferralonly.com) I am at a seminar/workshop in Buckhead from Aug 19-26, 2001. .

 

:ph34r:

 

 

Oh thou reviewers, where are ya?

 

Unless you are Mr Peabody (I KNOW you are not Sherman) I do not think a seminar in 2001 is germane to this discussion.

 

The website address alone goes against this:

 

Solicitation and Commercial Content

 

Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose.

 

Cache listings perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be an enjoyable, family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

Commercial geocaches are disallowed.

 

Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

It contains links to businesses, agencies, commercial advertisers, charities, or political or social agendas.

It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

It contains the name of a business or commercial product.

 

Thats good enough to hit the NA button. <_<

 

 

Here the link to the guideline. https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

And plus the discussion going on in here.

 

As I wrap this up, that cache will never be published today without some serious permission taking place. If the CO is deleting logs that's warning people about whats going on, this is a serious issue here. It belong on the cache page. I dont see it as a spoiler.

 

Because the CO is deleting logs with warnings in it, the CO can get sued if anything happen. And GS too if they stand with the CO deleting the logs.

Link to comment

I've looked at the details and i've got to conclude there's waaay too much unfounded cache policing going on here.

 

Let's start with the post right above that says the text of the listing itself has a violation. What does it really say? It mentions the CO's business trip & meetings. C'mon. Maybe this item from a full 10 years ago could by a stretch of the imagination be considered a business solicitation. I read it and consider it completely innocent.

 

One post speaks of "lying" on the cache pages. That's unfounded and unfair.

 

I went through and read every post going back just over one full year. One person claimed there was an alarm issue. That's it. One person who apparently dealt with a grouchy staffer who had other issues with non-cachers.

 

But here's the clicher. Was there permission and does the business know? This post tells me everyone's fine with it:

 

 

We took a break in the lobby and visited with the friendly staff who showed us a few secret passageways we were unaware of (but didn't help us find the geocache).

 

 

Plus a reviewer visited and found no problem.

 

I find it very unfortunate that armchair cache police want to shut down a well-loved cache that has no proven problems.

 

Link to comment

There is something on the cache page thats AGAINST the guideline.

 

I’m a trainer and speaker from San Diego. (www.byreferralonly.com) I am at a seminar/workshop in Buckhead from Aug 19-26, 2001. .

 

:ph34r:

 

 

Oh thou reviewers, where are ya?

Unless you are Mr Peabody (I KNOW you are not Sherman) I do not think a seminar in 2001 is germane to this discussion.

Exactly!

I can think of a couple of caches where the CO mentions that they are near the CO's busines, & two that mention they're near a church. I never in a million years thought anyone was promoting business or religion. It was a normal everyday conversational comment.

 

Edit: I'm signing off for the day before this witchhunt really starts to bother me. From all info I have including reading every log for the past year, the staff knows about the cache & will tell you about the passageways, & there are "legal" exits, which include going back up the steps. If a cacher is too lazy to do things right, you can't blame the CO. Do that and you can shut down thousands of legitimate caches.

 

Is there more info here? Maybe, but probably not.

 

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize. Let's spend our energy creating an epic cache, not slinging mud at other people's epic caches!

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment

I've looked at the details and i've got to conclude there's waaay too much unfounded cache policing going on here.

 

Let's start with the post right above that says the text of the listing itself has a violation. What does it really say? It mentions the CO's business trip & meetings. C'mon. Maybe this item from a full 10 years ago could by a stretch of the imagination be considered a business solicitation. I read it and consider it completely innocent.

 

One post speaks of "lying" on the cache pages. That's unfounded and unfair.

 

I went through and read every post going back just over one full year. One person claimed there was an alarm issue. That's it. One person who apparently dealt with a grouchy staffer who had other issues with non-cachers.

 

But here's the clicher. Was there permission and does the business know? This post tells me everyone's fine with it:

 

 

We took a break in the lobby and visited with the friendly staff who showed us a few secret passageways we were unaware of (but didn't help us find the geocache).

 

 

Plus a reviewer visited and found no problem.

 

I find it very unfortunate that armchair cache police want to shut down a well-loved cache that has no proven problems.

