Cache NOT on school grounds

[+The A-Team]

You may want to see if your local government has a web version of the county clerks office, that way you can get real data on who owns or manages a specific plot of land.

Trust me.....I know that area like the back of my hand after being here 40+ years.

But with that official information you can make sure that you and your reveiwer are in the same page.

Based on the information in this discussion, it sounds like the problem isn't the ownership of the parcel of land, but rather the container's proximity to a school. jfpinell just needs to accept that their location isn't acceptable in the eyes of the reviewer (as well as other reviewers) and move the container farther from the school.

[+MKFmly]

Google Maps have a map scale at the bottom, so going back and pacing the distances out isn't necessary.

Google maps is a great product but as is often mentioned does not necessarily align well with satalite imagery, thus why it is often mentioned to not use it for placing caches. In some areas it is very algnied and in some it can be 10s of meters out. Perhaps that is an issue in your local area and may give any reviewer an improper indication of your cache location, although most should be aware of the issue and consider it during the review process.

[+The A-Team]

Google Maps have a map scale at the bottom, so going back and pacing the distances out isn't necessary.

Google maps is a great product but as is often mentioned does not necessarily align well with satalite imagery, thus why it is often mentioned to not use it for placing caches. In some areas it is very algnied and in some it can be 10s of meters out. Perhaps that is an issue in your local area and may give any reviewer an improper indication of your cache location, although most should be aware of the issue and consider it during the review process.

That's certainly the case if you're using a set of coordinates. However, if your hiding spot is identifiable on the satellite imagery (it sounds like the OP's cache is in a fairly open area), you can make a fairly accurate measurement using the imagery alone and not be affected by any mis-alignment.

 

Note that I'm only talking about distance measurement where no coordinates are used. Such maps are okay for checking that prospective cache coordinates are in the right proverbial-ballpark, but should never be used to retrieve coordinates for a new hide.

[+Manville Possum]

You may want to see if your local government has a web version of the county clerks office, that way you can get real data on who owns or manages a specific plot of land.

Trust me.....I know that area like the back of my hand after being here 40+ years.

But with that official information you can make sure that you and your reveiwer are in the same page.

Based on the information in this discussion, it sounds like the problem isn't the ownership of the parcel of land, but rather the container's proximity to a school. jfpinell just needs to accept that their location isn't acceptable in the eyes of the reviewer (as well as other reviewers) and move the container farther from the school.

I think that is what most of us would do, but jfpinell may lack experience as a geocacher.

[+NeverSummer]

Having worked with BEC a handful of years ago, I'm going to strongly suggest to the OP that they change their tone. That Volunteer Reviewer is approachable, consistent, honest, and helpful. Any anger or frustration that is coming from this stems from the attitude of the OP toward the Volunteer Reviewer and the guidelines of this game.

[+wmpastor]

Having worked with BEC a handful of years ago, I'm going to strongly suggest to the OP that they change their tone. That Volunteer Reviewer is approachable, consistent, honest, and helpful. Any anger or frustration that is coming from this stems from the attitude of the OP toward the Volunteer Reviewer and the guidelines of this game.

Here we go. Deja vu all over again.

[+wmpastor]

You may want to see if your local government has a web version of the county clerks office, that way you can get real data on who owns or manages a specific plot of land.

Trust me.....I know that area like the back of my hand after being here 40+ years.

But with that official information you can make sure that you and your reveiwer are in the same page.

Based on the information in this discussion, it sounds like the problem isn't the ownership of the parcel of land, but rather the container's proximity to a school. jfpinell just needs to accept that their location isn't acceptable in the eyes of the reviewer (as well as other reviewers) and move the container farther from the school.

I think that is what most of us would do, but jfpinell may lack experience as a geocacher.

No way! He invented the "zero out latitude, then find your longitude" system.

 

Not seeing a high find tally though....

[+MKFmly]

That's certainly the case if you're using a set of coordinates. However, if your hiding spot is identifiable on the satellite imagery (it sounds like the OP's cache is in a fairly open area), you can make a fairly accurate measurement using the imagery alone and not be affected by any mis-alignment.

 

Note that I'm only talking about distance measurement where no coordinates are used. Such maps are okay for checking that prospective cache coordinates are in the right proverbial-ballpark, but should never be used to retrieve coordinates for a new hide.

Note, I was suggesting a reviewer examining a cache submission in google maps etc, and being led astray. Are the reviewers not using coordinates?

 

I don't recall having to provide "4 paces SSE of the blue light standard in the middle bush" on my last cache submission... ;-) ...but it has been awhile.

[+NeverSummer]

Having worked with BEC a handful of years ago, I'm going to strongly suggest to the OP that they change their tone. That Volunteer Reviewer is approachable, consistent, honest, and helpful. Any anger or frustration that is coming from this stems from the attitude of the OP toward the Volunteer Reviewer and the guidelines of this game.

