Maintaining an Earth Cache

[+justintim1999]

There are many different reasons why we would post a NM on let's say a Traditional cache.    The only reason I can think of to post a NM on an Earth cache is if something has changed within the physical location.   For example  a no trespassing sign has gone up or downed tree has blocked access. 

Reading another topic got me thinking.

Apart from responding to questions and answers, what other responsibilities dose the owner of an Earth cache have?    

If the owner of an Earth cache is unresponsive to questions and answers can you post a NM on the cache?   

If the owner doesn't respond how dose anyone know if they're active or not?   Since there's no physical cache to maintain dose anyone even care?

 

[+barefootjeff]

33 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

There are many different reasons why we would post a NM on let's say a Traditional cache.    The only reason I can think of to post a NM on an Earth cache is if something has changed within the physical location.   For example  a no trespassing sign has gone up or downed tree has blocked access. 

Reading another topic got me thinking.

Apart from responding to questions and answers, what other responsibilities dose the owner of an Earth cache have?    

If the owner of an Earth cache is unresponsive to questions and answers can you post a NM on the cache?   

If the owner doesn't respond how dose anyone know if they're active or not?   Since there's no physical cache to maintain dose anyone even care?

 

One of the responsibilities is maintaining the cache page, particularly if there are links to outside resources that might break. Mine is based on tidal potholes so I included a link to a tide prediction site, which I occasionally check to make sure it still works. So I guess a broken link would justify an NM.

For ECs that rely on signage at GZ or waypoints, those are also possible sources of NMs if they're changed or go missing. And I suppose a rockfall at GZ obliterating the object of the EC would be the ultimate one, probably worthy of an NA.

But assuming everything remains in place for doing an EC, an absent owner wouldn't be at all apparent.

[+justintim1999]

1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

One of the responsibilities is maintaining the cache page, particularly if there are links to outside resources that might break. Mine is based on tidal potholes so I included a link to a tide prediction site, which I occasionally check to make sure it still works. So I guess a broken link would justify an NM.

For ECs that rely on signage at GZ or waypoints, those are also possible sources of NMs if they're changed or go missing. And I suppose a rockfall at GZ obliterating the object of the EC would be the ultimate one, probably worthy of an NA.

But assuming everything remains in place for doing an EC, an absent owner wouldn't be at all apparent.

Dose the owner of an earth cache have to respond to answers that they require be submitted?   If you submit your answers for the earth cache and log it as found right off the bat dose is the fact that the owner allows the find to stand without responding acceptable?  If so how dose anyone know if the owner is still active in the game?

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

Dose the owner of an earth cache have to respond to answers that they require be submitted?   If you submit your answers for the earth cache and log it as found right off the bat dose is the fact that the owner allows the find to stand without responding acceptable?  If so how dose anyone know if the owner is still active in the game?

I can't see anything in the Help Centre that mentions the CO replying to answers so that doesn't seem to be a requirement, just a courtesy. I suppose one way to see whether the CO is still active would be to submit deliberately wrong answers (or no answers at all) and see if they delete your log, but that might dent your reputation if they are active.

[+justintim1999]

4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I can't see anything in the Help Centre that mentions the CO replying to answers so that doesn't seem to be a requirement, just a courtesy. I suppose one way to see whether the CO is still active would be to submit deliberately wrong answers (or no answers at all) and see if they delete your log, but that might dent your reputation if they are active.

Keeping the cache page accurate is one.   Wouldn't incorrect find logs qualify?   Then again how would anyone know since the answers are sent directly to the owner?  

In addition to a smiley, earth caches do include an educational component.  Combine that with the need for very little maintenance and I guess I can see why not being a hands on earth cache owner wouldn't attract too much attention.     I was only wondering why there wasn't a mechanism that could be used to verify finds on earth caches.   Something like when you log one,  your smiley appears but in red.   The owner of the earth cache must verify your information and check a box to confirm.   Then your red smiley becomes yellow.

Just some way to confirm that someone is still watching over things.  

[Keystone]

I moved the thread here from the Geocaching Topics forum.

[+Touchstone]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

There are many different reasons why we would post a NM on let's say a Traditional cache.    The only reason I can think of to post a NM on an Earth cache is if something has changed within the physical location.   For example  a no trespassing sign has gone up or downed tree has blocked access. 

Reading another topic got me thinking.

Apart from responding to questions and answers, what other responsibilities dose the owner of an Earth cache have?    

If the owner of an Earth cache is unresponsive to questions and answers can you post a NM on the cache?   

If the owner doesn't respond how dose anyone know if they're active or not?   Since there's no physical cache to maintain dose anyone even care?

 

Like any other Listing on the site, the CO has the responsibility to maintain the Listing page on the site, to make sure the content is up to date, and deal with bogus or inappropriate language in the log entries.

There is no requirement for the CO to respond.  Regarding justintim1999's suggestion of having some sort of auto-responder to verify  visits, this has been tried and no longer allowed.   The FAQ section of the GSA website addresses this issue:

http://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Education_Careers/Field_Experiences/EarthCache/GSA/fieldexp/EarthCache/faq.aspx

If the CO is unresponsive, you COULD post an NM on the Listing page.  There's nothing stopping you from doing that, but I doubt that an unresponsive CO is regarded as a reason, in the absence of other issues, to take action on a Listing page.  On the other hand, hypothetically speaking, if the Land Manager requires the CO to respond to Finders as a condition of the placement, I could see that as a reason to have a Listing Archived, for breach of the original agreement (not that I've ever heard of this happening).