 

 

The issue with the text is the website, which is a commercial site.

 

Yes, it's possible that the co has permission. One of the concerns that was brought up is that there are new owners and they may not have been informed of the cache.

 

Just because a cache reviewer went to the cache and didn't do anything about it doesn't mean that it's ok. There could be different reasons that this is so, one of them being that if there is a silent alarm, the reviewer may have never known that the alarm was tripped.

 

I didn't say that the co was a liar. But if there really is a silent alarm and the cache page says that there is no alarm, and people have complained about it...then I really don't know what else to say about that.

 

I agree that things shouldn't be done rashly. But I do think that if someone is concerned, it wouldn't be bad for them to politely inquire more about the situation. That's not being "cache police", that's doing due diligence in a situation that looks iffy. If there's permission and no alarm issues, and the matter is handled carefully, than no harm is done.

Link to comment

There is something on the cache page thats AGAINST the guideline.

 

I’m a trainer and speaker from San Diego. (www.byreferralonly.com) I am at a seminar/workshop in Buckhead from Aug 19-26, 2001. .

 

:ph34r:

 

 

Oh thou reviewers, where are ya?

 

Unless you are Mr Peabody (I KNOW you are not Sherman) I do not think a seminar in 2001 is germane to this discussion.

 

The website address alone goes against this:

 

Solicitation and Commercial Content

 

Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose.

 

Cache listings perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be an enjoyable, family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

Commercial geocaches are disallowed.

 

Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

It contains links to businesses, agencies, commercial advertisers, charities, or political or social agendas.

It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

It contains the name of a business or commercial product.

 

Thats good enough to hit the NA button. <_<

 

 

Here the link to the guideline. https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

And plus the discussion going on in here.

 

As I wrap this up, that cache will never be published today without some serious permission taking place. If the CO is deleting logs that's warning people about whats going on, this is a serious issue here. It belong on the cache page. I dont see it as a spoiler.

 

Because the CO is deleting logs with warnings in it, the CO can get sued if anything happen. And GS too if they stand with the CO deleting the logs.

 

To me, the commercial aspect is less of an issue than the fact that this clearly appears to be a "vacation cache". The CO doesn't even live here! He's in California, fer cryin' out loud!

Link to comment

There is something on the cache page thats AGAINST the guideline.

 

I’m a trainer and speaker from San Diego. (www.byreferralonly.com) I am at a seminar/workshop in Buckhead from Aug 19-26, 2001. .

 

:ph34r:

 

 

Oh thou reviewers, where are ya?

 

Unless you are Mr Peabody (I KNOW you are not Sherman) I do not think a seminar in 2001 is germane to this discussion.

 

Oh, I thought this was going to head in the "vacation cache" direction.

Link to comment

There is something on the cache page thats AGAINST the guideline.

 

I’m a trainer and speaker from San Diego. (www.byreferralonly.com) I am at a seminar/workshop in Buckhead from Aug 19-26, 2001. .

 

:ph34r:

 

 

Oh thou reviewers, where are ya?

 

Unless you are Mr Peabody (I KNOW you are not Sherman) I do not think a seminar in 2001 is germane to this discussion.

 

The website address alone goes against this:

 

Solicitation and Commercial Content

 

Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose.

 

Cache listings perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be an enjoyable, family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda. Cache pages cannot require, and should not strongly encourage, the placement of new caches. This is considered an agenda and the listing will not be publishable.

Commercial geocaches are disallowed.

 

Cache listings perceived as commercial will not be published. A commercial cache listing has one or more of the following characteristics:

It has overtones of advertising, marketing or promotion.

It suggests or requires that the finder go inside a business, interact with employees and/or purchase a product or service.

It contains links to businesses, agencies, commercial advertisers, charities, or political or social agendas.

It contains the logo of a business or organization, including non-profit organizations.

It contains the name of a business or commercial product.

 

Thats good enough to hit the NA button. <_<

 

 

Here the link to the guideline. https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

And plus the discussion going on in here.

 

As I wrap this up, that cache will never be published today without some serious permission taking place. If the CO is deleting logs that's warning people about whats going on, this is a serious issue here. It belong on the cache page. I dont see it as a spoiler.