Here we go. Deja vu all over again.

 

Banana Creme Pie:

Ingredients:

Cooking spray

12 graham cracker squares (6 full sheets)

2 tablespoons butter, softened

1 1/2 teaspoons unflavored gelatin

3 tablespoons boiling water

1/3 cup, plus 1/2 teaspoon sugar

3 tablespoons all-purpose flour

2 egg yolks

1 1/2 cups 1 percent lowfat milk

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

2 cups sliced banana (3 medium bananas)

1/4 cup whipping cream

1/2 teaspoon sugar

Directions:

Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F.

 

Spray a 9-inch pie plate with cooking spray. In a food processor, process graham crackers until finely ground. Add butter and 1 tablespoon of water, and process until the crumb clumps together. Press crumb mixture into bottom of pie plate and about 1/2-inch up the sides. Bake in the oven for 10 minutes, then let cool.

 

In the meantime, make the filling. Put the gelatin in a small bowl; add 3 tablespoons of boiling water and stir until gelatin is dissolved. In a medium saucepan, whisk together 1/3 cup of sugar and the flour. In a medium bowl lightly beat the milk and eggs together. Add the egg and milk mixture to the saucepan and whisk so the flour and sugar dissolve. Cook over a medium heat, stirring constantly, for 10 minutes, until mixture comes to a boil and has thickened. Stir in the vanilla extract and gelatin. Set aside to cool slightly.

 

Arrange the sliced bananas on the graham cracker crust and pour the pudding on top. Place in the refrigerator until the pudding has set, about 3 hours.

 

Whip the cream with an electric beater. When it is about halfway done, add 1/2 teaspoon of sugar, then continue whipping until fully whipped. Put the whipped cream in a plastic bag, concentrating it in 1 corner of the bag. Snip that corner off the bag and squeeze the whipped cream out of the bag in a decorative pattern around the pie.

[+Panther&Pine]

You may want to see if your local government has a web version of the county clerks office, that way you can get real data on who owns or manages a specific plot of land.

Trust me.....I know that area like the back of my hand after being here 40+ years.

But with that official information you can make sure that you and your reveiwer are in the same page.

Based on the information in this discussion, it sounds like the problem isn't the ownership of the parcel of land, but rather the container's proximity to a school. jfpinell just needs to accept that their location isn't acceptable in the eyes of the reviewer (as well as other reviewers) and move the container farther from the school.

I was hoping to encourage them to look at the actual facts of ownership instead of memory and assumption of permission.

Example where I work the property is owned by the city, but we own the building and manage the property. That shows up on the county GIS.

[+wmpastor]

Having worked with BEC a handful of years ago, I'm going to strongly suggest to the OP that they change their tone. That Volunteer Reviewer is approachable, consistent, honest, and helpful. Any anger or frustration that is coming from this stems from the attitude of the OP toward the Volunteer Reviewer and the guidelines of this game.

Here we go. Deja vu all over again.

 

Banana Creme Pie:

Ingredients:

Cooking spray

12 graham cracker squares (6 full sheets)

2 tablespoons butter, softened

1 1/2 teaspoons unflavored gelatin

3 tablespoons boiling water

1/3 cup, plus 1/2 teaspoon sugar

3 tablespoons all-purpose flour

2 egg yolks

1 1/2 cups 1 percent lowfat milk

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

2 cups sliced banana (3 medium bananas)

1/4 cup whipping cream

1/2 teaspoon sugar

Directions:

Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F.

 

Spray a 9-inch pie plate with cooking spray. In a food processor, process graham crackers until finely ground. Add butter and 1 tablespoon of water, and process until the crumb clumps together. Press crumb mixture into bottom of pie plate and about 1/2-inch up the sides. Bake in the oven for 10 minutes, then let cool.

 

In the meantime, make the filling. Put the gelatin in a small bowl; add 3 tablespoons of boiling water and stir until gelatin is dissolved. In a medium saucepan, whisk together 1/3 cup of sugar and the flour. In a medium bowl lightly beat the milk and eggs together. Add the egg and milk mixture to the saucepan and whisk so the flour and sugar dissolve. Cook over a medium heat, stirring constantly, for 10 minutes, until mixture comes to a boil and has thickened. Stir in the vanilla extract and gelatin. Set aside to cool slightly.

 

Arrange the sliced bananas on the graham cracker crust and pour the pudding on top. Place in the refrigerator until the pudding has set, about 3 hours.

 

Whip the cream with an electric beater. When it is about halfway done, add 1/2 teaspoon of sugar, then continue whipping until fully whipped. Put the whipped cream in a plastic bag, concentrating it in 1 corner of the bag. Snip that corner off the bag and squeeze the whipped cream out of the bag in a decorative pattern around the pie.

