Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
KerEliana

Maintenance, Archive, or something else?

69 posts in this topic

Newbie cacher here. Last month I visited GC45HPB, and discovered that the cache was home to a wasp nest, which immediately swarmed and chased us away. I left a note warning cachers about the wasps, and sent a message to the cache owner. I realize now that I should have submitted a maintenance log. I also noticed that the cache owner last visited the website in September 2015 and presumably has abandoned the cache. Someone else logged the cache last week and also reported being chased by wasps. Should I submit a Maintenance log now 3 weeks later? Go straight to an Archive request since the owner is no longer active? Do something else? I don't know the protocol here, and I'm concerned about people's safety walking right up to and digging around in a wasp nest. Any guidance is greatly appreciated!

0

Share this post


Link to post

I think you did fine.  Post the wasp info in your log and move on. 

Bugs, poison ivy, spiders, snakes, and more, exist outdoors and you'll find them at caches.  But for months out of each year, they all may be much less of a problem, such as in fall or winter.  Even wasps may be active only at certain times of the day.  Develop situational awareness, know your surroundings and what to watch for.

I like to keep my caches as non-creepy as possible.  But some are more waspy than others.  The bugs come and go, and sometimes it's a frustrating battle (such as when the FTF got stung by a wasp at a cache that seemed fine when I placed it). It's just nature.

Edited by kunarion
3

Share this post


Link to post

I had a similar situation with one of my caches.   I was able to move the cache about 25 feet away from the hornets nest and all was fine.  Keep in mind that moving a cache is not always possible.

Posting a NM may not help the immediate problem if the cache owner is not active anymore.

If the cache is truly abandoned than The wasp situation may be a perfect excuse to post a NM and eventually get the cache archived, which is probably what I'd do.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If the cache is truly abandoned than The wasp situation may be a perfect excuse to post a NM and eventually get the cache archived, which is probably what I'd do.  

This.  I've discovered that Notes are about 1% likely to lead to action while NM logs are closer to about 75%, either by reviewer disabling then archiving or the owner finally getting off their rear-end and doing their job as a cache owner.

2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, KerEliana said:

Newbie cacher here. Last month I visited GC45HPB, and discovered that the cache was home to a wasp nest, which immediately swarmed and chased us away. I left a note warning cachers about the wasps, and sent a message to the cache owner. I realize now that I should have submitted a maintenance log. I also noticed that the cache owner last visited the website in September 2015 and presumably has abandoned the cache. Someone else logged the cache last week and also reported being chased by wasps. Should I submit a Maintenance log now 3 weeks later? Go straight to an Archive request since the owner is no longer active? Do something else? I don't know the protocol here, and I'm concerned about people's safety walking right up to and digging around in a wasp nest. Any guidance is greatly appreciated!

Since issues like wasps change with the seasons, , and your location does have seasonal changes, I agree with kunarion, your Write Note was enough.    For example, only one after you mentions wasps...

When we used to do those kinda hides, we might be the ones to show up afterwards (if we saw an issue) with a can of spray.  :)

Typical for the area though, many finds, with no NM for other issues, even though pics show the log has been pulp for about three years...

1

Share this post


Link to post

I'd agree with kunarion. Post your findings about the hive as a note and move on. If you leave it in your find log, someone scanning log types may not be made aware of the nest. A note would grab a bit of attention without making it an owner issue. However, a dangerous thing at gz some may consider an issue the owner should tend to. A wasp nest? enh... IMO, temporal things like that are (also as mentioned) all part of situational awareness. It's there for a short time, and will be gone again eventually.

Now, if the hive somehow damaged the container, or caused some negative effect that made the listing now inaccurate that won't be fixed with the dissipation of the hive, then I'd post the NM.

I wouldn't post a NA unless there's an immediate and essential reason for the cache to move directly to removal. The NM starts the cache in motion through owner maintenance to reviewer attention to archival if necessary.

And if the cache and listing themselves are still in order, there's no reason to force owner attention just because they're inactive (which for all we know they may not actually be, for whatever reason they appear to be).

