Jump to content

1 geocache, multiple containers with logbook, 1 set of coordinates


JPreto

Recommended Posts

This coming from someone who was up in arms about a log being deleted on a throwdown. Which is it? Strict adherance to an interpretation of a vague rule or a 'come what may' attitude towards logging a find?

Why can't both be true?

 

On one hand, we have someone deleting an online log when the guidelines and help articles are pretty clear that the log should remain.

 

On the other hand, we have a cache owner being pretty loosey goosey with allowing people to log his cache.

 

In both situations, you end up with finders who are just trying to find and log caches without their logs being deleted if they found and logged the cache in the traditional manner. As such, my positions on the two different issues are in alignment.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Yes, it is possible provided all the other listing requiremets are also met.

And even if they are not meet, if you explain it to the reviewer and he/she agrees with you, there is the possibility of the listing being published. So, I should never really opened this to discussion... It is pointless since there is always room for the reviewer to "look to the side" if you know what I mean.

I am not a reviewer and don't play one on TV, but if my memory serves, you are incorrect on this point (and therefore most of your off-topic theory in this thread crumbles).

 

As I understand it and how Keystone suggested just above, reviewers are not authorized to ignore the guidelines if they feel like it. If a cache submittal is in violation of the guidelines, the reviewers deny the listing. The cache owner is free to appeal this denial decision with Groundspeak. Groundspeak can decide to then list the cache, or not.

Link to comment

As I understand it and how Keystone suggested just above, reviewers are not authorized to ignore the guidelines if they feel like it. If a cache submittal is in violation of the guidelines, the reviewers deny the listing. The cache owner is free to appeal this denial decision with Groundspeak. Groundspeak can decide to then list the cache, or not.

I answered to this directly to Keystone... will not discuss it here!

Link to comment

As I understand it and how Keystone suggested just above, reviewers are not authorized to ignore the guidelines if they feel like it.

 

Not really.

 

I'm afraid that I'll need to shut this thread down if there is anymore specific picking against reviewers making exceptions, which we have been told by Groundspeak that we are allowed to do.

Link to comment

So reviewers can do whatever it is more appropriate to the community and let the guidelines be bent or not, according to the general community opinion. It is sad to realize this...

 

When you write statements like this or the statement that reviewers "can look to the side" in connection with a scenario like the one I sketched with two final containers with a good reason provided and all other requirements for a cache being fulfilled not only the reviewers might feel insulted, but also a large group of cache owners.

 

You make it seem like that the intent of the majority of the cache owners (with the exception of a small group including yourself) is to break rules and to trick someone just to have fun.

It could well happen to me that one of my caches get sent back to me because there is an issue (has not happened so far), but it would not happen because any sort of bad intent from my side.

 

Let's return to my tree example. One could well handle this cache also without mentioning the two containers on the gc.com site as well. One could just mention the container at the base of the tree and then mention the other container and extra challenge waiting up in the tree on a sheet to be found in the first container. Those cache owners who decided to mention both containers clearly on their cache page and let the decision which log book to sign (or even both) to the finders is based on the belief that there is nothing wrong with this setup and that it neither is against any guideline (so no bending required) nor can cause any harm to geocaching (if everything else is ok which applies to any type of cache).

 

I still do not understand at all why you can have the slightest issue with such a cache set-up regardless of whether or not you are able to climb up trees. I have encountered many topics which lead to hot debates in my country, but I have not encountered any cacher or reviewer that had an issue with two containers at the same coordinates which are mentioned in the cache description.

 

BTW: Do you also object against back-up stages (intermediary stages) for multi caches? Like if you cannot find the Stage 2 container, move 10m to the West and look at the roots of the impressive oak tree?

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I still do not understand at all why you can have the slightest issue with such a cache set-up regardless of whether or not you are able to climb up trees. I have encountered many topics which lead to hot debates in my country, but I have not encountered any cacher or reviewer that had an issue with two containers at the same coordinates which are mentioned in the cache description.

A listing, a final geocache container, a set of final coordinates... This is how I see the game 1:1:1 relationship.

 

BTW: Do you also object against back-up stages (intermediary stages) for multi caches? Like if you cannot find the Stage 2 container, move 10m to the West and look at the roots of the impressive oak tree?

The original game is about finding a container in a set of coordinates. 1:1 relationship, right? For what I understood then listings were implemented so more information could be passed easier, like a yellow pages directory. Things changed when people started to be more creative just pointing out places, no container needed (virtuals on... then off).

 

What I think is that the goal of the game is not only being able to find a container, so no need for backups, if you can´t find it just log a DNF, they are there for that exact purpose. Why do geocachers always have to find a cache? If you, as a owner just place a backup for the sake of them being able to find a container, isn´t that in some point, diminishing the FOUND IT aspect of the game?

 

Maybe, in some point in the future, the DNFs logs will disappear because all geocaches have backups, if not, you can place a throwdown and if none of that works you say you forgot your pen! You will always have a way to log a FOUND IT.

 

Can´t you see that "feeding" this aspect of the game is just ruining it. At least for me it is... so I can´t approve none of these attitudes.