Cream pies are often used for throwing. Is that your plan?

[+wmpastor]

Long story short, jfpinell. It ain't gonna fly. Yes, the "toy" tells you you're off school property. However, the reviewer and good judgment tell you need to be *more* off school property. Move it farther from the school. It's that simple. End of story.

[+Team Microdot]

How close are these allowed to be to a school or church? 200 Ft.? 300?

 

This is a good question that I'd like to see clearly answered

You are unlikely to receive any answer clearer than "it depends" when it comes to schools or other off-limits areas. (Churches are not on the list of off-limits areas.)

 

Assume two caches are placed, each exactly 200 feet from the border of the school property. Cache #1 is across an open, flat field (playground, soccer field) so that someone searching for Cache #1 is easily seen from people standing on the school property. Cache #2 is at the top of a steep hill, and behind a retaining wall built by the shopping center next door. The retaining wall extends eight feet above the parking lot where the cache is hidden in a guardrail.

 

I would ask the cache owner for permission details and school awareness regarding Cache #1. I would publish Cache #2 without incident.

 

Thanks Keystone, that's what I figured - common sense prevails

 

So if I placed a cache within 60 feet of a school playground, with flat ground between them and no obstacles to the line of sight - how would you feel about that one? For the avoidance of doubt, this imaginary cache is outside the boundary of the school property.

 

^^^ BUMP ^^^

[+Crow-T-Robot]

So...which waypoint was the problem?

 

I was the last finder on the archived 50% Need Not Apply cache and I found it after dark. Since I'm not overly familiar with the town, I had no idea a school was nearby. Looking at the coordinates using Google Maps, it seems as though the original posted coordinates were and should be fine. The cache was hidden in a spot that shielded you from being seen from the school. Proximity wise, I don't consider it all that close to the school itself (school property is another matter)...but I'm not the reviewer.

 

Waypoint two is the one that might cause issues simply because it's close to and in full view of the office/garage buildings near Clifton Road. Before I looked on Google maps, I thought that was the school. It certainly looked like a small grade school building, at least at night. Personally, if this were my cache, I would not place a waypoint in that location just because my preference is to not look for caches in locations that offer little privacy, but that's my philosophy.

 

The final was in a good location.

 

If WP2 is the issue, what about moving it so that it's closer to the final along the gravel drive?

[+mrreet]

FWIW All of this because the OP is trying to get around the cache saturation limit.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325889

[+GeoBain]

FWIW All of this because the OP is trying to get around the cache saturation limit.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325889

 

That's actually a legitimate use of a multi. Multis are often used to highlight several items in an area where you could not use traditionals due to saturation. In this case, the OP found the other areas of interest after placing the multi. Other than the school proximity problem, I don't see a problem with what the OP is trying to do.

[+mrreet]

Around here they are typically used to highlight something that can't really have a container. Not so much see how many cracks we can shove micros into in a park.

[+narcissa]

Around here it is rare to find a multi that actually uses multiple containers. Too much maintenance. People prefer to use tags, or refer to signs and other permanent objects on site.

[+GeoBain]

Around here it is rare to find a multi that actually uses multiple containers. Too much maintenance. People prefer to use tags, or refer to signs and other permanent objects on site.

 

That's pretty much how they work here. Use the information from a plaque, sign, etc.

 

One thing about multis is you don't really hide them for the numbers game. If anything, you use multis and mysteries when you want to decrease traffic.

[+narcissa]

Around here it is rare to find a multi that actually uses multiple containers. Too much maintenance. People prefer to use tags, or refer to signs and other permanent objects on site.

 

That's pretty much how they work here. Use the information from a plaque, sign, etc.

 

One thing about multis is you don't really hide them for the numbers game. If anything, you use multis and mysteries when you want to decrease traffic.

 

Yes, they are one of our preferred cache types to hide because they virtually eliminate the geon00bs and the riff-raff.

[jfpinell]

So...which waypoint was the problem?

 

I was the last finder on the archived 50% Need Not Apply cache and I found it after dark. Since I'm not overly familiar with the town, I had no idea a school was nearby. Looking at the coordinates using Google Maps, it seems as though the original posted coordinates were and should be fine. The cache was hidden in a spot that shielded you from being seen from the school. Proximity wise, I don't consider it all that close to the school itself (school property is another matter)...but I'm not the reviewer.

 

Waypoint two is the one that might cause issues simply because it's close to and in full view of the office/garage buildings near Clifton Road. Before I looked on Google maps, I thought that was the school. It certainly looked like a small grade school building, at least at night. Personally, if this were my cache, I would not place a waypoint in that location just because my preference is to not look for caches in locations that offer little privacy, but that's my philosophy.