Edited by thebruce0
1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I'd agree with kunarion. Post your findings about the hive as a note and move on. If you leave it in your find log, someone scanning log types may not be made aware of the nest. A note would grab a bit of attention without making it an owner issue. However, a dangerous thing at gz some may consider an issue the owner should tend to. A wasp nest? enh... IMO, temporal things like that are (also as mentioned) all part of situational awareness. It's there for a short time, and will be gone again eventually.

Now, if the hive somehow damaged the container, or caused some negative effect that made the listing now inaccurate that won't be fixed with the dissipation of the hive, then I'd post the NM.

I wouldn't post a NA unless there's an immediate and essential reason for the cache to move directly to removal. The NM starts the cache in motion through owner maintenance to reviewer attention to archival if necessary.

And if the cache and listing themselves are still in order, there's no reason to force owner attention just because they're inactive (which for all we know they may not actually be, for whatever reason they appear to be).

If the cache has no active owner than there is a reason to force the issue.  IMO the existence of an unsafe condition (natural, man-made or otherwise) is a perfectly legitimate reason to get the cache owner involved.   If owner is still active than posting a NM will help confirm that.   If they're not than it will bring that fact to the attention of a reviewer.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If the cache has no active owner than there is a reason to force the issue.  IMO the existence of an unsafe condition (natural, man-made or otherwise) is a perfectly legitimate reason to get the cache owner involved.   If owner is still active than posting a NM will help confirm that.   If they're not than it will bring that fact to the attention of a reviewer.  

Sounds (to me) like you have more issue with that inactive owner than the simple bee problem discussed in this thread. 

We have more than enough threads on that subject...

1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

If the cache has no active owner than there is a reason to force the issue.  IMO the existence of an unsafe condition (natural, man-made or otherwise) is a perfectly legitimate reason to get the cache owner involved.   If owner is still active than posting a NM will help confirm that.   If they're not than it will bring that fact to the attention of a reviewer.  

 

It's no good to use NM as a test to ensure that Cache Owners are active... to start the process of getting it archived.  Caches that are in bad shape may be archived, but many are ownerless yet placed in a way that has made them maintenance-free.  It's a shame to archive those, merely because the CO is not active.

But the OP was asking about wasps that were there three weeks ago.  Even granting that wasps deserve an NM log, I won't suggest that the OP assume that's still a problem and make an NM today.  If the idea is that the CO must go check the cache for wasps, then the OP must first go check that the wasps are still there.

 

Edited by kunarion
1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

It's no good to use NM as a test to ensure that Cache Owners are active... to start the process of getting it archived.  Caches that are in bad shape may be archived, but many are ownerless yet placed in a way that has made them maintenance-free.  It's a shame to archive those, merely because the CO is not active.

 

No such thing as maintenance-free.  Sure, many don't require much maintenance over the years, but this desire people have to keep cache with no real owner active is just weird to me.  Age doesn't equal value unless your only concern is filling in a square in your grid.  The best part about the NM to Archive process is how it clears up great spots that inactive or neglectful cache owners are holding and allows potentially great new caches (and owners) to occupy those places.  

2

Share this post


Link to post

You know what I want to know?  Regarding the cache in question, is it even in place anymore?  The last finder said they threw it on the ground and ran. :rolleyes:

I would have just mentioned it in my log but that's me.  I agree with kunarion, wasps are just a part of geocaching.  Once you've encountered that situation in that kind of hide you'll be more careful next time.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, kunarion said:

It's no good to use NM as a test to ensure that Cache Owners are active... to start the process of getting it archived.  Caches that are in bad shape may be archived, but many are ownerless yet placed in a way that has made them maintenance-free.  It's a shame to archive those, merely because the CO is not active.

Yep.

As a finder, whether the cache owner is active or not is itself entirely irrelevant to me. If the cache has a problem and the owner is inactive, then I'll have reasonable concern. But I'm not going to go around posting NM on active, good condition caches just to test if the CO is active or not. So, in the case of the OP, since I don't consider a temporary bee nest an essential CO maintenance need but rather a finder awareness concern for a period of time, and otherwise the cache is in good shape, I'm not going to nudge the cache along to archival just because I think the CO is inactive.