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

Can´t you see that "feeding" this aspect of the game is just ruining it. At least for me it is... so I can´t approve none of these attitudes.

 

JPreto, I agree with what I think is your core argument that throwdowns are bad for the game. I don't like 'em and I don't like it when some cache owners refuse to maintain their their caches.

 

But what others are saying is that whether you like it or not, there is no prohibition against throwdowns or allowing others to maintain your caches.

Link to comment

I still do not understand at all why you can have the slightest issue with such a cache set-up regardless of whether or not you are able to climb up trees. I have encountered many topics which lead to hot debates in my country, but I have not encountered any cacher or reviewer that had an issue with two containers at the same coordinates which are mentioned in the cache description.

A listing, a final geocache container, a set of final coordinates... This is how I see the game 1:1:1 relationship.

 

But based on what? Why do you think that two containers, one up a tree and one at base (no throwdown involved) does not fit the concept of a geocache?

 

A multi cache where you find 50 stage with micros to find the final at stage 51 is still one geocache.

 

BTW: Do you also object against back-up stages (intermediary stages) for multi caches? Like if you cannot find the Stage 2 container, move 10m to the West and look at the roots of the impressive oak tree?

The original game is about finding a container in a set of coordinates. 1:1 relationship, right? For what I understood then listings were implemented so more information could be passed easier, like a yellow pages directory. Things changed when people started to be more creative just pointing out places, no container needed (virtuals on... then off).

 

What you describe comes closest to a traditional cache. The idea behind back-up stages for hiking multi caches is not about being creative. The idea is that you reduce the risk that someone sets out for a hike of more than 10 km and fails due to a missing stage. I have one such caches with two stages with backups (not 100m away, but very close to each other). The back-ups are well received. SOme cachers find both micros, some only one. If I'm not sure whether both containers are still there, I go for a maintenance trip as soon as it finds into my schedule. Up to now I only received a very positive response to that approach.

Others have done the same. Back-up information is something very valuable for long hiking caches, believe me.

 

The reason behind back-ups (which includes duplicating information, including check sums that can be used to replace a missing variable etc) is not to allow for lazy maintenance, but to reduce the possible frustration of cachers. All my caches are hidden with the goal that those who seriously spend time with them and go for the fieldwork are succesful and do not fail due to missing stages. Stages can go missing within a few days - one cannot check a cache every week and in particular not hiking caches that take several hours.

 

 

 

What I think is that the goal of the game is not only being able to find a container, so no need for backups, if you can´t find it just log a DNF, they are there for that exact purpose. Why do geocachers always have to find a cache? If you, as a owner just place a backup for the sake of them being able to find a container, isn´t that in some point, diminishing the FOUND IT aspect of the game?

 

I provide back up versions and things like checksums not for the situation where someone fails to find a stage container or information which is there, but to safeguard against missing stages/changes at stages (e.g. a new sign etc.). I do not appreciate it if someone fails after a 9 km hike at the last but one stage and cannot finish off the hike. If I fail at a cache, I certainly log a DNF log, but for hiking caches I'm glad if the cache owner managed to come up with something that makes me continue even if something does not work like intented.

 

You are neither forced to visit caches of owners with my philosophy nor are you forced to provide such alternatives for your caches (by the way, let me mention that you do not own a single cache that is comparable to my caches or my favourite caches).

 

 

Maybe, in some point in the future, the DNFs logs will disappear because all geocaches have backups, if not, you can place a throwdown and if none of that works you say you forgot your pen! You will always have a way to log a FOUND IT.

 

I have never placed a throwdown and I'm known as pretty conversative in my country. I do not hand out permissions to log finds for caches that are gone, and I have a higher DNF log rate than most cachers in my area.

 

There is a difference between a tricky hide that I cannot find and a fail due to a stage info that went missing. I prefer happy finders of my caches to people who fail after many invested hours without having made anything wrong. Of course, I cannot avoid that people fail from time to time, but I try to minimize the probability for a failure. This also includes updating and reformulating my cache descriptions every time when I realize that some statement could be understood in another way than it is intended.

 

Some of my caches are quite challenging, but the challenge never comes from finding the container. I try to make this part of my caches easy which is definitely not forbidden.

I never ever would recommend my caches to people who like geocaching due to the challenge of searching for hidden objects.

 

Can´t you see that "feeding" this aspect of the game is just ruining it. At least for me it is... so I can´t approve none of these attitudes.

 

I have not yet come across anyone who thinks that cacher ethics and my way of hiding caches encourages throwdowns, insincere logging etc.

You just do not understand that not everyone has the same approach to geocaching. Of course your bike series cannot be compared with my caches. They serve totally different objectives and appeal to a totally different audience. Why can't you live with the fact that within the guidelines there are many different ways to enjoy caching without harming geocaching?

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

As I understand it and how Keystone suggested just above, reviewers are not authorized to ignore the guidelines if they feel like it.

 

Not really.

 

I'm afraid that I'll need to shut this thread down if there is anymore specific picking against reviewers making exceptions, which we have been told by Groundspeak that we are allowed to do.

You kind of took that quote out of context. That thread was about screws in trees. The issue for the reviewers was whether if a cache is discovered after publishing that the cache owner put a screw into a tree, what should happen to it.