 

Because the CO is deleting logs with warnings in it, the CO can get sued if anything happen. And GS too if they stand with the CO deleting the logs.

 

To me, the commercial aspect is less of an issue than the fact that this clearly appears to be a "vacation cache". The CO doesn't even live here! He's in California, fer cryin' out loud!

You detectives are good - but there's been no maintenance issue in at least the last 13 months.

 

We know the CO was based in California over 10 years ago. Now? It's clear in the rules that you can own a cache far from home if (1) you travel there often or (2) have anothe maintenance plan.

 

There is no maintenance issue. Please don't create a pseudo-problem where none exists! <_<

Link to comment

Think the logs do need to be read.

It's one you need to see yourself, before making judgements.

 

The log you quote ends:

They are REALLY TIRED of people going out that door and causing them a disturbance. Please do NOT go out the door!

 

REMEMBER: PLEASE DO NOT GO OUT THE DOOR!

 

An earlier log ends:

 

Find the tongue but then spotted a new? Sign that said basically said I had to retrace my steps to escape or else the dragons minions would be alerted.

Sl. Left a going caving card. Tftc.

 

And another:

After dotting the scroll with ink, we brought the prize back up to return it. It made a large noise but we could tell the servant was busy talking to a fair maiden.

 

Then we continued on our way, hoping the beast would let us free. And with a click of a magic door, we were transported to safety.

 

Which suggests to me, that the alarmed door is AFTER the cache...

 

Maybe all the CO needs to do is write on the cache page that you need to retrace your steps after finding the cache (Or not finding it!)

 

And, yes, a reviewer has found it, and didn't raise any objections.

 

*My bolds.

One of the reasons I added this cache to my New Years Day Atlanta caching short list, was that I wondered if some people were using the wrong door by mistake. But that would mean I could also end up at the wrong door, after being trapped in a stairwell or whatever. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the cache description, just that cachers are taking an unintended route. Or else the alarm was repaired in the past 13 years.

 

If a reviewer or anybody passes through a "security alarm" door and nothing happens, they may have "no objections". I'm a LEO magnet and can't even park in a pull-off without a County Sheriff pulling up next to my car 2 minutes later (actually it was about a minute and a half). If that door has a silent alarm, I can't get through that door without having the entire security force upon me. Everybody else on earth can. Not me. I sometimes envy everybody else on earth. :yikes:

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
feel so ignored. I know I'm annoying, but every poster after post 8 can't possibly have me on their ignore list. :ph34r:

I for one didn't ignore you. I read the linked log when you made your post, didn't see anything about an "alarm" mentioned, and then put you on ignore. :anicute:

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment

I recently had occasion to be in a part of town that is home to an old and beloved cache, so I figured I would look into this "Buckhead Dragon" cache since it was so old and had so many favorite points and positive comments. Now, when I went into the Westin Hotel where it's located, I followed all the directions and when I got to "The Secret Door With The Magic Silver Bar", I saw there was a sign ON THE DOOR stating "Emergency Exit, Alarm Will Sound". Now...I get that this cache is some sort of landmark and everyone just loves it to death...but how is this one still allowed? I know in his description, he states "alarm will not sound", but in an earlier log someone stated it's a silent alarm and WILL alert security (http://coord.info/GLD1AJXR).

 

Instead of going further, I posted a note about it and just a little while ago it was deleted by the CO. Maybe to cover up the problem, maybe not...but there seems to be a problem here, particularly in light of the Found It log linked above talking about issues with hotel security. I don't WANT this to be a problem, but why should anyone searching for this cache be in the position to alert security when signage is clearly posted about the alarm? I don't want to be "that guy" that gets a cache archived, but should we really just let that stuff slide merely because it's an old cache?

 

I wonder if the people throwing terms like "cache police" around have an explanation for a why a note commenting on a potential issue was deleted by the CO when they could have responded with a note to explain why it wasn't an issue.

 

If there's nothing wrong with the cache then the CO has nothing to hide and it can stay. If it is going to constantly bring security running and there's another way to get to it that doesn't involve triggering silent alarms, maybe the cache page should be updated.