 

5 minutes ago, Twinklekitkat said:

The last finder said they threw it on the ground and ran. :rolleyes:

heh, I'd take that on a case by case scenario. In some cases, that may prompt a NM - mainly if it's not obvious where the cache should be (eg, under a lamp shade). But even then, that's definitely towing the line, to me, and in most cases it would likely prompt a NM.  That falls under the case of "previous cacher did not hide the cache as they found it" (for whatever reason), and is another etiquette thread :P

1

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Twinklekitkat said:

You know what I want to know?  Regarding the cache in question, is it even in place anymore?  The last finder said they threw it on the ground and ran. :rolleyes:

I would have just mentioned it in my log but that's me.  I agree with kunarion, wasps are just a part of geocaching.  Once you've encountered that situation in that kind of hide you'll be more careful next time.

 

 

I used to get hit by poison ivy every time.  I'd get it everywhere and places you don't even wanna know where, just by looking at it.  Maybe it's experience or identifying PI quickly now or something else, but although I in no way became immune, I'm not bothered by PI at caches anymore.  I know I probably sound like those guys who declare that they are not affected at all by PI.  I hate those guys.  Wait.  I mean I envy those guys.  Yeah, that's the ticket.

But I will log a note if there's a lotta PI.  It's worth noting.  Especially if I just plain avoided the site.  I'm not gonna press through a jungle of the stuff and I won't roll around in it.  I don't have to get every cache today.  I ain't the Pokey-Man.

AND I am never bothered by wasps nor bees.  Not even yellow-jackets which are pretty indiscriminate about stinging people.  Other cachers mention getting stung, yet I coexist, and I'm not sure why.  Maybe it's due to movements or odors or clothing colors that don't enrage wasps.  Maybe it's because I was once bitten by a radioactive bee, and now protect the meadows with my super bee powers, in my bee costume.

AND others have problems with ticks.  I once did.  I was a tick magnet.  I could not brush past even a blade of grass without immediately having a tick on my arm.  And then having one or two embedded in places you don't want a tick to be embedded.  Now that I wear Permethrin-treated clothing, no ticks ever.

Now about mosquitoes.  Regardless of what I do, mosquitoes are after me. They drink even the most poisonous sprays right off my skin and then they eat me up.  They like me, and they are at the cache.  Spiders, too.  I almost never get bitten by spiders, but they do like to dance on the back of my neck.  The huge, colorful ones.  Snakes, you never know what kind or where it may be, and even non-venomous can and do bite if you bother them.

So I log wasps, bees, PI, mosquitoes, spiders, snakes, even ticks (maybe the dead ones on my Permethrin clothing).  But not as an NM.

Edited by kunarion
1

Share this post


Link to post

I like to be able to look myself in the mirror, and to sleep at night.  Therefore, inaction in such a case as the OP is--to me--unthinkable.  Sure, there are all kinds of natural hazards in life, but that doesn't mean I won't warn someone if it might save them pain, anguish, or worse.

Quote

Yet among nonhuman animals, the creatures that cause more American deaths than any other are bees and wasps. In a typical year, nearly 100 American deaths are caused by bee stings. In fact, this number probably represents an underestimate, since some bee sting deaths are erroneously attributed to heart attacks, sun stroke and other causes.

--CDC: Bees are the Deadliest Non-Human Animals in America

If it were me, I'd post an NM at the very least--as a caution/warning to others if nothing else.  I'd be stating my reasons/thinking to the CO, reviewer, and other GC, so ALL can make their own informed decisions.  As always, YMMV.

2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, kunarion said:

 

It's no good to use NM as a test to ensure that Cache Owners are active... to start the process of getting it archived.  Caches that are in bad shape may be archived, but many are ownerless yet placed in a way that has made them maintenance-free.  It's a shame to archive those, merely because the CO is not active.

But the OP was asking about wasps that were there three weeks ago.  Even granting that wasps deserve an NM log, I won't suggest that the OP assume that's still a problem and make an NM today.  If the idea is that the CO must go check the cache for wasps, then the OP must first go check that the wasps are still there.

 

I applaud KerEliana  for taking the time to come here and ask the question.  I wouldn't expect a new cacher to know exactly how to handle a situation like this.  I think a NM is entirely appropriate here and if it leads to the cache eventually being archived than so be it.  

If there's a potentially dangerous situation near a cache the owner should take note and at least try to minimize the risk either by moving the cache or noting the problem on the cache page.  

3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

As a finder, whether the cache owner is active or not is itself entirely irrelevant to me.