 

To bring it back to the bit about reviewers kicking guideline violations to Groundspeak rather than listing non-conforming caches, I welcome you to read this comment from Cascade Reviewer from the same thread that you quoted:

But, Groundspeak has a guideline about defacement so that property is not damaged in any way to support a geocache, so that no ill will comes towards geocaching by land managing agencies, or private citizens.

 

It is also true that there have been some exceptions when it comes to private property. If a land manager gives their express permission, a reviewer or Groundspeak may make that exception. This, of course, can bring up the worry that even though there is permission, seeing something "defaced" can be confusing and make other cache hiders and land managers think that Groundspeak is alright with defacement.

 

Personally, as a reviewer, I do not publish caches like these. If I see something that defaces land or property even with permission, I will bump it up to Groundspeak and let them make the decision.

Link to comment

Can´t you see that "feeding" this aspect of the game is just ruining it. At least for me it is... so I can´t approve none of these attitudes.

 

JPreto, I agree with what I think is your core argument that throwdowns are bad for the game. I don't like 'em and I don't like it when some cache owners refuse to maintain their their caches.

 

But what others are saying is that whether you like it or not, there is no prohibition against throwdowns or allowing others to maintain your caches.

 

I'm also strictly against throwdowns. It becomes absurd however to come up with the throwdown argument as reply to a question about user provided back-up containers/information for multi cache stages to reduce the risk that someone fails on the way. None of my caches provides a cheap find (which are not bad per se any way) and so the arguments that my approach ruins the game, leaves me quite irritated.

Link to comment

None of my caches provides a cheap find (which are not bad per se any way) and so the arguments that my approach ruins the game, leaves me quite irritated.

Sorry if I irritate you, it is not my objective or goal in any forum to irritate anyone. I simple can´t agree that placing a backup geocache can the solution for the problem, which is: "a geocache container gone missing".

 

If I ever go to Austria I will be very please to try and find at least of your geocaches. It´s a promise!!!

Link to comment
Amazing! The CO *invites* throwdowns and will add them to the roster of possible caches to find.

 

A good cache for groups - everyone can find a separate container!

Geocaching is just a game. It's OK if sometimes people get a bit silly with it.

The silliness is fine.

The pushing the envelope is fine.

The argumentative edge of some is not as cool.

Link to comment

Sorry if I irritate you, it is not my objective or goal in any forum to irritate anyone. I simple can´t agree that placing a backup geocache can the solution for the problem, which is: "a geocache container gone missing".

 

Just to be precise: I talked about back-up containers or back-up questions for multi cache stages and not backup geocaches.

Moreover, I never claimed that this type of approach will help in all cases because it also can happen that the back-ups disappear too or that someone fails to find them as it can happen with every cache.

What I said is that back-up stage containers/informations/questions etc can be a way to provide an enjoyful multi cache experience in a couple of cases where people would have failed otherwise without having made any mistake.

 

I still do not understand why you have an issue with this type of approach. Neither any of my caches nor anything I ever said about geocaching encourages throwdowns, not logging DNFs etc

I simply wonder why you object against the set up of hiking caches in a style you have done at all. You have not visited a single such cache and still you think that you know that such caches ruin the game?

That's really hard to understand for me.

Link to comment

That's really hard to understand for me.

Lets see if I can explain it now:

 

Because for me those caches are routes along a path, with a .GPX file you can do that. Actually without looking too much into it, they all seem like Wherigo caches.

 

Maybe I am just old fashioned and see geocaching as a cache-hunting game where a given set of coordinates are your target and not a trail-marking game.

Link to comment

Because for me those caches are routes along a path, with .GPX file you can do that. Actually without looking too much into it, they all seem like Wherigo caches.

 

All the Wherigo caches I have heard about are quite different to the type of multi cache I explained and Wherigos put much more requirements on the equipment.

 

There are many caches out where there most of the way is trackless and there is no route to follow.

For example this cacher hider who started back in 2003 and was one of our local pioneers

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=gebu

has hidden many caches where you will hardly ever encounter a real trail - at best hunters' trails which are very difficult to find.

The motto for his caches is "Difficult to get to, easy to find once there".

 

As most of this hider's caches are in challenging terrain with mostly bad reception it can already be an extreme challenge to find any

manageable way to the next stage and to find the stage at all even if no container waits there, but just a question.

The real challenge and the biggest enjoyment comes from the area - but of course if someone loves urban areas and drive ins, they will hate these caches.

 

Maybe I am just old fashioned and see geocaching as a cache-hunting game where a given set of coordinates are your target and not a trail-marking game.

 

There are so many variations and different opinions what is the treasure one hunts for. For many cachers it's above all about the locations and the journey and many of those started as early as 2001 and 2002.

Do I do not think that the issue is whether one is old-fashioned or not.

 

Your caching preferences can differ considerably from those of other cachers, but that's not a reason to question whether the caches you do not appreciate fulfill the guidelines.

I never questioned your opinion that for example back-up containers or back-up question for stages of multi cache diminish your pleasure in a cache. What irritated me is that your argued with the guidelines.

