Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Team Sagefox

Who is supposed to act on NA logs on Earthcaches?

Recommended Posts

I posted Needs Archived logs on two earthcaches on June 4th and second NA requests on July 4. There has been no response so I am wondering who looks into earchcache NAs. It seems that regular volunteer reviewers don't handle ECs.

 

These NAs were preceded by Needs Maintenance logs around the first of May including specific notes in private mail to the cache owner and a geoaware member.

 

In early March I sent pre-visit letters to the cache owner with specific concerns but there has been no contact and they apparently have no interest in finding out what the problems the caches might have.

Share this post


Link to post

I tend to look through the worldwide NA log entries about once a month. In all likelihood, I saw your NA/NM logs at that time (I seem to only recall one of them). If I remember correctly, the gist of your concern had to do with the "lesson" involved in the Description. In cases of like that, I typically leave it to the appropriate geoaware that originally Published the Listing.

 

You are correct that most/all of the Local Reviewers will not deal with NA log notifications on Earthcache Listings. In a few cases, I have been contacted directly, and that is what I would suggest that you do.

 

You can scroll down to bottom of the Listing, and usually the first or second log entry will be the Published log. Providing the original Reviewer is still active, you can email them through their Profile with your concerns.

 

If that doesn't satisfy your concerns, then contacting Groundspeak would be the next step. In all likelihood, they would pass along your concerns to the GSA representative that oversees the Earthcache program on the site for a final ruling.

 

edit spelling.

Edited by geoawareUSA1

Share this post


Link to post

If I remember correctly, the gist of your concern had to do with the "lesson" involved in the Description.

The lessons are indeed problematic but it is the geology that is fatally wrong on both of them and that should not happen.

 

The initial reviewer would likely not have known that the descriptions are wrong because of the local nature of the geology.

 

You can scroll down to bottom of the Listing, and usually the first or second log entry will be the Published log. Providing the original Reviewer is still active...

It was Geoaware who is no longer reviewing ECs. When I posted the NMs in May I sent a copy of the short version of my specific concerns to GeoawareHQ as is suggested on Geoaware's profile page.

 

If that doesn't satisfy your concerns, then contacting Groundspeak would be the next step. In all likelihood, they would pass along your concerns to the GSA representative that oversees the Earthcache program on the site for a final ruling.

 

I would like to handle this with a GSA rep rather than bugging Groundspeak. I don't really want to bug anyone about this but I can't just ignore it when the geology is so wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious as to the caches in question, or at least the "fatally wrong" geology. Even though I try to fully research my earthcaches and get things right, I'm not a pro at this and want to make sure I am teaching good science.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious as to the caches in question, or at least the "fatally wrong" geology. Even though I try to fully research my earthcaches and get things right, I'm not a pro at this and want to make sure I am teaching good science.

I don't want to make this about the specific caches, just the process and I certainly don't want to have people be concerned about their own ECs. From reading your posts for quite a while I would expect no problems with your ECs. You care about your EC accuracy and the key words here are that you research your subjects.

 

I have not seen many problems with ECs where I know something about the area or the processes. They almost always seem appropriate and bring up interesting points and typically don't have gross inaccuracies. The EC pages in question here made incorrect assumptions from limited research and the owner doesn't appear to care whether they are accurate or not. I've been through this with them on some of their other ECs.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm... I've logged NA on two EarthCaches. One was one of a series in a landfill (Okay. It is a state park, but it is a landfill...) There are trees growing in the park. Which way do their shadows fall? The CO team had some unkind words for me, but changed the lesson/requirements. Why would anyone put a series of EarthCaches in a landfill? I thought that two of the series were valid EarthCaches. Oh, well.

The other required climbing a hundred feet or more up a pile of mine tailings. No trail. I was under the impression that EarthCaches were supposed to be along trails in parks. But the original reviewer said that the EarthCache was acceptable. Oh, well.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm... I've logged NA on two EarthCaches. One was one of a series in a landfill (Okay. It is a state park, but it is a landfill...) There are trees growing in the park. Which way do their shadows fall? The CO team had some unkind words for me, but changed the lesson/requirements. Why would anyone put a series of EarthCaches in a landfill? I thought that two of the series were valid EarthCaches. Oh, well.

The other required climbing a hundred feet or more up a pile of mine tailings. No trail. I was under the impression that EarthCaches were supposed to be along trails in parks. But the original reviewer said that the EarthCache was acceptable. Oh, well.

 

Earthcaches can be any terrain level, just like physical caches. Interesting geological features aren't always conveniently located on trails.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious as to the caches in question, or at least the "fatally wrong" geology. Even though I try to fully research my earthcaches and get things right, I'm not a pro at this and want to make sure I am teaching good science.