 

If you don't want to post NA to the cache, why not drop the reviewer a private message to express your concerns? If the cache needs to be removed it can be seen to, and if not then it can stay. It's not as if logging NA is a command that the cache must be removed - it's a rather badly worded log type that would perhaps be better called "Needs Reviewer Attention".

Link to comment

Thats good enough to hit the NA button. <_<

 

Boy, the cache cops are really out in force tonight, aren't they? I'm glad you are all enjoying the nosing into a situation you don't understand with such calming suggestions.

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Can you read my sarcasm? :lol:

 

Hardly anyone remembers except for one of his pals like myself, but I do believe Swiney was raked over the coals here for posting an "armchair NA" in response to a thread a few years ago, and is engaging in self deprecating humor. :ph34r:

 

Yes, this is soooooo a vacation cache, but that wasn't an issue in 2001. Heck, I'm probably going to place an "alt site" vacation virtual out of town this weekend. However, other issues have been brought up. The cache page tells you there's no alarm, but logs tell you there's a silent alarm. This casts doubt that hotel security was EVER consulted. The cache page mentions nothing about permission. Personally, I have a "if the cache page doesn't say there's permission to be on private property, I'm not doing the cache" policy. Which means I get to miss out on thousands of Wally World LPC's, my loss.

 

Evidence to me is pointing towards a vacation cache indoors on private property that doesn't, and never had permission. Don't think there weren't really bad cache ideas in 2001; their numbers have just increased 10,000 fold since then. :)

Link to comment

IMO the OP contacted the CO by logging a Note. If the CO deleted the Note without comment he is not being communicative. Ergo I would move on to contacting a Reviewer, preferably the one who checked out the cache themselves. Explain your Note being deleted, the alarm sign, and the other logs (especially those after the Reviewer's visit). At that point it is in the Reviewer's hands to examine the situation and have dialogue with the CO and maybe the hotel management.

 

At the very least, the description should be changed to reflect the alarm's true nature and other methods of access offered. There should also be a clear statement that the hotel management has given permission for the cache and the commercial reference (namely the URL) should be deleted.

Link to comment

Yes, in 2008 they installed a silent alarm which causes a tiny red LED to flash at the managers desk. His usual response is to shake his head and cuss while shrugging his shoulders and resetting it. This was put in after a surge of people were suddenly found to be using that door starting in 2001. :rolleyes:

 

If you want to know whether this deserves to be archived, nobody in here can answer that, only the building management can. :D

Link to comment

IMO the OP contacted the CO by logging a Note. If the CO deleted the Note without comment he is not being communicative. Ergo I would move on to contacting a Reviewer, preferably the one who checked out the cache themselves. Explain your Note being deleted, the alarm sign, and the other logs (especially those after the Reviewer's visit). At that point it is in the Reviewer's hands to examine the situation and have dialogue with the CO and maybe the hotel management.

 

This is what I ended up doing. I don't like being a jerk for bringing it all up, but in my opinion those who did NOT bring it up are just as much to blame for perpetuating the problem.

Link to comment

Thats good enough to hit the NA button. <_<

 

Boy, the cache cops are really out in force tonight, aren't they? I'm glad you are all enjoying the nosing into a situation you don't understand with such calming suggestions.

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Can you read my sarcasm? :lol:

 

Hardly anyone remembers except for one of his pals like myself, but I do believe Swiney was raked over the coals here for posting an "armchair NA" in response to a thread a few years ago, and is engaging in self deprecating humor. :ph34r:

 

Yes, this is soooooo a vacation cache, but that wasn't an issue in 2001. Heck, I'm probably going to place an "alt site" vacation virtual out of town this weekend. However, other issues have been brought up. The cache page tells you there's no alarm, but logs tell you there's a silent alarm. This casts doubt that hotel security was EVER consulted. The cache page mentions nothing about permission. Personally, I have a "if the cache page doesn't say there's permission to be on private property, I'm not doing the cache" policy. Which means I get to miss out on thousands of Wally World LPC's, my loss.