 

The final was in a good location.

 

If WP2 is the issue, what about moving it so that it's closer to the final along the gravel drive?

That's funny because actually the light brown building across the street with all the tall windows WAS an elementary school about 35 years ago! K-4th (originally K-6th but I don't remember that) That's the Town Hall now.

UGH....So now the garage comes into issue? (Just kidding!) Actually no one would even notice you -or care if you're there by or in the vicinity of the garage. That's how laid back, if you will, people in that area are. In fact, I can't count the # of times I've casually strolled by the fire station which is literally right next to it looking in at the trucks and no one ever made anything of it -not even the fireman next door to the station. But I asked the Administrator (by the way, he's actually like head of finance and carrying out orders given by the Town Board, not like a Mayor -that's the Village President.) anywho, I asked him if it'id be OK to put one in that antique WW I (I think) plane actually. I wasn't sure who technically owns that, if it's the Town itself or the Legion local post or who. There's a sign that's been there for about 20 years saying; "This plane is on loan from the air force museum". But I figured for-go that problem searching that out and ask him if a spot I had already found was OK.

I see a good # of notes from people in support more or less of me here. I wonder if I could point that out as evidence on my e-mail......?

Edited September 9, 2014 by jfpinell

[+Team Microdot]

Can someone please stop the thread?

 

I wanna get off

[+narcissa]

I wonder if the site can be set up to just auto-archive anything that this guy tries to do from now on?

[+wmpastor]

So...which waypoint was the problem?

 

I was the last finder on the archived 50% Need Not Apply cache and I found it after dark. Since I'm not overly familiar with the town, I had no idea a school was nearby. Looking at the coordinates using Google Maps, it seems as though the original posted coordinates were and should be fine. The cache was hidden in a spot that shielded you from being seen from the school. Proximity wise, I don't consider it all that close to the school itself (school property is another matter)...but I'm not the reviewer.

 

Waypoint two is the one that might cause issues simply because it's close to and in full view of the office/garage buildings near Clifton Road. Before I looked on Google maps, I thought that was the school. It certainly looked like a small grade school building, at least at night. Personally, if this were my cache, I would not place a waypoint in that location just because my preference is to not look for caches in locations that offer little privacy, but that's my philosophy.

 

The final was in a good location.

 

If WP2 is the issue, what about moving it so that it's closer to the final along the gravel drive?

That's funny because actually the light brown building across the street with all the tall windows WAS an elementary school about 35 years ago! K-4th (originally K-6th but I don't remember that) That's the Town Hall now.

UGH....So now the garage comes into issue? (Just kidding!) Actually no one would even notice you -or care if you're there by or in the vicinity of the garage. That's how laid back, if you will, people in that area are. In fact, I can't count the # of times I've casually strolled by the fire station which is literally right next to it looking in at the trucks and no one ever made anything of it -not even the fireman next door to the station. But I asked the Administrator (by the way, he's actually like head of finance and carrying out orders given by the Town Board, not like a Mayor -that's the Village President.) anywho, I asked him if it'id be OK to put one in that antique WW I (I think) plane actually. I wasn't sure who technically owns that, if it's the Town itself or the Legion local post or who. There's a sign that's been there for about 20 years saying; "This plane is on loan from the air force museum". But I figured for-go that problem searching that out and ask him if a spot I had already found was OK.

I see a good # of notes from people in support more or less of me here. I wonder if I could point that out as evidence on my e-mail......?

 

Doubtful. The reviewers have been known to disagree with each other. They love even more to disagree with the commoners! But seriously, it's not like we provide "expert insights" to them.

[+wmpastor]

Can someone please stop the thread?

 

I wanna get off

No you don't! Because you didn't!

[+ngrrfan]

But I asked the Administrator (by the way, he's actually like head of finance and carrying out orders given by the Town Board, not like a Mayor -that's the Village President.) anywho, I asked him if it'id be OK to put one in that antique WW I (I think) plane actually. I wasn't sure who technically owns that, if it's the Town itself or the Legion local post or who. There's a sign that's been there for about 20 years saying; "This plane is on loan from the air force museum". But I figured for-go that problem searching that out and ask him if a spot I had already found was OK.

Bolding mine

 

You want to know who owns the plane?? The Air Force Museum does. As you said, it is ON LOAN.

[+wmpastor]

Having worked with BEC a handful of years ago, I'm going to strongly suggest to the OP that they change their tone. That Volunteer Reviewer is approachable, consistent, honest, and helpful. Any anger or frustration that is coming from this stems from the attitude of the OP toward the Volunteer Reviewer and the guidelines of this game.

Here we go. Deja vu all over again.