Interesting.

For me, it is absolutely relevant. The connection between owner and finder is very important to the whole feel of geocaching for me. I really like the feeling that the owner placed something to entertain me and others, looks forward to our visits and is keen to hear about the experience.

And participating in a pastime that promotes good stewardship is important to me.

2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Interesting.

For me, it is absolutely relevant. The connection between owner and finder is very important to the whole feel of geocaching for me. I really like the feeling that the owner placed something to entertain me and others, looks forward to our visits and is keen to hear about the experience.

And participating in a pastime that promotes good stewardship is important to me.

And now this becomes yet another "Inactive Owner" thread...  Sheesh...

1

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, RufusClupea said:

I like to be able to look myself in the mirror, and to sleep at night.  Therefore, inaction in such a case as the OP is--to me--unthinkable.  Sure, there are all kinds of natural hazards in life, but that doesn't mean I won't warn someone if it might save them pain, anguish, or worse.

There was no inaction. 

The OP wrote a Write Note log on the cache page.    Their action was reasonable...

0

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

There was no inaction. 

The OP wrote a Write Note log on the cache page.    Their action was reasonable...

Huh?  I didn't say there was inaction, nor did I say the OP's action was not reasonable.  I expressed my own feeling/point of view on the subject; anyone is free to consider or ignore.

1

Share this post


Link to post

.

Edited by cerberus1
0

Share this post


Link to post

A wasp nest near a cache? Outdoors, where wildlife is expected? I'd mention it in my log, which would be a Find or a DNF, or maybe a DNS (Did Not Search, logged as a Note).

A wasp nest in the cache container itself? That's a cache container that needs maintenance, so I'd also log NM.

1

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

The connection between owner and finder is very important to the whole feel of geocaching for me. I really like the feeling that the owner placed something to entertain me and others, looks forward to our visits and is keen to hear about the experience.

Sure, it's a nice feeling, but it's not relevant to cache maintenance on a cache that doesn't need maintenance. I'd like for the cache's owner to be active and be able to read my log, but I can't force that, there are far too many unknowns.  If I don't think a cache needs owner maintenance, then I won't log a NM, regardless of the CO's activity.

 

6 minutes ago, niraD said:

A wasp nest in the cache container itself? That's a cache container that needs maintenance, so I'd also log NM.

Yep, in that case the cache itself is affected or damaged, so I'd log a NM.  A nest near gz that affecting my personal ability to search for it? Not a NM, a note. I'll return. Someone else might do the search and sign the log without issue. I've logged notes instead of DNFs stating I merely didn't search because I couldn't wouldn't get close enough because of buzzers. A heads up for followup cachers (maybe relevant for a month or so). After that? I may return and most likely the cache will be just fine.  But if I get to the cache container, and recognize a problem with the cache because of a nest or natural occurrence, that's a different matter.

1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, niraD said:

A wasp nest near a cache? Outdoors, where wildlife is expected? I'd mention it in my log, which would be a Find or a DNF, or maybe a DNS (Did Not Search, logged as a Note).

I agree.

The hundreds of times there's been critters at GZ  in this outdoors hobby aren't but a mention in our log, just as the mentions in this cache in 8/14,  8/16, as well as the OP's this year,

The one mention of "spider!" isn't a reason for an NM either...

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

The NM shouldn't be such a big deal anyway. If it were my cache I'd be totally OK with an NM for wasp/bees. I got one for bees in the stump my ammo can was hiding in. I disabled it until the cold weather set in and I checked to be sure they were gone. I'd hate for someone with a bee allergy or child with a bee allergy (perhaps something they don't realize they have) ends up stung.

An NM log gets my attention immediately. And I've seen some COs that appear to be gone, perk up when they get an NM. Maybe they filter out find logs but not the NMs.

And NMs make finders pay attention too. How many of us don't read logs until we need to (when we can't find the cache). A flagged cache will make some finders of look at the logs for more information.

Edited by L0ne.R
3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, niraD said:

A wasp nest near a cache? Outdoors, where wildlife is expected? I'd mention it in my log, which would be a Find or a DNF, or maybe a DNS (Did Not Search, logged as a Note).

A wasp nest in the cache container itself? That's a cache container that needs maintenance, so I'd also log NM.