 

Evidence to me is pointing towards a vacation cache indoors on private property that doesn't, and never had permission. Don't think there weren't really bad cache ideas in 2001; their numbers have just increased 10,000 fold since then. :)

 

I thought I covered the vacation cache issue before. The cache was published. I read every post for the last 13 months and there has been no maintenance issue whatsoever. If and when there is ever a maintenance issue in the future, a reviewer has every right to ask (1) do you live nearby? OR (2) do you travel there regularly? OR (3) do you have another maintenance plan? (like a friend who's local). I say it again: there is no evidence whatsoever, so WHY do people raise the vacation cache issue again and again and again???

Link to comment

IMO the OP contacted the CO by logging a Note. If the CO deleted the Note without comment he is not being communicative. Ergo I would move on to contacting a Reviewer, preferably the one who checked out the cache themselves. Explain your Note being deleted, the alarm sign, and the other logs (especially those after the Reviewer's visit). At that point it is in the Reviewer's hands to examine the situation and have dialogue with the CO and maybe the hotel management.

 

This is what I ended up doing. I don't like being a jerk for bringing it all up, but in my opinion those who did NOT bring it up are just as much to blame for perpetuating the problem.

 

If that made you feel better, good for you.

 

I'm going on record saying I disagree and I think it was an unfounded overreaction. A private inquiry would be sufficient. I would not feel good about doing what the OP did - I'd feel like a jerk.

 

Several people seemed to think the deletion of the inquiry log was an admission of guilt - like let's hide this issue. I disagree. Let's suppose someone posted a note on one of my caches that made an incorrect accusation. I don't think I have an obligation to leave the item and defend myself in writing in a cache log. I might or might not go that route, but if I decide it's irrelevant and delete it, that's no admission of guilt.

 

Suppose cachers routinely take a shortcut to a LPC past a "do not enter" sign. Archive the cache??

 

Let's face the permission issue head on. All 4 of my caches have explicit wtitten permission from the land managers. Either we're enforcing permission or we're not. But to do it selectively is unfair. I quoted a post from that cache's history that says the employees are fine with it. I believe that not one example of mudslinging was warranted.

 

Stop bashing the CO.

Link to comment

IMO the OP contacted the CO by logging a Note. If the CO deleted the Note without comment he is not being communicative. Ergo I would move on to contacting a Reviewer, preferably the one who checked out the cache themselves. Explain your Note being deleted, the alarm sign, and the other logs (especially those after the Reviewer's visit). At that point it is in the Reviewer's hands to examine the situation and have dialogue with the CO and maybe the hotel management.

 

This is what I ended up doing. I don't like being a jerk for bringing it all up, but in my opinion those who did NOT bring it up are just as much to blame for perpetuating the problem.

 

If that made you feel better, good for you.

 

I'm going on record saying I disagree and I think it was an unfounded overreaction. A private inquiry would be sufficient. I would not feel good about doing what the OP did - I'd feel like a jerk.

 

Several people seemed to think the deletion of the inquiry log was an admission of guilt - like let's hide this issue. I disagree. Let's suppose someone posted a note on one of my caches that made an incorrect accusation. I don't think I have an obligation to leave the item and defend myself in writing in a cache log. I might or might not go that route, but if I decide it's irrelevant and delete it, that's no admission of guilt.

 

Suppose cachers routinely take a shortcut to a LPC past a "do not enter" sign. Archive the cache??

 

Let's face the permission issue head on. All 4 of my caches have explicit wtitten permission from the land managers. Either we're enforcing permission or we're not. But to do it selectively is unfair. I quoted a post from that cache's history that says the employees are fine with it. I believe that not one example of mudslinging was warranted.

 

Stop bashing the CO.

 

In my defense, the directions on the cache page are clear and not really "open to interpretation". You know it when you're there and I wish I'd taken photographs...but suffice it to say you walk through the two glass doors, go up one escalator, walk around, go up a second escalator and when you reach the top, there is only one way to go and when you reach the end of the hall, there is a conference room on one side and a stairwell on the other with a silver colored push bar...and right above that, on the door itself, is the warning sign.

