Jump to content

Power trail question


nebrevod

Recommended Posts

I am not sure where to address this question, I figured I would try here first.

 

Near my house in SW Washington (Vancouver) there is a power trail east of town. This trail was placed about three years ago, a few people have worked the trail to varying levels of success since then. Recently I decided I would give some sections a try as time permitted. Most of the 650 or so that were hidden require a walk of various distances as they are on logging roads.

 

Recently while trying to work the trail and go to the parking coordinates for the series I found myself met with a very large sign claiming that the land is private property. The cache page claims it is Washington DNR land which appears to be a generic cut and paste from when the caches were placed.  Upon further research I have learned that a large number of these are not on DNR land, some are on DNR land but to reach them would require trespassing on private property. Maybe there is some method of finding the parking area and archiving if these are on private property.

I got curious about if they were on DNR land and downloaded the GIS data which I imported into Google Earth. I then downloaded a Pocket Query so I could have a couple layers. I have the google earth file if maybe someone wants to look at this, cache locations are obvious. I attached a quick screen shot to give a visual, the red outlined areas are the DNR land.

The other "lesser" problem if you want to call it that is it appears many in the series are being taken over by nature so some serious bush whacking is required.

Normally I would ignore these but they are so close to home when I search a radius from home there are so many of these they take up a big chunk of the 1000 displayed by the search. Having a way to exclude a CO in the filters would be really nice in this case.

I really appreciate the effort that went into the placement from the Cache Owner, clearly a substantial amount of effort went into this. I would ask the CO however he has not been active in sometime. Though having done this and having 29,000+ finds gains my respect for sure.

 

 

Logging Road Series.JPG

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, nebrevod said:

Should some of these be archived and how should it be communicated. Sadly a large portion of them have the same parking coordinates which has a no trespassing sign. Would seem that Groundspeak could do a database search to figure this out.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. :( I do agree that a ignore caches by owner would be a great feature, and often requested here. :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Looks like Yacolt Burn State Forest Land.  Perhaps a contractor was logging and needed to keep people out.  WA manages 3.3M acres of land and encourages use and sells passes for use and parking.  Lots of DNR contact info available.  I would contact them to confirm before involving Groundspeak.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, nebrevod said:

I got curious about if they were on DNR land and downloaded the GIS data which I imported into Google Earth.

Likewise what PB above said.  I wouldn't trust any information off a government website to be up to date.  I've had numerous issues with such information with NFS and BLM not keeping their website information up to date.  I would talk with a live person who knows the latest information.  I would keep their contact information handy in case further follow up was required by a Local Reviewer or HQ.

Link to comment

Load a PQ with these caches into GSAK and filter by the CO name. Delete all caches in the filter, when you do this GSAK has an option to not import these in the future and adds those caches to the GSAK ignore list. Run the macro MaintainIgnoreList and it will synchronize the GSAK ignore list with your GC.com ignore list and you will not see these caches again.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, 31BMSG said:

Load a PQ with these caches into GSAK and filter by the CO name. Delete all caches in the filter, when you do this GSAK has an option to not import these in the future and adds those caches to the GSAK ignore list. Run the macro MaintainIgnoreList and it will synchronize the GSAK ignore list with your GC.com ignore list and you will not see these caches again.

 

That only works for those that use GSAK. ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

>> Load a PQ with these caches into GSAK ...

> That only works for those that use GSAK

Clearly... ;P

Sorry, just got a chuckle from that response.

31BMSG, just to cover your bases, you probably should have prefixed your paragraph with "If you use GSAK...". Also, "If you run Windows...". And, "...running on a desktop or a laptop..." And "If you're a Premium Member..." And...

:ph34r: *runsaway*

Link to comment
13 hours ago, nebrevod said:

Should some of these be archived and how should it be communicated.

Crow gives a good tip:

2 hours ago, Crow T Robot said:

The "Report a Problem" log will only generate an email to the cache owner (and anyone watching the listing) but it seems as if the cache owner is already not responding to the potential problems.  You can either log "Needs Archived", which will bring it to Reviewer attention, or you can contact the Reviewer directly.

You could also try contacting the cache owner directly to let them know there's an issue. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

>> Load a PQ with these caches into GSAK ...

> That only works for those that use GSAK

Clearly... ;P

Sorry, just got a chuckle from that response.

31BMSG, just to cover your bases, you probably should have prefixed your paragraph with "If you use GSAK...". Also, "If you run Windows...". And, "...running on a desktop or a laptop..." And "If you're a Premium Member..." And...

:ph34r: *runsaway*

I'd also note that GSAK will only add caches to a list after they're published.  Someone that has notifications set up that has a 1000 cache power trail published within their notification radius will get 1000 email notifications for caches they may have no interest in finding.  

Link to comment

So I did a bit more research on the property. Seems that it is indeed private, though much of the public land is "behind" this land. Meaning the logging roads through this land reach the public land. You could get to the public land from other public land but it would require some serious bush whacking for several miles. According to county records the property was sold December 2016 to the current owner.

 

I am attempting to contact the company listed on the sign and ask what their position is.

 

The CO as I mentioned has not been active in sometime. 

 

I think what needs to happen if the owner does not want them is probably someone at ground speak needs to to a filter on the database and archive based on the parking area. This is the only way that would make any sense. I hate to go through all the effort of doing this myself for a large number of caches when they could do this in minutes with Database access.

 

 

Link to comment

Normally, to me, just the fact that a cache has an inactive CO means it would get a "Needs archived" log from me at the first sign of a problem (lots of DNFs, NM logs, etc.)...but in the case of a power trail, it seems like communicating directly with a reviewer would be in order, mostly because having to post hundreds of NA logs is a lot of work.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

>> Load a PQ with these caches into GSAK ...

> That only works for those that use GSAK

Clearly... ;P

Sorry, just got a chuckle from that response.

31BMSG, just to cover your bases, you probably should have prefixed your paragraph with "If you use GSAK...". Also, "If you run Windows...". And, "...running on a desktop or a laptop..." And "If you're a Premium Member..." And...

:ph34r: *runsaway*

 

I did not intend for it to be funny, and GSAK  is NOT part of Groundspeak. If the company offered a filter by cache owner and made it a Premium feature, I would renew my PM today. Give me something I can use and support this site, not a 3rd party service.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Manville Possum said:

I did not intend for it to be funny

I know. I still chuckled.

 

2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Normally, to me, just the fact that a cache has an inactive CO means it would get a "Needs archived" log from me at the first sign of a problem (lots of DNFs, NM logs, etc.)...but in the case of a power trail, it seems like communicating directly with a reviewer would be in order, mostly because having to post hundreds of NA logs is a lot of work. 

Agreed. If caches are being upheld by community but there are now outstanding issues then I'd likely leave it. But if there's an outstanding issue not being handled, and/or an issue ONLY the CO can deal with, then it needs to go to reviewer attention.

Link to comment

'someone at Groundspeak' doesn't necessarily monitor this forum.

Contacting the reviewer for the area should get you to a person who can help do what needs done.

If the caches are accessible from the public land side, it could be that they are okay and don't need archived, but really that the parking coordinates just need updated or a note about access added.  That would be work the Cache Owner (CO) would need to do.  But if the cache owner is not active and willing to make the needed changes, that could also lead to them needing to be archived.

The reviewer can help sort all of that out.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...