Quote

 I also noticed that the cache owner last visited the website in September 2015 and presumably has abandoned the cache. 

I would go straight to NA and let your local reviewer take action.

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:
Quote

 I also noticed that the cache owner last visited the website in September 2015 and presumably has abandoned the cache. 

I would go straight to NA and let your local reviewer take action.

Again, why? The cache semes to be reportedly in good condition. Presumably it's a good cache that people are enjoying. Taking pro-active action against a cache which one thinks is owned by an inactive cacher is essentially 'cache policing'.  If the hobby were about staying active as an owner, GS would have implemented methods to auto-detect owner inactivity, and even auto-disable caches by what they deem as inactive owners. As it stands, there's no real way to determine if a person is actually active or not; last login time on the website is certainly not entirely accurate.  To take an action like posting a NA on a cache that's just fine (apart from the opinion of what to do in the case of a bee/wasp nest that isn't directly affecting the container), merely because the last website visit is not within what.. 1 month? 2 months? 1 week? 1 year? ...strikes me as way too overbearing.

If there's evidence that the cache needs archival (ie, there is a direct immediate problem with the cache that cannot be resolved by the CO), then that would warrant a NA.

Not a bee's nest nearby.

L0ne.R makes good points about why NM could be considered a viable action from a(n active) CO perspective (though others might consider a NM due to bee nest a needless annoyance). But NA? Def no.

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I disabled it until the cold weather set in and I checked to be sure they were gone. I'd hate for someone with a bee allergy or child with a bee allergy (perhaps something they don't realize they have) ends up stung.

An NM log gets my attention immediately. And I've seen some COs that appear to be gone, perk up when they get an NM. Maybe they filter out find logs but not the NMs. And NMs make finders pay attention too.

 

Ultimately I think the choice to log a NM is really dependent on the situation at any particular cache and the opinion and the ethic of the cacher. I would weigh against logging a NM generally, but definitely not NA for the case as described above. Regardless of recent owner activity.

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Again, why? The cache semes to be reportedly in good condition.

 

All except for the bee's nest, and a responsible geocache owner would address the concerns of those seeking their geocache. All geocaches need active owners to address concerns. Period.

2

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

All except for the bee's nest, and a responsible geocache owner would address the concerns of those seeking their geocache. All geocaches need active owners to address concerns. Period.

If the wasp nest is actually in the cache container, then sure. I'd log NM. And there has already been a NM posted without any response, then sure, I'd log NA. The owner's last login date wouldn't even cross my radar.

But if it's just another outdoor hazard in the outdoors where such things should be expected, then I wouldn't even consider logging NM.

1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, niraD said:

If the wasp nest is actually in the cache container, then sure. I'd log NM. And there has already been a NM posted without any response, then sure, I'd log NA. The owner's last login date wouldn't even cross my radar.

But if it's just another outdoor hazard in the outdoors where such things should be expected, then I wouldn't even consider logging NM.

That's where we disagree.  I absolutely believe that the cache and the area around it are part of the owners responsibility.   Anything a cache owner can do to make the experience fun and safe should always be considered. 

It's one thing if someone inadvertently gets hurt attempting one of my caches through no fault of my own.  It's another when I'm aware of the danger and choose to do nothing about it.  

1

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the advice everyone! My biggest concern was that the small space where the cache is hidden is in the exact same spot as the wasp nest, and both are concealed, so you don't even realize the wasps are there until you move something to reveal the cache and suddenly get a face full of wasps. I don't know if the wasps are actually in the cache container since they drove us off before we could grab it, but even if not they're right on top of it. Apparently the last finder threw the cache on the ground while fleeing the wasps, so who knows if the cache is even there anymore. I'll try to get back to see if it's there and if the wasps are still active. I might wait for colder, wasp-free weather though!

1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

I absolutely believe that the cache and the area around it are part of the owners responsibility.

Yowza. That's ia broad, sweeping category.

So how far from the cache does the nest have to be, objectively, before a NM doesn't need to be posted?

There's a difference between hive IN the cache, or affecting the physical container, and a hazard near gz, especially if it's only temporary.

Edited by thebruce0
0

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, niraD said:

If the wasp nest is actually in the cache container, then sure. I'd log NM. And there has already been a NM posted without any response, then sure, I'd log NA. The owner's last login date wouldn't even cross my radar.