 

Banana Creme Pie:

Ingredients:

Cooking spray

12 graham cracker squares (6 full sheets)

2 tablespoons butter, softened

1 1/2 teaspoons unflavored gelatin

3 tablespoons boiling water

1/3 cup, plus 1/2 teaspoon sugar

3 tablespoons all-purpose flour

2 egg yolks

1 1/2 cups 1 percent lowfat milk

1 teaspoon vanilla extract

2 cups sliced banana (3 medium bananas)

1/4 cup whipping cream

1/2 teaspoon sugar

Directions:

Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F.

 

Spray a 9-inch pie plate with cooking spray. In a food processor, process graham crackers until finely ground. Add butter and 1 tablespoon of water, and process until the crumb clumps together. Press crumb mixture into bottom of pie plate and about 1/2-inch up the sides. Bake in the oven for 10 minutes, then let cool.

 

In the meantime, make the filling. Put the gelatin in a small bowl; add 3 tablespoons of boiling water and stir until gelatin is dissolved. In a medium saucepan, whisk together 1/3 cup of sugar and the flour. In a medium bowl lightly beat the milk and eggs together. Add the egg and milk mixture to the saucepan and whisk so the flour and sugar dissolve. Cook over a medium heat, stirring constantly, for 10 minutes, until mixture comes to a boil and has thickened. Stir in the vanilla extract and gelatin. Set aside to cool slightly.

 

Arrange the sliced bananas on the graham cracker crust and pour the pudding on top. Place in the refrigerator until the pudding has set, about 3 hours.

 

Whip the cream with an electric beater. When it is about halfway done, add 1/2 teaspoon of sugar, then continue whipping until fully whipped. Put the whipped cream in a plastic bag, concentrating it in 1 corner of the bag. Snip that corner off the bag and squeeze the whipped cream out of the bag in a decorative pattern around the pie.

I was unclear. It wasn't a comment about your comment, but about the circumstances that lead to your comment. All clear?!

[+Manville Possum]

I wonder if the site can be set up to just auto-archive anything that this guy tries to do from now on?

When users are held accountable for their geocache placemnts that cause bomb scares, ect., much of the silliness will cease.

[+wmpastor]

I wonder if the site can be set up to just auto-archive anything that this guy tries to do from now on?

When users are held accountable for their geocache placemnts that cause bomb scares, ect., much of the silliness will cease.

You mean like NeverSummer's pie recipe? Such silliness must stop! And you can go :blink: all you want, NS!!

 

[+wmpastor]

But I asked the Administrator (by the way, he's actually like head of finance and carrying out orders given by the Town Board, not like a Mayor -that's the Village President.) anywho, I asked him if it'id be OK to put one in that antique WW I (I think) plane actually. I wasn't sure who technically owns that, if it's the Town itself or the Legion local post or who. There's a sign that's been there for about 20 years saying; "This plane is on loan from the air force museum". But I figured for-go that problem searching that out and ask him if a spot I had already found was OK.

Bolding mine

 

You want to know who owns the plane?? The Air Force Museum does. As you said, it is ON LOAN.

Which is why he said he did not place it on the plane.

[jfpinell]

But I asked the Administrator (by the way, he's actually like head of finance and carrying out orders given by the Town Board, not like a Mayor -that's the Village President.) anywho, I asked him if it'id be OK to put one in that antique WW I (I think) plane actually. I wasn't sure who technically owns that, if it's the Town itself or the Legion local post or who. There's a sign that's been there for about 20 years saying; "This plane is on loan from the air force museum". But I figured for-go that problem searching that out and ask him if a spot I had already found was OK.

Bolding mine

 

You want to know who owns the plane?? The Air Force Museum does. As you said, it is ON LOAN.

Which is why he said he did not place it on the plane.

I'm still thinking about it. Heck, all you gotta' do is call the nearest air force base, ain't it? Strange though how it's been on loan for at least the last 35 or 40 years. (It actually was located across the street at the (former) elementary school previously mentioned for years. But that was when society in this Country wasn't paranoid about sue happy people.) I supposed I could ask the local army legion chapter (or whatever they're called)I mean, it WOULD be a rather cute spot.

[+narcissa]

I'm still thinking about it. Heck, all you gotta' do is call the nearest air force base, ain't it? Strange though how it's been on loan for at least the last 35 or 40 years. (It actually was located across the street at the (former) elementary school previously mentioned for years. But that was when society in this Country wasn't paranoid about sue happy people.) I supposed I could ask the local army legion chapter (or whatever they're called)I mean, it WOULD be a rather cute spot.

 

That's not strange at all. Would you prefer they kept it in a dusty hangar somewhere where nobody could look at it?