I don't want to make this about the specific caches, just the process and I certainly don't want to have people be concerned about their own ECs. From reading your posts for quite a while I would expect no problems with your ECs. You care about your EC accuracy and the key words here are that you research your subjects.

 

I have not seen many problems with ECs where I know something about the area or the processes. They almost always seem appropriate and bring up interesting points and typically don't have gross inaccuracies. The EC pages in question here made incorrect assumptions from limited research and the owner doesn't appear to care whether they are accurate or not. I've been through this with them on some of their other ECs.

I figured you didn't want to share the caches. (And I'm not overly worried about our caches, I figure if there was a glaring error that someone with more science background would have pointed it out.)

 

I am still curious as to the fatally wrong geology if you'd like to share.

Share this post


Link to post

I am still curious as to the fatally wrong geology if you'd like to share.

 

O.K.

 

EC a:

 

Description says EC subject "Columns" are made up of basalt rock overlaying a layer of sandstone. False.

Site inspection and the CO's source documents say they are completely rhyolite ash. There is no sandstone in this area and the CO has mistaken a 1/8 inch layer of dark growth for a basalt layer. Basalt cannot weather to such a thin layer.

 

Former inland sea has worn away the basalt and sandstone leaving pillars. False.

 

The former inland sea was gone at least 35 million years prior to the formation of the entire region and the rock is rhyolite.

 

[subject volcanic activities] are caused by either meteor or "LARGE" flood. False.

The meteor theory was presented in the source document but it never gained traction through peer review. Two other potential causes that are always part of the discussion as a source of these [volcanic activities] were omitted. A simple google search would have discovered these. There is no evidence of a "LARGE" flood in this region and the EC page offers no explanation but does cite a source from a Creationist document.

 

Sedimentary rocks formed at the earth's surface. False.

 

Sedimentation happens at the surface but lithification to sandstone happens at great depths.

 

Proof of visit/lessons questions cannot be answered correctly using the EC description.

 

EC b:

 

The area of the EC subject region is described as being ten times larger than it actually is (by adding nearly 50,000 square miles and over 500 miles distance) because the CO misinterpreted a map in the source document. Given that the area is well known by its name it should not be artificially expanded thereby confusing travelers.

 

EC says the region had an ocean shoreline during formation of current features. As above, the former ocean was gone millions of years before the formation of anything visible today in the region.

 

A large flooding event simultaneous with volcanic explosions is presented as a potential cause of the local geology. As above, there is no evidence of a large flood and the EC description offers no explanation or source references. Mainstream geologists do not describe flooding as a possible cause. I assume the Creationist reference in EC a is the source for this comment. I call this a "hint and run" comment and it should not be in an earthcache without further discussion and references.

 

Two widely accepted and more logical alternative models of the cause of the local geology were not included due to lack of research. These two are always included when geologist discuss the possibilities.

 

A main feature of this EC is a three-period development timeline of the region but does not clearly distinguish them in the text and later expects an answer regarding which period something happens.

 

One lesson question expects a specific answer from the EC text but the source document gives a different reason.

 

One lesson question cannot be answered with any certainty because ash layers were deposited in two of the three time periods.

 

The EC text assumes white flakes found in local basalt are rhyolite ash that fell into the molten basalt (during the non-existent flood/volcanic activity) but the source document clearly says they are aluminum mineral concentrations contained within the original basalt eruption.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see the problem. I also found the caches in question and compared the cache info to the source information -- yes, there are discrepancies.

 

I'm surprised a geoaware hasn't responded to this thread yet, let alone the NA logs. Also that the cache owner has not taken any action to respond to your emails or logs.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see the problem. I also found the caches in question and compared the cache info to the source information -- yes, there are discrepancies.

 

I'm surprised a geoaware hasn't responded to this thread yet, let alone the NA logs. Also that the cache owner has not taken any action to respond to your emails or logs.

See previous post:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=340647&view=findpost&p=5601565

 

As mentioned previously, probably best to contact the Publishing geoaware, geoawareHQ, or Groundspeak.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see the problem. I also found the caches in question and compared the cache info to the source information -- yes, there are discrepancies.

 

I'm surprised a geoaware hasn't responded to this thread yet, let alone the NA logs. Also that the cache owner has not taken any action to respond to your emails or logs.

See previous post:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=340647&view=findpost&p=5601565

 

As mentioned previously, probably best to contact the Publishing geoaware, geoawareHQ, or Groundspeak.

 

Well, uh, I mean, aside from that, obviously. :sunsure:

 

(I forgot. Sorry.)

Share this post


Link to post

As mentioned previously, probably best to contact the Publishing geoaware, geoawareHQ, or Groundspeak.

Thanks, again, for your input. Publishing geoaware has retired from reviewing ECs. Letters to geoawareHQ sent this evening.

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×