 

It is well conceivable that Dave Ulmer would not regard as complex puzzle cache as anything he had in mind when he hid the first geocache (stash), but that does not mean that puzzle caches are no valid geocaches.

 

I try to be very explicit about which type of audience I try to address with a particular cache. I would not recommend one of my caches to you, not even if you lived in my area.

Not every cache will appeal to everyone, but that does not make these caches automatically against the guidelines.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Maybe I am just old fashioned and see geocaching as a cache-hunting game where a given set of coordinates are your target and not a trail-marking game.

 

Are you sure you've only been caching for a year? That sounds like something I would say. But that's only because I actually remember what it was like before power trails were sanctioned. For someone who has only been caching for a year, the trail-marking game, as you call it, has been a pretty normal part for your entire geocaching experience.

Link to comment

...

The original game is about finding a container in a set of coordinates. 1:1 relationship, right?

...

 

...

Maybe I am just old fashioned and see geocaching as a cache-hunting game where a given set of coordinates are your target and not a trail-marking game.

I think we've finally identified the root of all these discussions. JPreto has a very narrow personal definition of geocaching, and apparently feels that everyone should be using this same definition. Anyone that doesn't share this definition is either cheating or otherwise "doing it wrong".

 

JPreto, you need to accept that not everyone plays this game the same as you. There are different customs from region to region, and even from person to person. The guidelines have been made intentionally vague so as to allow reviewers to make exceptions for creative caches that push the boundaries while still respecting the intention of the guidelines.

 

There is not a single "right way" to geocache. If you can accept this, then you'll realize that none of the recent discussions really needed to happen. If you can't accept this, you can expect to encounter conflict with other geocachers, the reviewers, and Groundspeak.

Link to comment

As I understand it and how Keystone suggested just above, reviewers are not authorized to ignore the guidelines if they feel like it.

 

Not really.

 

I'm afraid that I'll need to shut this thread down if there is anymore specific picking against reviewers making exceptions, which we have been told by Groundspeak that we are allowed to do.

You kind of took that quote out of context. That thread was about screws in trees. The issue for the reviewers was whether if a cache is discovered after publishing that the cache owner put a screw into a tree, what should happen to it.

 

To bring it back to the bit about reviewers kicking guideline violations to Groundspeak rather than listing non-conforming caches, I welcome you to read this comment from Cascade Reviewer from the same thread that you quoted:

But, Groundspeak has a guideline about defacement so that property is not damaged in any way to support a geocache, so that no ill will comes towards geocaching by land managing agencies, or private citizens.

 

It is also true that there have been some exceptions when it comes to private property. If a land manager gives their express permission, a reviewer or Groundspeak may make that exception. This, of course, can bring up the worry that even though there is permission, seeing something "defaced" can be confusing and make other cache hiders and land managers think that Groundspeak is alright with defacement.

 

Personally, as a reviewer, I do not publish caches like these. If I see something that defaces land or property even with permission, I will bump it up to Groundspeak and let them make the decision.

 

That still does not change anything. Reviewers are authorized to ignore the guidelines if they feel like it.

 

Ignoring the guidelines after publishing is different than before publishing? Why sure it is. Once a reviewer does this, it sends a clear message that what the CO did was okay, and that the guidelines can be ignored if they don't say anything. This is why there are many guideline violations. Once a reviewer finds one and does nothing, everyone finds out about it and it triggers more to occur. Its fine, as long as you don't tell them about it beforehand.

 

It's like getting pulled over and admitting that you have cocaine in the trunk. The officer rubs his ear and says that he didn't quite hear you, winks, and says at least there is none in the passenger compartment, and drives off, saying he doesn't like being a cop. Pretty soon there are many people keeping cocaine in their trunk because they believe it is condoned. The officer is not responsible, but yet is contributing to it. I used to know several officers that did steroids. Once others found out about it, many others followed. There are those that love the badge, but hate the job. Then there are those that create their own little domain where they are the king, and all rules are only interpreted through their own personal prism. It tends to occur with all types of authoritative positions, even silly volunteer ones. Life is more than who we are.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Maybe I am just old fashioned and see geocaching as a cache-hunting game where a given set of coordinates are your target and not a trail-marking game.

 

Are you sure you've only been caching for a year? That sounds like something I would say. But that's only because I actually remember what it was like before power trails were sanctioned. For someone who has only been caching for a year, the trail-marking game, as you call it, has been a pretty normal part for your entire geocaching experience.

 

He definitely was not referring to hiding a lot of caches along a trail - some of his caches fit into this category.

He might have looked at my most recent cache which involves a 16km hike and one has to visit 10 virtual stages (with known coordinates) before being able to compute the coordinates of the final. The major intent of this cache (some of my other caches are very different) is indeed to show the route and the views and locations that can be seen along this route. I do not think that his concerns are related to when someone started to geocache.

In my area multi caches have played an important role from the very beginning - there are areas and countries where geocaching has been developed differently.

 

I suspect that JPreto would prefer a setup with 20 individual cache containers to be found along the route to

my setup with 16km with given waypoints and only a single container (no challenge to find it - spoiler picture and hint available) to search for. So, I think he meant something different with trail-marking than you understood.