[jfpinell]

I'm still thinking about it. Heck, all you gotta' do is call the nearest air force base, ain't it? Strange though how it's been on loan for at least the last 35 or 40 years. (It actually was located across the street at the (former) elementary school previously mentioned for years. But that was when society in this Country wasn't paranoid about sue happy people.) I supposed I could ask the local army legion chapter (or whatever they're called)I mean, it WOULD be a rather cute spot.

 

That's not strange at all. Would you prefer they kept it in a dusty hangar somewhere where nobody could look at it?

You read too many things wrong. Like on loan for decades?? Why not just BUY it or ask them to DONATE it to the Town? The Town pays 50% of the insurance on it every year anyway.

Edited September 10, 2014 by jfpinell

[+mrreet]

I'm still thinking about it. Heck, all you gotta' do is call the nearest air force base, ain't it? Strange though how it's been on loan for at least the last 35 or 40 years. (It actually was located across the street at the (former) elementary school previously mentioned for years. But that was when society in this Country wasn't paranoid about sue happy people.) I supposed I could ask the local army legion chapter (or whatever they're called)I mean, it WOULD be a rather cute spot.

 

That's not strange at all. Would you prefer they kept it in a dusty hangar somewhere where nobody could look at it?

You read too many things wrong. Like on loan for decades?? Why not just BUY it or ask them to DONATE it to the Town? The Town pays 50% of the insurance on it every year anyway.

 

So they have the option to take it back if a need or want arises. This has happened with steam locomotives.

[Keystone]

The discussion about who owns an aircraft on display is taking us off topic from the issue of caches hidden near schools. Let's return to that, thanks.

[+NeverSummer]

I was unclear. It wasn't a comment about your comment, but about the circumstances that lead to your comment. All clear?!

I suppose it is clearer. You might want to consider the line you're walking with trolling commentary. That's all the pie was meant for.

 

And now, I'm certainly just as guilty of off-topic posts. I can admit that.

 

So, to get back to the point...

 

The main thing here is to consider what many have already said on topics like this:

Reviewers are people too. Unless they are dogs, in which case they also make judgements that can lead to some upset. The bottom line on cache placement close to schools or a schoolyard playground is the "worst-case-scenario" scenario. Any placement near a school will be subjective in how it is published or denied publication. The main idea here is that the owner doesn't see eye to eye with a Volunteer Reviewer's judgement on a point for their multi.

 

So the options are as follows for that person: 1. Appeal the denied cache listing to Groundspeak. 2. Move on. 3. Get the cache pushed through appeals somehow, and then see the logs roll in about how the seekers felt odd searching next to a school, a teacher approached a seeker, the police were called, or an administrator contacts Geocaching.com about removing the cache or waypoints...leading to archival of the cache.

 

So, yeah. Permission. Common sense. Yadda yadda. Feeling entitled to placement of a cache or waypoint container is an unfortunate stance to take when dealing with so many guidelines and permission issues. Add in "common sense" (or lack thereof), and you can see the outcome in this thread and others like it from frustrated cache placers who cannot seem to grasp the "common sense" the Volunteer Reviewers are displaying, or that the guidelines try to implement on the game.

 

What a drag, eh?

 

Just for you, wmpastor.

[Keystone]

I'm bumping this thread after reading the duplicate thread about this cache, which was rightly locked.

 

The cache owner mentions that no answer had come back from the reviewer. I don't think that was a fair complaint unless the CO sent an email (which I obviously cannot see).

 

I noticed that the listing in question has not been enabled for review. Thus, if the cache owner is relying on the reviewer note left on the cache listing, the reviewer will not see it and will not be alerted to review the submission again. In this regard, I wish to repeat my earlier advice:

Your reviewer provided her direct email address in the log she left on your cache page. You could email her at that address, or you could post a log on your cache page. Because your listing is currently disabled, you will need to enable the page again to be sure that your reviewer sees your log. She does not have your page on her watchlist.

[+Johnnyhotcakes]

This reminds me of Ferris Bueller when he played the clarinet and said "I never had one lesson".

[+wmpastor]

I was unclear. It wasn't a comment about your comment, but about the circumstances that lead to your comment. All clear?!

I suppose it is clearer. You might want to consider the line you're walking with trolling commentary. That's all the pie was meant for.

 

And now, I'm certainly just as guilty of off-topic posts. I can admit that.

 

So, to get back to the point...

 

The main thing here is to consider what many have already said on topics like this:

Reviewers are people too. Unless they are dogs, in which case they also make judgements that can lead to some upset. The bottom line on cache placement close to schools or a schoolyard playground is the "worst-case-scenario" scenario. Any placement near a school will be subjective in how it is published or denied publication. The main idea here is that the owner doesn't see eye to eye with a Volunteer Reviewer's judgement on a point for their multi.