 

[+justintim1999]

34 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Like any other Listing on the site, the CO has the responsibility to maintain the Listing page on the site, to make sure the content is up to date, and deal with bogus or inappropriate language in the log entries.

There is no requirement for the CO to respond.  Regarding justintim1999's suggestion of having some sort of auto-responder to verify  visits, this has been tried and no longer allowed.   The FAQ section of the GSA website addresses this issue:

http://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Education_Careers/Field_Experiences/EarthCache/GSA/fieldexp/EarthCache/faq.aspx

If the CO is unresponsive, you COULD post an NM on the Listing page.  There's nothing stopping you from doing that, but I doubt that an unresponsive CO is regarded as a reason, in the absence of other issues, to take action on a Listing page.  On the other hand, hypothetically speaking, if the Land Manager requires the CO to respond to Finders as a condition of the placement, I could see that as a reason to have a Listing Archived, for breach of the original agreement (not that I've ever heard of this happening).

 

With very little maintenance having to be done on an Earth Cache and finds not having to be verified in any way, it seems to me that an Earth Cache owner could walk away and be gone for years and no one would be the wiser.   

[+icezebra11]

24 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

With very little maintenance having to be done on an Earth Cache and finds not having to be verified in any way, it seems to me that an Earth Cache owner could walk away and be gone for years and no one would be the wiser.   

Same can be said about virtuals.  I've done about 70 virtuals and 30 ECs and if I had to guess I'd say I've only gotten a 10-20% response rate from COs on both types.

[+justintim1999]

1 minute ago, icezebra11 said:

Same can be said about virtuals.  I've done about 70 virtuals and 30 ECs and if I had to guess I'd say I've only gotten a 10-20% response rate from COs on both types.

 Very true.  It seems odd that specific requirements are given to log a find but in many cases meeting those requirements doesn't seem to mean much.  As I said before, maybe the educational aspect of Earth Caches is enough to keep them around regardless of whether or not the owners are still active.     When you think of it, other than a conformation of success from the owner,  these caches basically run themselves

[+tomfuller & Quill]

The one and only time that I tried to delete a bogus log on one of my Earth Caches, I made the mistake of posting that I believed that the logger had never been in the US let alone to my Earth Cache.  Groundspeak made me allow the log since the German had given the correct answers.

There may be times when i don't respond to someones answers for a week or more but usually it is within 48 hours if the email address is active.

When I get a notice that a log has been posted on one of my EC's I expect an email or message from the poster within 12 hours. If the answers are right I congratulate them for learning the lesson.

[+Team Microdot]

On 08/04/2018 at 11:13 PM, tomfuller & Quill said:

The one and only time that I tried to delete a bogus log on one of my Earth Caches, I made the mistake of posting that I believed that the logger had never been in the US let alone to my Earth Cache.  Groundspeak made me allow the log since the German had given the correct answers.

That sounds odd.

There was a thread on here a while back where the question was raised as to whether 'found-it' logs should be allowed where a person had visited an Earthcache site prior to the publication date. As I recall, GSA's view was that such a person had not in fact visited the Earthcache and therefore was not entitled to log a find - which seems contrary to the example you describe above

[+Touchstone]

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

That sounds odd.

There was a thread on here a while back where the question was raised as to whether 'found-it' logs should be allowed where a person had visited an Earthcache site prior to the publication date. As I recall, GSA's view was that such a person had not in fact visited the Earthcache and therefore was not entitled to log a find - which seems contrary to the example you describe above

My impression of that thread and Matt's comments, was that he was offering up an opinion, not a Policy statement.  Link for reference:

In the end, these types of decisions fall on Groundspeak to decide, not the GSA, and the current Policy is in alignment with the logging requirements of physical caches. IMO, if folks are able to log Finds on an EC remotely without visiting the site at the posted coordinates, that sounds like a problem with the choice of Logging Requirements, not the way the current system operates.

[+Team Microdot]

7 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

My impression of that thread and Matt's comments, was that he was offering up an opinion, not a Policy statement.  Link for reference:

In the end, these types of decisions fall on Groundspeak to decide, not the GSA, and the current Policy is in alignment with the logging requirements of physical caches. IMO, if folks are able to log Finds on an EC remotely without visiting the site at the posted coordinates, that sounds like a problem with the choice of Logging Requirements, not the way the current system operates.

I thought there was a more recent thread than that which basically confirmed that the EC didn't exist until it was published and therefore couldn't be visited before that date.

But then again, at that time I thought the rule was that so long as you could answer the questions correctly that logging off the back of a visit before the EC was published was OK.

Think I'm more confused than when I started.

There is a post from a Groundspeak reviewer in that quoted thread though which says a person logging an EC MUST have visited the site.

[+Touchstone]

10 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I thought there was a more recent thread than that which basically confirmed that the EC didn't exist until it was published and therefore couldn't be visited before that date.

But then again, at that time I thought the rule was that so long as you could answer the questions correctly that logging off the back of a visit before the EC was published was OK.

Think I'm more confused than when I started.

There is a post from a Groundspeak reviewer in that quoted thread though which says a person logging an EC MUST have visited the site.

It could be this somewhat ambiguous one then:

 

[+Team Microdot]

1 minute ago, Touchstone said:

It could be this somewhat ambiguous one then:

 

That's the fella