 

While virtual caches are not allowed any longer, virtual stages of multi and mystery caches are nothing bad at all. Of course not everyone likes that sort of setup. There are cachers out there who cache for the thrill to search containers and the pleasure they take out from finding them. The hunt is more important for them than the journey. For me the journey comes first and I try to set up my caches in a way such that did not finds due to missing information/stages are not too likely.

The stages of my caches are intended to guide the cachers on their route and/or to lead them to places of interest and not to offer a challenge. For that reason I sometimes try to add redundancy to my cache stages which is something JPreto apparently objects to.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Having an alternate container at the base of a tree climber is inappropriate because one of those caches will have incorrect attributes and D/T.
I once found a cache that was a short distance from a parking lot. It wasn't wheelchair accessible though, so it had a T1.5 rating.

 

Except that I parked a mile or so away on the other side of the lake, rented a boat, and took a "specialized equipment" approach to the cache site. Does that mean that the cache's terrain rating was inaccurate or inappropriate or incorrect, just because my approach would have been worthy of a T5 rating?

 

And what if the cache owner actually intended for seekers to walk from the parking lot (T1.5) if they wanted, or to use a boat to cross the lake (T5) if they wanted?

 

How is this any different from placing two containers for a cache, one at the base of the tree and one requiring a climb? In that case, I think the CO should rate the terrain based on the cache at the base of the tree, just as the terrain rating for the cache I found was based on the short hike from the parking lot. The terrain rating tells potential seekers whether they are capable of reaching the cache, and in this case, the container that is easier to access is the one that determines whether they're capable of reaching the cache.

Link to comment
Ignoring the guidelines after publishing is different than before publishing? Why sure it is. Once a reviewer does this, it sends a clear message that what the CO did was okay, and that the guidelines can be ignored if they don't say anything.
Before publishing, the reviewer has two options: publish, or don't publish (yet).

 

After publishing, the reviewer has different options: retract, archive, disable, or allow.

 

The options are different, the situations are different, and the "clear message" is different. As an example, I've seen a reviewer allow a cache that had already been published, when it was discovered after the fact that it was less than 528ft/161m from an old puzzle cache final. That does not mean that it's okay for new caches to be placed less than 528ft/161m from existing caches.

 

And then there's that whole "no precedent" thing.

Link to comment

 

The options are different, the situations are different, and the "clear message" is different.

 

Agreed.

 

As an example, I've seen a reviewer allow a cache that had already been published, when it was discovered after the fact that it was less than 528ft/161m from an old puzzle cache final. That does not mean that it's okay for new caches to be placed less than 528ft/161m from existing caches.

 

It sure does mean that it's okay. The geocachers learn that puzzles published before a certain date are not on the reviewers map, and then they discover that caches can be placed next to them without fear of being archived. It's happened several times, and who can say in each scenario if it was accidental or not? Being less than 20 feet in one case, I'd say there was a good likelihood that it was intentional. Then the reviewer finds it and walks away. Someone can say as much as they like that it's "not okay", but actions are the only language that matters.

 

I recall being 12, finding a Playboy magazine, and bringing it home. Then my dad found it. He yelled and screamed that it was smut, said I should not be looking at that garbage, and then tossed it in the trash. I may have been punished also, but I don't remember. I do recall the red face and the veins popping out of his skull. Then a few hours later I find him reading it. What message do you think I received?

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

What message do you think I received?

 

That your mom made him chastise you? :laughing:

 

Seriously, I imagine that a lot of reviewers enforce things that they do not agree with because the higher ups have put certain rules in place. If they come across it while playing they game, they may very well overlook it even though they would enforce it if it came across their desk prior to publishing.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

What message do you think I received?

 

That your mom made him chastise you? :laughing:

 

Seriously, I imagine that a lot of reviewers enforce things that they do not agree with because the higher ups have put certain rules in place. If they come across it while playing they game, they may very well overlook it even though they would enforce it if it came across their desk prior to publishing.

 

Correct. Lie or mislead some reviewers, and they probably won't do anything. The guidelines are only enforced if you try to implicate them beforehand for violations. Otherwise it's all good. *wink*

 

Other cachers find the obvious violation and say "Uht oh, what if the reviewer finds this?" Then the reviewer finds it, and ...nothing. Then everyone finds out and thinks *COOL*, they really don't want us to tell them the truth. They love having the badge, but it means nothing.

 

Then a land manager discovers another similar one from the process created. The reviewer denies any type of responsibility, but yet has contributed to it. It quickly goes from being their territory, with their rules, to "not my problem".

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Seriously, I imagine that a lot of reviewers enforce things that they do not agree with because the higher ups have put certain rules in place.

I know nothing about reviewers, but I really doubt that. I think the most extreme case would be enforcing a rule that they don't agree with, but they accept that there's probably a good reason for the rule, they just haven't run into that case yet. (I assume we all know about that one recent case in England where a reviewer was compelled to enforce a rule he was well aware was wrong. He resigned instead of kowtowing to higher ups. Reviewers aren't paid enough to go against their own opinions.)

