Power Lady GC34E

[+OneEighth]

Hello everyone. I am prepping for my first MWGB and have been spending time planning an attack plan to do as much caching in the area as possible. I was told about the Oldie in Michigan not far away and noticed it has recently been marked as NM because the person who found it recently felt un-easy. I understand not wanting to get "in trouble" or being where you are not supposed to but it seems there hasn't been a problem. I scouted the area on Maps and it seems like it is open to public. Absence of 'No Trespassing" signs. I think it should stay up until after MWGB for two reasons; 1. So I can get it before its gone (selfish of course ) 2. Allow some other cachers to check on it rather than just Archiving an oldie because someone felt uneasy.

 

I am not dismissing the validity of feeling uneasy about a cache. I have skipped some I didn't feel comfortable with but I never felt that warranted a NA log. There is also the question if the owner is or isn't around to check on it. I am a FIRM believer if the CO doesn't want to take care of it and doesn't hand it off to someone who does want it, it should be archived rather than being propped up by throw downs.

 

I just wanted to hear the communities thought on it.

 

[+Isonzo Karst]

It's not clear to me what your question is? thoughts on what exactly?

 

Cache has a recent Needs Archived log.

And an owner who has logged onto the site in the last week.

 

Because of the Needs Archived log (those logs are forwarded to local reviewers), a Michigan reviewer will be eyeballing the cache soon.

If any action is needed, that person will take it.

 

this thread could go sidewise real fast, as attacks on the player who logged an NA, or on the owner. Neither is appropriate for the forum.

[+OneEighth]

It's not clear to me what your question is? thoughts on what exactly?

 

Cache has a recent Needs Archived log.

And an owner who has logged onto the site in the last week.

 

Because of the Needs Archived log (those logs are forwarded to local reviewers), a Michigan reviewer will be eyeballing the cache soon.

If any action is needed, that person will take it.

 

this thread could go sidewise real fast, as attacks on the player who logged an NA, or on the owner. Neither is appropriate for the forum.

 

I don't really have a question, just what are the thoughts on a NA for a cache that has been found but the person felt uneasy. Also, I am not attacking anyone, I wanted to know if this is generally accepted or not, I am relatively new so I am just trying to learn from people who have been around for a while. I tried looking for an awnser in the Help Center but couldn't find it, possibly my own user error but I tried.

Edited July 3, 2017 by OneEighth

[+OneEighth]

Also, I didn't realize they had recently logged in. The last time I checked it had been a while, so I wasn't sure if they were still around. I'm sorry if you read any thing as an attack, it definitely isn't my intent.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Sure, no problem. I just understood that the forums can get aggresive pretty fast. My post was directed more at other posters than at you.

 

As far as logging an NA .... If I were seriously concerned about trespass issues, but saw no signs directly prohibiting access, I'd probably look up which reviewer is publishing currently in that area, and just pass along my concerns by email.

 

I did spend some time this morning trying to find property ownership for the area.

I'm spoiled, in Florida, most counties have their GIS map date easily accessible online. Get to map, click parcel, get ownership in pop-up. Sometimes nothing comes up, and that's because publicly owned property isn't taxed. The ownership data coming from tax records.

 

Anyway, the county site in Michigan was going to take some time to learn,= I abandoned the effort. Does look like public land acquired as lake access. Wouldn't surprise me that old fence lines remain.

[+Touchstone]

I agree with IK. Judging from your photo, it looks like an old property line fence. Sounds like the cacher that posted the NA merely didn't do their homework regarding access and property boundaries. The NA is very vague, the cache sounds like it's in good working order, so I'd be surprised if the local Reviewer took action on it, but there may be other issues I'm unaware of.

 

In the end, it's up to the cache owner to respond to such Notes, like it or not. The fact of the matter is, things change. Fences go up, fences go down, signs go up, lands get sold/acquired and have new owners. It's a bit naive to think that some ongoing maintenance to verify access will not be required at some time in the future.

 

In the same vain, your post is a bit vague in regards to who owns the land. Basing an opinion on a photo and log entry is a bit short sighted. If I were making such a long trip to snag a cache of this nature, I would do a bit more homework to make sure access was available, through county records, or contacting the nearby park agency. It would be a shame to waste a trip.

Edited July 3, 2017 by Touchstone

[+cerberus1]

There's a township here that acquires land faster than they can maintain/present it.

Much of their property still has "no trespassing" signs from the previous owners surrounding those areas, but they allow caching (with permission).

One we found, the CO was awake and realized someone may have an issue with those posted signs, so just mentioned it in the description before it became one.

May be similar.

[+OneEighth]

I agree with IK. Judging from your photo, it looks like an old property line fence. Sounds like the cacher that posted the NA merely didn't do their homework regarding access and property boundaries. The NA is very vague, the cache sounds like it's in good working order, so I'd be surprised if the local Reviewer took action on it, but there may be other issues I'm unaware of.

 

In the end, it's up to the cache owner to respond to such Notes, like it or not. The fact of the matter is, things change. Fences go up, fences go down, signs go up, lands get sold/acquired and have new owners. It's a bit naive to think that some ongoing maintenance to verify access will not be required at some time in the future.

 

In the same vain, your post is a bit vague in regards to who owns the land. Basing an opinion on a photo and log entry is a bit short sighted. If I were making such a long trip to snag a cache of this nature, I would do a bit more homework to make sure access was available, through county records, or contacting the nearby park agency. It would be a shame to waste a trip.

 

I'll be in the area so it won't be much out of the way. I have never been to Michigan. I will definitely keep an eye on it up to the point we go for it. I agree it is up to cache owners to respond to any and all NA's and NM's. I personally find it to be strange reason for a NA log but is the second time I have seen one before with the same reason.