 

There's actually a second door going into the stairwell around the side of the same wall, but it also has the same warning sign posted on it. I gather (but cannot be certain) that it is a "scissor stair" layout, with two sets of overlapping stairs that go to different exits to the outside at different levels - one can see this from the sidewalk as well.

 

As for "employees being fine with it"...employees and staff are not necessarily management or ownership, so that argument is not valid. It's like the cashier from Walmart saying "sure, you can put a cache in that light post".

 

All it takes is one person getting stopped by security - who finds the cache and confiscates it - to end this cache for good. If a replacement is put in because people continue wanting to hunt a cache, the hotel is well within its rights to prosecute people continuing to flaunt the signage. The CO, in not addressing the concern directly in the cache page or with a written note, is only adding to the problem. I'm not sorry for bringing it up. If I'm wrong, great. But nothing I've seen has cleared it up and I'm not going back until it's clear to me I'm not going to bring security down on me.

 

None of that is "bashing the CO"...it's every CO's responsibility to handle this stuff, not sweep it off the page and under the rug.

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to comment

My guess is that this one reason that vacations caches are discouraged.

 

From reading the cache page and previous logs, I got the impression that the sign about the alarm sounding was on the inside of the stairwell where it exits to the street. I sounds almost as if the hotel (or maybe even new Georgia state fire laws), have decided that the emergency stairs be alarmed on every floor and not just the exit to the street, and that the signs J Grouchy saw may be new. It's very possible the cache existed for years and was accessible and only recently the new alarms were put in. The cache owner can't know this and may have deleted Grouchy's log because it did not reflect what was the situation when he hid the cache.

 

Initially, I considered that the cache might not even be in the stairwell and the hints were just a red herring. But reading the logs and looking at the gallery, I suspect the cache is hidden in the stairwell. A local cache owner would be able to check if something had changed and make a decision about whether to archive the cache.

Link to comment

I say it again: there is no evidence whatsoever, so WHY do people raise the vacation cache issue again and again and again???

It's being brought up because vacation caches are forbidden, so it would typically be archived when it later was discovered to be an undisclosed vacation cache, even if it hadn't had any maintenance problems in the meantime. I assume people aren't noticing that this rule doesn't apply here because the cache is grandfathered, and even if the rule did apply, there's no evidence that a maintenance plan hasn't been presented privately to the reviewer in order to establish that this wasn't a vacation cache despite the CO being remote. So, yeah, it's irrelevant, but I understand why people are bringing it up.

 

But, on the other hand, as tozainamboku just pointed out, there is at least one maintenance issue: the one we're discussing: the path is blocked by a sign suggesting the path is no longer open to visitors.

 

Several people seemed to think the deletion of the inquiry log was an admission of guilt - like let's hide this issue. I disagree. Let's suppose someone posted a note on one of my caches that made an incorrect accusation. I don't think I have an obligation to leave the item and defend myself in writing in a cache log. I might or might not go that route, but if I decide it's irrelevant and delete it, that's no admission of guilt.

I concede that deleting the note doesn't admit guilt, but this thread demonstrates that it isn't a reasonable way to deal with the question raised. In particular, none of us can see any publicly available evidence that this is an incorrect accusation which would allow it to meet your requirement for summary deletion.

 

But, really, if it isn't a coverup, why not just file a response in the log to a question that has a reasonable answer? That's just as easy as deleting the question, and it lets everyone know what the answer is.

Link to comment

 

To me, the commercial aspect is less of an issue than the fact that this clearly appears to be a "vacation cache". The CO doesn't even live here! He's in California, fer cryin' out loud!

 

The cache was published in 2001. There was a somewhat prolific hider who's caches I've found that has quite a few active caches hidden all over the world. I suspect that this cache is grandfathered with respect to the vacation cache guideline.

Link to comment

the hotel is well within its rights to prosecute people continuing to flaunt the signage.

Sorry to selectively parse your post, but I agreed with much of it, and didn't see the need for excess text. However, this bit struck me as odd. What, exactly, would the hotel prosecute them for? My Georgia law knowledge is several decades old, but I don't think that flaunting signage is a criminal offense. As best I can recall, the most the hotel could do is kick the offending flaunter off their property.

Link to comment

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...