Disappointed by Groundspeaks attitude.

[+MuzzaDazzler]

Very sad to see Groundspeak react so blandly about a geocache that has been placed in what appears to be a locked waste dump site and yet claims to be dog and child friendly. Where somebody mentions it is disgusting in their log the CO has deleted claiming abuse. Groundspeak  upheld this and stated that not every cache is child friendly.   What is the point of the attribute system then? This cache is listed as being child friendly. 

This cache is surrounded by pools of animal waste from the manure, broken glass and appears to be on private land. If approaching from the road you need to pass a locked gate.  None of this was questioned by GS and they just said they could see why the log was deleted. This seems to me to be a total disregard for people actually going caching with respect to their safety.

I was really really disappointed to hear this response and although the cache is abused the CO is not.  Yet the CO  replied to the person who logged personally abusive on the message system. 

I think they should have a total rethink regarding their approach in these matters. I started caching because I believed it to be caring and friendly yet of late it appears far from it and becoming more focussed on GS turning a quick dollar at cachers expense. 

 

Putting this here as I hope they might see it and rethink. 

 

[+Max and 99]

A locked waste dump site? Yikes!

[Keystone]

What listing guideline does the cache violate?  (Quoting would help, as would a GC Code.)

 

Example:  Did someone claim the cache was hidden without permission, and you were trespassing?

 

Please note, with limited exceptions, policing the attribute selection is not part of the review and publication process; it's left up to the cache owner.

[+MuzzaDazzler]

My gripe is not with the cache, the CO either but Groundspeaks reaction. It is a locked gated access one side or through the dump the other. 

 

They have ignored the safety aspect and just focused on the use of the phrase this cache is disgusting as being abusive 

[Keystone]

What guideline provision regulates safety?  Please be specific.  Should all caches requiring rappelling down cliffs or climbing trees be archived?  How about all caches that you drive a car to visit? More people die or are injured in car accidents than while hunting a geocache.

[+Max and 99]

In my area, the reviewers have archived or not approved caches beyond locked neighborhood gates. Kinda similar to what you describe. It was an access issue. So often geocachers were told it was a private area, and to get out.  Hence the locked access gate.

[+MuzzaDazzler]

Hi Keystone

 

The cache does not violate any listing requirement afaik. A GC code feels tantamount to bullying imho as those involved will be readily identifiable. 

 

The log that was deleted as being “abusive” also referenced this can not be child friendly.  It really isnt wrt young kids. Maybe 9/10 and above ok. 

 

As above my bewilderment is that calling a cache disgusting is upheld as abuse yet they choose not to question why the cacher deems it so and as a danger to kids.  

 

Seems odd. 

[Keystone]

Since there is no identifiable listing guideline violation, I'm not sure what you expect Geocaching HQ to do about a CO who hid a cache in a place you didn't care for.

 

I'm also at a loss to understand how this apparently substandard cache helps the website "turn a quick dollar at cacher's expense." 

[+cerberus1]

18 minutes ago, MuzzaDazzler said:

My gripe is not with the cache, the CO either but Groundspeaks reaction. It is a locked gated access one side or through the dump the other. 

 

They have ignored the safety aspect and just focused on the use of the phrase this cache is disgusting as being abusive 

 

No longer doing C&D, cache n dash, whatever you care to call 'em,  the majority of caches I head to anymore have a locked gate. 

 - The property beyond it is open to the public.

I haven't been to a cache yet that's rated for safety (there's no such thing), though we did archive a bunch when we felt the area was no longer "safe".

 - But I agree, if it's practically a dump, it may not be child-friendly.

If the child-friendly attribute was changed/removed, would that be your only issue with this cache?

 

[+niraD]

7 minutes ago, MuzzaDazzler said:

As above my bewilderment is that calling a cache disgusting is upheld as abuse yet they choose not to question why the cacher deems it so and as a danger to kids.

It helps to keep in mind that Groundspeak has control over the listings, logs, and other online information posted to the geocaching.com site, but does not have control over the geocaches placed by us, the geocachers. Groundspeak cannot remove the geocache you're concerned about. All they can do is archive (or threaten to archive) the listing.

 

Which brings us back to Keystone's question about whether any guidelines have been broken by the listing.