But if it's just another outdoor hazard in the outdoors where such things should be expected, then I wouldn't even consider logging NM.

 

Wasp spray is one of the TOTT that I have in my geocaching bag. :ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, KerEliana said:

Apparently the last finder threw the cache on the ground while fleeing the wasps, so who knows if the cache is even there anymore. I'll try to get back to see if it's there and if the wasps are still active. I might wait for colder, wasp-free weather though!

Personally, I would log the note, then return in a week or two and try again. If the cache is still (dangerously) unfindable, I may well post a NM. Although if you're a 'kind heart', you could come prepared with whatever is necessary to remove the hive and let the cache live on, but you might get significant flack from the ones who believe you should NA it or never do a CO's job for them :ph34r: (before even knowing if they're purportedly "active" or not)

Edited by thebruce0
0

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

Wasp spray is one of the TOTT that I have in my geocaching bag. :ph34r:

But doing cache maintenance for absentee cache owners is EEE-VIL! ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, niraD said:

EEE-VIL!

200_s.gif

0

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yowza. That's ia broad, sweeping category.

So how far from the cache does the nest have to be, objectively, before a NM doesn't need to be posted?

There's a difference between hive IN the cache, or affecting the physical container, and a hazard near gz, especially if it's only temporary.

Far enough away that I'm comfortable no one will get stung.   Same goes for quick sand,  widow makers and bear dens.

1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Personally, I would log the note, then return in a week or two and try again. If the cache is still unfindable, I may well post a NM. Although if you're a 'kind heart', you could come prepared with whatever is necessary to remove the hive and let the cache live on, but you might get significant flack from the ones who believe you should NA it :ph34r:

I was thinking about trying to remove the nest, but after a significant bee/wasp/etc. phobia that I only managed to overcome well into adulthood, I'm not sure I'm brave enough for that! I'm probably going to stand a good distance away and throw rocks at the cache, and if no wasps react I MIGHT be brave enough to get closer and give it a look, but that might be all I'm able to manage.

1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

That's where we disagree.  I absolutely believe that the cache and the area around it are part of the owners responsibility.   Anything a cache owner can do to make the experience fun and safe should always be considered.

So much for SCUBA caches, and rock-climbing caches, and other T5 caches where accessing the cache is inherently dangerous.

1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, niraD said:

So much for SCUBA caches, and rock-climbing caches, and other T5 caches where accessing the cache is inherently dangerous.

No one's arguing that geocaching can be hazardous.   As a cache owner it's what I know, when I know it and what I do about it that matters.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, niraD said:

But doing cache maintenance for absentee cache owners is EEE-VIL! ;)

It's not maintenance if I kill the bees to make the find.

0

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

No one's arguing that geocaching can be hazardous.   As a cache owner it's what I know, when I know it and what I do about it that matters.  

As a cache owner, knock yourself out. It's your cache.

But this is a discussion about someone else's cache. I think it's unreasonable to post a NM log for normal outdoor hazards that are encountered in the outdoors where such outdoor hazards should be expected.

2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Again, why? The cache semes to be reportedly in good condition.

If we're still talking about the original cache this OP experienced,  now, yes it is...

It's been replaced a few times,  still  logged as a soggy piecea carp for some time, but hasn't had a NM placed on it since '13.

Even a Reviewer mentioned the "horrible container".

But ... it was just a few days before the OP got there,  and didn't search (but wrote a note about wasps) that one logged with their Found It(of course...), "  Cache was broken and not signable, so I added a Ziggy (Gatorade cap cache) with a new log and replaced the two. Took a picture of the two caches together to prove that I found the original" - not mentioning wasps at all. 

 - So the cache wasn't in good condition for some time, but "fixed" by another.

When the OP got there, the cache still wasn't found since the "helper" placed another, so I agree, that a NM in this situation doesn't apply.  :)

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Manville Possum said:

It's not maintenance if I kill the bees to make the find.

We did one of the few gizmo caches we found still in one piece, and numerous people mentioned earlier of a YJ nest near GZ.  We took care of that problem for the CO.

A lotta funny emails we received over the pic I took of "required tott" attached to the back of her hydro pack (and a thanks from the CO). 