 

I think more often would be the case where they can see a rule would not cause a problem in a particular case, but they'd still follow the letter of the law because they wouldn't want to explain what makes that an exception to someone later submitting a cache requiring a similar exemption. Yeah, there's a no precedence rule, but that doesn't mean reviewers want to put themselves in a position of needing to pull it out all the time. (Besides, I'd bet that every reviewer has had at least one case where they "knew" something wouldn't cause a problem, yet someone subsequently found a way to make it cause a problem.)

Link to comment

Seriously, I imagine that a lot of reviewers enforce things that they do not agree with because the higher ups have put certain rules in place.

I know nothing about reviewers, but I really doubt that. I think the most extreme case would be enforcing a rule that they don't agree with, but they accept that there's probably a good reason for the rule, they just haven't run into that case yet.

This are just assumptions... This is a case:

 

http://coord.info/GC1ZXZY

 

This cache, from the day it was placed had:

 

1 small roll of tape, 2 green dice, a children's pair of hair clips, a yellow strap with clip, 8 colorful rocks (mostly quartz), a plastic case for contacts (not shown in picture), 3 sterile (sealed) lancets for blood glucose measurement, a bracelet and a whistle.

 

And pictures describing both the geocache and the contents.

 

The guidelines clearly say:

 

Explosives, fireworks, ammunition, lighters, knives (including pocket knives and multi-tools), drugs, alcohol and any illicit material should not be placed in a cache. Geocaching is a family-friendly activity and cache contents should be suitable for all ages.

 

So I felt that the "3 sterile (sealed) lancets for blood glucose measurement" were not appropriate as a geocache swag. Post this on my log and even contacted the local reviewers.

 

The answer I got from the reviewers was: "You are right it is not appropriate, did you remove it?"

I said: "No I didn´t... After all that is happening here I don´t want any more problems with the local community."

The answer that I got back was: "Well, what do you want us to do then?"

I told them: "Do whatever you feel is right. I did my part, now it´s in your hands!"

I got no answer from that and the cache is still active containing lancets that clearly are not appropriate for a geocache and the CO is absent from the game.

 

The influencers of the local community visit the cache, and even post notes saying it is OK to visit... So clearly the cache is being maintained by the local community (or at least the influencers of the community). The reviewers know about the fact that the cache is not respecting the guidelines and do nothing about it...

 

Make your conclusions... What I put here are facts!

Link to comment

Seriously, I imagine that a lot of reviewers enforce things that they do not agree with because the higher ups have put certain rules in place.

I know nothing about reviewers, but I really doubt that. I think the most extreme case would be enforcing a rule that they don't agree with, but they accept that there's probably a good reason for the rule, they just haven't run into that case yet.

This are just assumptions... This is a case:

 

http://coord.info/GC1ZXZY

 

This cache, from the day it was placed had:

 

1 small roll of tape, 2 green dice, a children's pair of hair clips, a yellow strap with clip, 8 colorful rocks (mostly quartz), a plastic case for contacts (not shown in picture), 3 sterile (sealed) lancets for blood glucose measurement, a bracelet and a whistle.

 

And pictures describing both the geocache and the contents.

 

The guidelines clearly say:

 

Explosives, fireworks, ammunition, lighters, knives (including pocket knives and multi-tools), drugs, alcohol and any illicit material should not be placed in a cache. Geocaching is a family-friendly activity and cache contents should be suitable for all ages.

 

So I felt that the "3 sterile (sealed) lancets for blood glucose measurement" were not appropriate as a geocache swag. Post this on my log and even contacted the local reviewers.

 

The answer I got from the reviewers was: "You are right it is not appropriate, did you remove it?"

I said: "No I didn´t... After all that is happening here I don´t want any more problems with the local community."

The answer that I got back was: "Well, what do you want us to do then?"

I told them: "Do whatever you feel is right. I did my part, now it´s in your hands!"

I got no answer from that and the cache is still active containing lancets that clearly are not appropriate for a geocache and the CO is absent from the game.

 

The influencers of the local community visit the cache, and even post notes saying it is OK to visit... So clearly the cache is being maintained by the local community (or at least the influencers of the community). The reviewers know about the fact that the cache is not respecting the guidelines and do nothing about it...

 

Make your conclusions... What I put here are facts!

 

You should have simply removed the items, but instead you wanted the cache owner to be punished. It seems that the reviewer did what he felt was right, just as you asked. However you did not do your part by removing it, and wanted the reviewer to use a shotgun to kill a fly. How in the heck is a sealed blood glucose lancelet any more of a danger than a sealed fishing lure?

 

This kind of reminds me of the guy near me who posts videos of people driving "recklessly". You watch the video and see an old man momentarily swerve one foot into another lane with nobody close by at all. Another video shows people "running red lights", but looking closely see that they are clearly over the white line when the light turns. The videos are posted with the vehicle tag # in the title. I mean, really? :P

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

You should have simply removed the items, but instead you wanted the cache owner to be punished.

How can I punish someone that doesn´t play the game since 2010?

 

By archiving the cache? You spotted something in which you thought was dangerous, but did nothing except for contacting the reviewer. The cache should be archived, when it could be fixed? How does an archived cache with a "dangerous" item in it become less dangerous for the kid who finds it accidentally? In theory that's the only person who could be injured here.