[+Harry Dolphin]

While it is not one of the prettiest approaches, Google Maps lists Erie Road and the parking area as: Erie Rd. Public Beach Access. My only question would be whether the public beach access goes north from Erie Road.

[+cheech gang]

I found this one 12 years ago. Since then my geobuddies and I have parked the car near the pictured stop sign dozens of times for multiple caches over the years on this public access "beach".

[+dprovan]

I don't really have a question, just what are the thoughts on a NA for a cache that has been found but the person felt uneasy. Also, I am not attacking anyone, I wanted to know if this is generally accepted or not, I am relatively new so I am just trying to learn from people who have been around for a while. I tried looking for an awnser in the Help Center but couldn't find it, possibly my own user error but I tried.

I don't know what cache you're talking about, so I don't know the details, but I would definitely discourage posting an NA based on "I felt uneasy." I don't think it's reasonable to post an NA without specific reasons for saying the cache shouldn't be where it is. Personally, I tend to assume the CO and the reviewer both know what they're doing. Sure, that's not always the case, but I'd still want to be able to make a firm case before I acted as if one or the other has missed something.

 

Happily, NAs aren't the end of the world, they're just input yo humans. The reviewer can look at the information he has and conclude that the uneasy seeker was mistaken to think there's a problem, and the CO can take various steps to confirm the cache is OK where it is, if that's the case. And, lastly, you can read the log yourself and decide whether you should go seek the cache despite an NA being posted on it. For that matter, even after the cache is actually archived, you can still look at the logs and decide if the cache is still in place and whether or not there's a valid reason for you stay away from the area.

 

It sounds like you aren't really concerned that there's a problem, and if that's true, you should go ahead and look for the cache and contribute your observations to the log.

[+GrateBear]

I don't see any reason not to look for it. The gate only has a STOP sign, which only means (at least to me) that cars can't be driven down the road. Don't see any "no tresspassing" signs, or orange/purple paint on the gate (which I've come to learn means "no trespassing"). It looks like the two yellow poles are placed to allow foot traffic. It would be interesting to know what "this one just isn't settling well" means.

[+WarNinjas]

Just from that pic it looks to me like it is OK to go on foot but they don't want cars driving in. Otherwise why put up a gate but leave a obvious opening. I don't know the area but they put a stop sign so I don't see why they wouldn't add a NO Trespassing sign if they were not wanting anyone in there.

If the cacher felt uncomfortable they should have stated that in there log but logging a NA seems a bit over the top.

[+WarNinjas]

After reading the logs it sounds like there might be a fence to cross now. It also sounds like there might be another way to get there. Hard to tell without being there.

[+OneEighth]

It's been 17 days since the NA and no Reviewer note has been made public. If I had to hazard a guess I think the reviewer is waiting till after the MWGB to take action. May be waiting to see if anyone else has an issue before marking this one as temporarily disabled?

[+JL_HSTRE]

If there is something about the cache access that might cause concerns the CO should address it in the cache description.

[+hzoi]

After reading the logs it sounds like there might be a fence to cross now. It also sounds like there might be another way to get there. Hard to tell without being there.

The way I read the logs, the fence doesn't block access to the cache, but folks are hopping a fence when the lake is up and they don't want to get their feet wet. Never been there, so I'm stuck drawing conclusions based on photos, maps, and logs.

[+thebruce0]

Also note that at worst, if the cache does get archived not by the CO you may be able to log a find on it if it's not locked and you still head out to find (perhaps even pick up, with CO permission) the cache.

But it doesn't look to me at least, either, that there's actually a problem with the cache, based solely on what we can glean from your post and the listing. Possible concerns, but given how old it is, unless those are actually new concerns, then I'd say there really isn't a problem. If the CO doesn't address the NA and it gets archived, see above.

 

[+noncentric]

What seems odd to me, is that the cacher that posted the NA doesn't mention their route. Maybe they didn't park at the coordinates mentioned in the cache description and that's why they felt uneasy? Cachers that found the cache after them did not mention any permission issues. There might be a homeless camp issue, but that wouldn't mean there's a permission problem.

 

The parking area the CO mentioned is on the state's website as a public beach access point.

[+WarNinjas]

After reading the logs it sounds like there might be a fence to cross now. It also sounds like there might be another way to get there. Hard to tell without being there.

The way I read the logs, the fence doesn't block access to the cache, but folks are hopping a fence when the lake is up and they don't want to get their feet wet. Never been there, so I'm stuck drawing conclusions based on photos, maps, and logs.

That could be true as well. I would say with how long it has been there and only the one report that doesn't go into detail about exactly what was wrong with it that it should stand unless others feel that way when finding it in the future. It's not my call though. I wish it luck.

[+OneEighth]

Well thanks for the discussion. I am leaving for MWGB in a few hours. I am going to hit Michigan on Sunday on our way back. I'll let you know what I see.

[+hzoi]

Well thanks for the discussion. I am leaving for MWGB in a few hours. I am going to hit Michigan on Sunday on our way back. I'll let you know what I see.

That would be awesome. Safe travels and enjoy the trip.

[+pytthnlvr]

I live a ten minute drive from the cache.  That fence is merely the end of the road with parking available to the right of the pic.  Beyond the fence is a public access beach about 100yds further.  It is on the sight of a former all girls summer camp called "Lady of the Lake".  This area is filled with several other excellent hides including a 5/5 at the end of a peninsula to the south.  Due to tje rugged terrain it is about a 4-6 hour hike round trip.  All are worth the effort.

[+pytthnlvr]

Oh, I forgot to mention.  There are one or two no tresspassing signs in the area, however public access extends to five feet from the high water line, making Power Lady publicly accessible.

[+GeoTrekker26]

Where is the fence in the picture in the gallery captioned "Fence to cross" that was posted on 4 Oct 2015?