 

So the options are as follows for that person: 1. Appeal the denied cache listing to Groundspeak. 2. Move on. 3. Get the cache pushed through appeals somehow, and then see the logs roll in about how the seekers felt odd searching next to a school, a teacher approached a seeker, the police were called, or an administrator contacts Geocaching.com about removing the cache or waypoints...leading to archival of the cache.

 

So, yeah. Permission. Common sense. Yadda yadda. Feeling entitled to placement of a cache or waypoint container is an unfortunate stance to take when dealing with so many guidelines and permission issues. Add in "common sense" (or lack thereof), and you can see the outcome in this thread and others like it from frustrated cache placers who cannot seem to grasp the "common sense" the Volunteer Reviewers are displaying, or that the guidelines try to implement on the game.

 

What a drag, eh?

 

Just for you, wmpastor.

 

I gave serious comments in posts 14, 38, 39 & 62. That *earned* me the right to some mild levity, much in the nature of the comments of others, like this comment:

 

Can someone please stop the thread? I wanna get off.

To which I said, "No you don't, because you didn't. "

[+jellis]

The discussion about who owns an aircraft on display is taking us off topic from the issue of caches hidden near schools. Let's return to that, thanks.

I know two caches that are on a path that runs right next to two schools back to back. The path is practically part of the school since part of the school has no fence defining the property line. Plus the path is primarily used for students to get to the school from the two streets facing the schools. One cache was in a tree on the school property and the other less then 50ft from the entrance to the school. I tried contacting a reviewer but they said they didn't publish them and I had to bring it up with that reviewer. So I sent a message to that one and got no answer. Before I could send a message to Groundspeak they were disabled because they went missing. They sit disabled since July 2013 and the CO knows they are missing and claims to replace them.

[4wheelin_fool]

The discussion about who owns an aircraft on display is taking us off topic from the issue of caches hidden near schools. Let's return to that, thanks.

I know two caches that are on a path that runs right next to two schools back to back. The path is practically part of the school since part of the school has no fence defining the property line. Plus the path is primarily used for students to get to the school from the two streets facing the schools. One cache was in a tree on the school property and the other less then 50ft from the entrance to the school. I tried contacting a reviewer but they said they didn't publish them and I had to bring it up with that reviewer. So I sent a message to that one and got no answer. Before I could send a message to Groundspeak they were disabled because they went missing. They sit disabled since July 2013 and the CO knows they are missing and claims to replace them.

 

On school grounds, disabled for over a year with reviewers who are apathetic and ignoring you? It sounds like you still need to contact Groundspeak, and there seems to be worse problems present than being on school grounds..

[+jellis]

The discussion about who owns an aircraft on display is taking us off topic from the issue of caches hidden near schools. Let's return to that, thanks.

I know two caches that are on a path that runs right next to two schools back to back. The path is practically part of the school since part of the school has no fence defining the property line. Plus the path is primarily used for students to get to the school from the two streets facing the schools. One cache was in a tree on the school property and the other less then 50ft from the entrance to the school. I tried contacting a reviewer but they said they didn't publish them and I had to bring it up with that reviewer. So I sent a message to that one and got no answer. Before I could send a message to Groundspeak they were disabled because they went missing. They sit disabled since July 2013 and the CO knows they are missing and claims to replace them.

 

On school grounds, disabled for over a year with reviewers who are apathetic and ignoring you? It sounds like you still need to contact Groundspeak, and there seems to be worse problems present than being on school grounds..

Sorry They have been missing since 2013 the CO disabled them in June 2014. But there are 4 DNFs between those times and CO didn't bother to check and still disabled. Edited September 19, 2014 by jellis

[+The VanDucks]

Had to reply to this thread because of our cache we archived about a month ago - GC1317J - "Puzzle Cache for the Puzzle Challenged."

Link here: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1317J_puzzle-cache-for-the-puzzle-challenged?guid=d3b0b5ec-58ad-4d94-946a-7b999af8a923

 

We had placed this cache in May 2007 along a very out-of-the-way paved path between some townhouses and a road. Years later, a school was built on the road, but our cache was still far away from the school, with a high concrete wall, a fence and woods between the cache and the school property. It was a bit more than a tenth of a mile from the school and not visible at all from the school grounds. To our surprise, in August 2014, a local geocacher who found the cache let us know that there was a recent note from the county police in the logbook, asking us to "move the box of toys because some people get nervous having something like this near a school."

 

We archived the cache, and I emailed the policeman who had left his card in the container, letting him know we were happy to remove the cache, since we are parents and grandparents and do not want to worry anyone in the school community about the cache.

 

Bottom line: It is imperative for all geocachers to be cooperative and work with the local authorities, as well as the geocaching.com reviewers. If you have to remove a cache because its location gives an impression of danger to public safety, please remember we do NOT have any rights to place our private property - i.e. our cache containers - wherever we choose. This game/hobby only works because most geocachers are respectful of private and public property. If we disregard the concerns of police or school officials we endanger the future of geocaching.