Link to comment

You should have simply removed the items, but instead you wanted the cache owner to be punished.

How can I punish someone that doesn´t play the game since 2010?

No JPreto wants the reviewers publicly humiliated and another data point that he is right and reviewers are incompentant and dont enforce rules.

 

What would JPreto have done if the "3 sterile (sealed) lancets for blood glucose measurement" were not listed on the cache page but still included?

 

Obviouusly, but there is no opportunity for drama that way...

Link to comment

The guidelines clearly say:

Explosives, fireworks, ammunition, lighters, knives (including pocket knives and multi-tools), drugs, alcohol and any illicit material should not be placed in a cache. Geocaching is a family-friendly activity and cache contents should be suitable for all ages.

 

So I felt that the "3 sterile (sealed) lancets for blood glucose measurement" were not appropriate as a geocache swag. Post this on my log and even contacted the local reviewers.

 

I agree with the poster before me. I you think that these lancets are a danger, you should have removed them. Personally I would not put such objects into a cache, but when they are sealed, this is sufficient in my personal understanding. Balloons are a frequent contents of caches and they could be more dangerous for really small children which however never should be unattended anyway.

Personally, I think that mouldy cachers are the greater danger as many people are allergic. These lancets (when sealed and not used) are less dangerous than a sewing needle or thorns.

 

I would never involve a reviewer in such cases however. For example, if I encounter food items in a cache, I remove them and mention this in my log.

I neither except the reviewers to act (they are volunteers and have better things to do and typically are far away anyway) nor the cache owner to visit the cache just to remove an item.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

What would JPreto have done if the "3 sterile (sealed) lancets for blood glucose measurement" were not listed on the cache page but still included?

My actions would be the same! I was just answering what "dprovan" and "GeoBain" were discussing:

 

Seriously, I imagine that a lot of reviewers enforce things that they do not agree with because the higher ups have put certain rules in place.

I know nothing about reviewers, but I really doubt that. I think the most extreme case would be enforcing a rule that they don't agree with, but they accept that there's probably a good reason for the rule, they just haven't run into that case yet.

 

So I put out an example, a fact... not hypothetical assumptions.

Link to comment
This are just assumptions... This is a case:

 

http://coord.info/GC1ZXZY

 

This cache, from the day it was placed had:

 

1 small roll of tape, 2 green dice, a children's pair of hair clips, a yellow strap with clip, 8 colorful rocks (mostly quartz), a plastic case for contacts (not shown in picture), 3 sterile (sealed) lancets for blood glucose measurement, a bracelet and a whistle.

 

And pictures describing both the geocache and the contents.

 

The guidelines clearly say:

 

Explosives, fireworks, ammunition, lighters, knives (including pocket knives and multi-tools), drugs, alcohol and any illicit material should not be placed in a cache. Geocaching is a family-friendly activity and cache contents should be suitable for all ages.

 

So I felt that the "3 sterile (sealed) lancets for blood glucose measurement" were not appropriate as a geocache swag. Post this on my log and even contacted the local reviewers.

 

The answer I got from the reviewers was: "You are right it is not appropriate, did you remove it?"

I said: "No I didn´t... After all that is happening here I don´t want any more problems with the local community."

 

I don't understand the bolded bit.

 

If I were to go to the cache, remove the lancets, and throw them in the trash once I got home, how would I have problems with the local community?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

If I were to go to the cache, remove the lancets, and throw them in the trash once I got home, how would I have problems with the local community?

When I posted NM on moldy logs the community criticize me... actually they criticize me for even placing a DNF, some defend that you just post a DNF after 3 visits!!!!

 

If I remove contents of a geocache that is approved by a reviewers saying:

 

"I removed some contents because I felt that were inappropriate"

 

Don´t you feel that the same community would say:

 

"Here he is again, the reviewers have no problems with the contents, since them approved the geocache, but he is being a smart a** and saying what we can and can´t put in a cache".

 

Now you understand? <_<

Link to comment

If I were to go to the cache, remove the lancets, and throw them in the trash once I got home, how would I have problems with the local community?

When I posted NM on moldy logs the community criticize me... actually they criticize me for even placing a DNF, some defend that you just post a DNF after 3 visits!!!!

 

If I remove contents of a geocache that is approved by a reviewers saying:

 

"I removed some contents because I felt that were inappropriate"

 

Don´t you feel that the same community would say:

 

"Here he is again, the reviewers have no problems with the contents, since them approved the geocache, but he is being a smart a** and saying what we can and can´t put in a cache".

 

Now you understand? <_<

No, I do not.

 

If you believe that these items are dangerous and should not be in the cache, then remove them. If you are concerned about community blowback, then you can avoid it in one of two ways:

  1. Trade the items out of the cache or
  2. Don't mention it in your online log.

I think that what you really want is not to get these 'bad' items out of the cache, but be recognized as the person who 'saved' geocaching.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

If you believe that these items are dangerous and should not be in the cache, then remove them. If you are concerned about community blowback, then you can avoid it in one of two ways:

  1. Trade the items out of the cache or
  2. Don't mention it in your online log.

I think that what you really want is not to get these 'bad' items out of the cache, but be recognized as the person who 'saved' geocaching.