0

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We did one of the few gizmo caches we found still in one piece, and numerous people mentioned earlier of a YJ nest near GZ.  We took care of that problem for the CO.

A lotta funny emails we received over the pic I took of "required tott" attached to the back of her hydro pack (and a thanks from the CO). 

 

I have a cache that I won't visit without snake gaiters, but it's far enough in the mountains to keep city folks away. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, niraD said:

As a cache owner, knock yourself out. It's your cache.

But this is a discussion about someone else's cache. I think it's unreasonable to post a NM log for normal outdoor hazards that are encountered in the outdoors where such outdoor hazards should be expected.

 

I disagree because that NM may alert the next seeker about the hazard and they can plan accordingly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

As a cache owner, knock yourself out. It's your cache.

But this is a discussion about someone else's cache. I think it's unreasonable to post a NM log for normal outdoor hazards that are encountered in the outdoors where such outdoor hazards should be expected.

 

Yeah. In the OP's case, I'd mention it in my Find or Note, as the OP did, and not make an additional NM the following month, unless the bee is verified to still bee there.  I think the OP did fine.

But one of my caches developed an NM when fire ants moved in, underneath the ammo box.  And on the ammo box.  The ammo box was incorporated into the mound.  So I didn't begrudge the cacher who slapped an NM on it.  As you've said, an NM is probably suitable if the container is the nest.  You should have seen my attempt at the ant nest removal plan. It was a hard-won battle. :anicute:

Edited by kunarion
0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Manville Possum said:
2 hours ago, niraD said:

As a cache owner, knock yourself out. It's your cache.

But this is a discussion about someone else's cache. I think it's unreasonable to post a NM log for normal outdoor hazards that are encountered in the outdoors where such outdoor hazards should be expected.

 

I disagree because that NM may alert the next seeker about the hazard and they can plan accordingly.

If the wasps' nest is inside or on top of the cache, sure, an NM is probably warranted, but to me, an NM should be about something the CO needs to fix and log an OM when the problem is resolved. Some of my caches are in places that become thick with leeches after a bit of rain but I wouldn't want people logging NMs about that just to "alert the next seeker about the hazard". I can't make the leeches go away, but a bit of dry and/or hot weather will.

The same with wasps nesting near the cache - it's part of nature and not something the CO should be expected to "fix".

1

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

If the wasps' nest is inside or on top of the cache, sure, an NM is probably warranted, but to me, an NM should be about something the CO needs to fix and log an OM when the problem is resolved. Some of my caches are in places that become thick with leeches after a bit of rain but I wouldn't want people logging NMs about that just to "alert the next seeker about the hazard". I can't make the leeches go away, but a bit of dry and/or hot weather will.

The same with wasps nesting near the cache - it's part of nature and not something the CO should be expected to "fix".

 

Look, wasps nesting near the cache should not a present a problem. A wasp's nest where you poke your hand warrants a warning for the next person and the cache owner. It could be a kid that has a bee allergy, and if my NM prevents that I would feel better.

 

Edited by Manville Possum
City people
1

Share this post


Link to post

If I read this thread correctly we have a cache that's been ownerless for a couple of years, that's degraded to junk, subject to throwdowns and is in a potentially hazardous location - if it's even still there at all.

And people are still arguing about ways to protect it and keep it alive? :blink: Seriously? :lol:

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, niraD said:

As a cache owner, knock yourself out. It's your cache.

But this is a discussion about someone else's cache. I think it's unreasonable to post a NM log for normal outdoor hazards that are encountered in the outdoors where such outdoor hazards should be expected.

About a year ago I had a cacher note that a large hanging branch was precariously close to one of my caches.   According to you I should have ignored it as a normal outdoor hazard.   Of course I didn't.  I disabled the cache and removed the hanging branch myself safely before someone potentially got hurt.  

Now if someone was injured by that branch and I had no prior knowledge of the danger,  I'd feel horrible but I'd sleep at night.  

If I knew about the branch and did nothing about it and the same thing happened,  I'd be devastated.  

Now thankfully I was monitoring my caches and picked up on the note.  But what if I didn't?   There's a good chance that absolutely nothing would have happened but that's a chance I wasn't willing to take.  

1

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 6