[+wmpastor]

Had to reply to this thread because of our cache we archived about a month ago - GC1317J - "Puzzle Cache for the Puzzle Challenged."

Link here: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1317J_puzzle-cache-for-the-puzzle-challenged?guid=d3b0b5ec-58ad-4d94-946a-7b999af8a923

 

We had placed this cache in May 2007 along a very out-of-the-way paved path between some townhouses and a road. Years later, a school was built on the road, but our cache was still far away from the school, with a high concrete wall, a fence and woods between the cache and the school property. It was a bit more than a tenth of a mile from the school and not visible at all from the school grounds. To our surprise, in August 2014, a local geocacher who found the cache let us know that there was a recent note from the county police in the logbook, asking us to "move the box of toys because some people get nervous having something like this near a school."

 

 

Unfortunately, a CO needs to cater to the limits of the most paranoid busy-body in the area.

[+Team Microdot]

Unfortunately, a CO needs to cater to the limits of the most paranoid busy-body in the area.

 

It's probably more unfortunate that people's attitudes to geocaching and geocachers sometimes arise from exposure to this sort of attitude

[4wheelin_fool]

Unfortunately, a CO needs to cater to the limits of the most paranoid busy-body in the area.

 

It's probably more unfortunate that people's attitudes to geocaching and geocachers sometimes arise from exposure to this sort of attitude

 

Some people get nervous about a box of toys near a school? Huh?

 

 

Most people finding a box of toys near a school would assume that kids left it there.

 

However some police officers always feel the need to do "something" for every call, even if it was completely unfounded.

Edited September 24, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+derektiffany]

However (...)

Being very familiar with the area in question I am confident that the officer acted in good faith and see no reason to suggest otherwise.

 

Kudos to the VanDucks for reaching out and making contact with the concerned parties, though I wouldn't expect any less from such great COs. They are fantastic representatives of geocache ownership.

[4wheelin_fool]

However (...)

Being very familiar with the area in question I am confident that the officer acted in good faith and see no reason to suggest otherwise.

 

Kudos to the VanDucks for reaching out and making contact with the concerned parties, though I wouldn't expect any less from such great COs. They are fantastic representatives of geocache ownership.

 

The VanDucks did the right thing. The officer also may have acted in good faith, but if he really was concerned he would have removed it and either made contact with the co, posted something on the page or contacted Groundspeak. In this case he was only writing something in the logbook to pacify someone who was unduly paranoid about something they did not understand. There seemingly was no concern about the appearance of strangers in the area, only the presence of a box full of toys near the school. Someone believed the box full of toys was some form of bait, rather than something that was intended to be hidden from the rugrats. It would have been better to educate the police officer as well as the concerned citizen, who still may believe there was questionable intent involved since it was removed.

[+wmpastor]

Unfortunately, a CO needs to cater to the limits of the most paranoid busy-body in the area.

 

It's probably more unfortunate that people's attitudes to geocaching and geocachers sometimes arise from exposure to this sort of attitude

Hey, I don't push the limits. I consider the feelings of the community. My conduct shows consideration of those affected by a cache.

 

But look at the facts presented above. The cache is not near the school & not visible from the school or vice versa. And yet someone complains. That neighbor is unreasonable, IMO. However, we have to cater to them for the sake of the pass time - and I do. However, I have seen people that by their nature and lack of activities in their lives have nothing better to do than create suspicion in their minds by looking out the window all day. It' just an unfortunate fact we have to deal with so as to keep the game in a good light.

[+Team Microdot]

Unfortunately, a CO needs to cater to the limits of the most paranoid busy-body in the area.

 

It's probably more unfortunate that people's attitudes to geocaching and geocachers sometimes arise from exposure to this sort of attitude

Hey, I don't push the limits. I consider the feelings of the community. My conduct shows consideration of those affected by a cache.

 

But look at the facts presented above. The cache is not near the school & not visible from the school or vice versa. And yet someone complains. That neighbor is unreasonable, IMO. However, we have to cater to them for the sake of the pass time - and I do. However, I have seen people that by their nature and lack of activities in their lives have nothing better to do than create suspicion in their minds by looking out the window all day. It' just an unfortunate fact we have to deal with so as to keep the game in a good light.

 

Then - with the greatest of respect - why refer to them as paranoid busy-bodies?

 

I'll be the first to agree that, as far as the provided description goes - I can't see how anyone could take issue with this cache from the perspective of its position relative to the school. At the same time I can see how referring to anyone who does express concern as a paranoid busy-body probably isn't going to put them into a frame of mind where they'll be receptive to dialogue / education which might help them realise they have no need to be concerned in the first place.