^This

If you feel you can do something to help the geocaching community, go ahead and do it. You aren't required to tell the whole world that you've done so.

Link to comment

You should have simply removed the items, but instead you wanted the cache owner to be punished.

How can I punish someone that doesn´t play the game since 2010?

 

Wait a minute. You complained about the contents listed when a cache was originally placed at LEAST 4 years ago? Did you even visit the cache or were you just perusing cache listings looking for infractions to complain about?

Link to comment

If I were to go to the cache, remove the lancets, and throw them in the trash once I got home, how would I have problems with the local community?

When I posted NM on moldy logs the community criticize me... actually they criticize me for even placing a DNF, some defend that you just post a DNF after 3 visits!!!!

 

If I remove contents of a geocache that is approved by a reviewers saying:

 

"I removed some contents because I felt that were inappropriate"

 

Don´t you feel that the same community would say:

 

"Here he is again, the reviewers have no problems with the contents, since them approved the geocache, but he is being a smart a** and saying what we can and can´t put in a cache".

 

Now you understand? <_<

 

Besides needing drama, why would you even need to mention removal of dangerous items? If you really thought it was dangerous, you should have removed it immediately, though I don't think the items in question are actually dangerous. But then again, you stated that the CO hasn't been active since 2010 so I highly doubt those items were still in the cache. I get the feeling that you peruse cache listings looking for something to complain about.

 

I'll just say I'm glad I'm neither a reviewer nor a cacher in Brazil.

Link to comment

You should have simply removed the items, but instead you wanted the cache owner to be punished.

How can I punish someone that doesn´t play the game since 2010?

 

Wait a minute. You complained about the contents listed when a cache was originally placed at LEAST 4 years ago? Did you even visit the cache or were you just perusing cache listings looking for infractions to complain about?

Really?!?!?!?! Is that your question?!?!?!?! The answer in on the cache page!!!! :P

 

http://coord.info/GLFAT3D2

Link to comment

You should have simply removed the items, but instead you wanted the cache owner to be punished.

How can I punish someone that doesn´t play the game since 2010?

 

Wait a minute. You complained about the contents listed when a cache was originally placed at LEAST 4 years ago? Did you even visit the cache or were you just perusing cache listings looking for infractions to complain about?

Really?!?!?!?! Is that your question?!?!?!?! The answer in on the cache page!!!! :P

 

http://coord.info/GLFAT3D2

 

Can you point out the lancets in that picture?

Link to comment

You should have simply removed the items, but instead you wanted the cache owner to be punished.

How can I punish someone that doesn´t play the game since 2010?

 

Wait a minute. You complained about the contents listed when a cache was originally placed at LEAST 4 years ago? Did you even visit the cache or were you just perusing cache listings looking for infractions to complain about?

Really?!?!?!?! Is that your question?!?!?!?! The answer in on the cache page!!!! :P

 

http://coord.info/GLFAT3D2

 

Can you point out the lancets in that picture?

 

Nevermind. I "think" they are in the tic tac box. Is that correct? I don't speak Portuguese so I don't know what the box says. But if those are the lancets then there is nothing dangerous about them. I wouldn't want a medical product I found in a cache. I wouldn't even use a bandaid I found in a cache. But that doesn't make it dangerous.

Link to comment

You should have simply removed the items, but instead you wanted the cache owner to be punished.

How can I punish someone that doesn´t play the game since 2010?

 

Wait a minute. You complained about the contents listed when a cache was originally placed at LEAST 4 years ago? Did you even visit the cache or were you just perusing cache listings looking for infractions to complain about?

Really?!?!?!?! Is that your question?!?!?!?! The answer in on the cache page!!!! :P

 

http://coord.info/GLFAT3D2

 

Can you point out the lancets in that picture?

Yet another question answered by the cache page....

 

http://coord.info/GC1ZXZY

 

PS: Spoiler picture 1... blue rod-shaped in the middle!

 

Close up, just for you! :)

lancet-a-2.jpg

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

You should have simply removed the items, but instead you wanted the cache owner to be punished.

How can I punish someone that doesn´t play the game since 2010?

 

Wait a minute. You complained about the contents listed when a cache was originally placed at LEAST 4 years ago? Did you even visit the cache or were you just perusing cache listings looking for infractions to complain about?

Really?!?!?!?! Is that your question?!?!?!?! The answer in on the cache page!!!! :P

 

http://coord.info/GLFAT3D2

 

Can you point out the lancets in that picture?

Yet another question answered by the cache page....

 

http://coord.info/GC1ZXZY

 

PS: Spoiler picture 1... blue rod-shaped in the middle!

 

Only if you know what lancets are. I don't see a blue rod-shaped item in the middle. I do see some blue items in a tic tac box with what looks like Medical written on it. But again, I don't speak Portugese so I have no idea. But if that is the lancet, then it is protected by a fairly hard shell of the tic tac box is not dangerous in the least bit.

 

But if you did think it was dangerous, then you should have removed it.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...