 

Safety is only mentioned in the guidelines in reference to the safety (or lack thereof) of downloading files. In general, safety (or the lack thereof) is not a reason to archive a cache. However, some unsafe conditions might indicate that adequate permission was not obtained by the cache owner. Caches are usually archived quickly when a lack of adequate permission is demonstrated.

[+MuzzaDazzler]

Keystone

 

I am not expecting them to just focus on a log that shows clear dislike of a cache without wondering why and that the same log calls into question the safety of kids at the site. 

 

A fast buck is still me griping over the removal of a great app and replacing with a barely useable one  but also the speed of their response and lack of seeing what is really at stake here. A waste of their time yet if in the future a child does get harmed here what then by what amounted imo to a rash reply with disregard to any cachers safety. 

[+MuzzaDazzler]

Cerberus1 and nira and probably also Keystone. 

 

Hard to explain for me.  Yes if Groundspeak had asked the CO why they thought it child friendly perhaps I would feel better.  They just told the logger that not all caches are child friendly (of course) but not questioning that this cache has this attribute. Perhaps it is tough to appreciate. I have been there.  It is possibly the most disgusting 1.5/1.5 I have ever done although i have done many extreme caches with a rating of 3 or above where i expect safety issues.  And not child friendly. 

 

So help me understand Groundspeaks attitude or responsibility please. Is referring to a cache site as disgusting abusive such that they should uphold that it is deleted by the CO?

 

And the questioning of the caches suitability for children seeing as that attribute is used is not?

 

 

[+Max and 99]

I logged a DNF on a cache once and stated you should NOT bring kids here as there was a chopping table, carcasses, and several hundred bloody feathers very close to GZ. The cache was at a trailer park.   It was disgusting. and I was very glad my daughter was rushed to the car so she wouldn't see it. My log was deleted. Groundspeak re-instated it and locked it.  Right or wrong from the CO's point of view, I felt it important to let others know that it was not a place to bring young children.  

After that I voted with my feet, and stayed away from that CO's hides.

 

The one mentioned in the OP is different, I realize. That one was disgusting and unsafe, and access is questionable.  Mine was just disgusting.

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Max and 99

[+LizzyRN]

It seems to me that MuzzaDazzler is bothered by the "child friendly" attribute and the deletion of the log. If it's disgusting, and someone logged that, I believe that log should NEVER have been deleted. I see comments like that in logs and I take them as a reminder to STAY AWAY from that cache. I would not bring my grandson to that cache, either. I might however, bring him if the "child friendly" attribute was there, not knowing it was considered disgusting. I value the feedback of cachers and use the logs to determine whether or not I'm going to attempt a cache.  It sounds like in this case, the "child friendly" is misleading and potentially dangerous.  My vote would be keep the log as it was written, if it didn't contain anything otherwise offensive. 

 

Why would the log be deleted?  Perhaps the CO realizes it was true and was offended. 

[+Max and 99]

9 minutes ago, LizzyRN said:

It seems to me that MuzzaDazzler is bothered by the "child friendly" attribute and the deletion of the log. If it's disgusting, and someone logged that, I believe that log should NEVER have been deleted. I see comments like that in logs and I take them as a reminder to STAY AWAY from that cache. I would not bring my grandson to that cache, either. I might however, bring him if the "child friendly" attribute was there, not knowing it was considered disgusting. I value the feedback of cachers and use the logs to determine whether or not I'm going to attempt a cache.  It sounds like in this case, the "child friendly" is misleading and potentially dangerous.  My vote would be keep the log as it was written, if it didn't contain anything otherwise offensive. 

 

Why would the log be deleted?  Perhaps the CO realizes it was true and was offended. 

I wholeheartedly agree. 

On a side note, it would be so easy for the CO to change the attribute to NOT kid friendly. Such an easy thing to do.

[+niraD]

Just a reminder...

4 hours ago, Keystone said:

Please note, with limited exceptions, policing the attribute selection is not part of the review and publication process; it's left up to the cache owner.

 

Also, there is no standard definition for what the "Kid Friendly" attribute means. For some, it might mean a location free of certain types of hazard. For others, it might mean a container large enough for trade items. For others, it might mean something else entirely. The "Kid Friendly" attribute is not one that Groundspeak or the volunteer reviewers will police.

[+arisoft]

5 hours ago, MuzzaDazzler said:

None of this was questioned by GS and they just said they could see why the log was deleted.

 

Is it true that instead of reporting the cache to the reviewer you tried to "solve" this matter by your own means?

 

Cache owners are stubborn people and in the most cases, it is not worthy of trying to convince them to change anything in their reviewed cache construction. Instead, reporting problem to the reviewer can make the change. For example, the reviewer may recheck that there really is a permission to place the cache in a closed area.

[+Roseysaurus]

4 hours ago, LizzyRN said:

It seems to me that MuzzaDazzler is bothered by the "child friendly" attribute and the deletion of the log. If it's disgusting, and someone logged that, I believe that log should NEVER have been deleted. I see comments like that in logs and I take them as a reminder to STAY AWAY from that cache. I would not bring my grandson to that cache, either. I might however, bring him if the "child friendly" attribute was there, not knowing it was considered disgusting. I value the feedback of cachers and use the logs to determine whether or not I'm going to attempt a cache.  It sounds like in this case, the "child friendly" is misleading and potentially dangerous.  My vote would be keep the log as it was written, if it didn't contain anything otherwise offensive. 

 

Why would the log be deleted?  Perhaps the CO realizes it was true and was offended. 

I was the one who logged this cache and had it deleted. Nothing in my log was offensive or a lie or personal. I wrote my log to try and deter people with kids and dogs from going to a potentially hazardous location. I received a long message from one CO that basically accused me of being abusive. I was blunt but in no way abusive. Several of this series had us walking in places with no footpaths not I highly doubt permission.

 

My log was then deleted. I logged it again and then received more messages from the other CO calling me abusive again. I then suggested they look up the word abusive. My next message had the dictionary definition of abusive with their interpretation of how I had been "habitually cruel". 

 

A lot of their caches are difficult to log, I have always been respectful in my logs and not said too much about the rubbish nearby or strange locations. This one, however, is different! I have done many caches that are higher terrain, with my 8 year old, and I would take him back to most of them. This is a 1.5/1.5, with a "recommended for kids" attribute. It is behind a locked gate which can also be approached via a field with no public footpaths. It has big mounds of woodchips and manure. Disgusting rank water of unknown depths. Rubbish, broken glass. And I'm pretty sure no public access. I was very tempted to log an NA straight away but felt that harsh for a new cache. 

 

So in trying to let people with kids and dogs know what this location is like I've had my log deleted and been accused of being abusive. Something which I am not. Ground speak don't like my tone, believe me, I was being restrained. It is foul and hazardous and not a place I ever want to have to visit again.

[+terratin]

1 hour ago, Roseysaurus said:

A lot of their caches are difficult to log, I have always been respectful in my logs and not said too much about the rubbish nearby or strange locations. This one, however, is different! I have done many caches that are higher terrain, with my 8 year old, and I would take him back to most of them. This is a 1.5/1.5, with a "recommended for kids" attribute. It is behind a locked gate which can also be approached via a field with no public footpaths. It has big mounds of woodchips and manure. Disgusting rank water of unknown depths. Rubbish, broken glass. And I'm pretty sure no public access. I was very tempted to log an NA straight away but felt that harsh for a new cache. 

 

 To be honest, this does not sound much different than the farms me and other kids used to play on, and hide from the farmers. Probably not the best place for a cache, but what is disgusting for some might be interesting for others.

 

I would probably be more concerned about the access issue. Ok, there is a locked front gate. Thus no access there. Are you allowed to walk over fields where you live? If so, and this area is not private property then I don't see an issue there. Geocaching IS an outdoor game after all, and most caches I at least find are not on paths but hidden somewhere in nature away from paths. If not then I would probably post a NM first, only focussing on access and private property, then a NA if nothing is done. Also makes me wonder why you went there in the first place if access seems a problem? Why not turn around and drive away?

[+MuzzaDazzler]

1 hour ago, terratin said:

Also makes me wonder why you went there in the first place if access seems a problem? Why not turn around and drive away?

 

It is part of a series where several previous logs question access to others in the series. So we were not on the road nor able to drive away.

 

This matter was also escalated to Groundspeak after a couple of system messages exchanged that became personal.

 

However my post still seems unanswered in my view.  But then perhaps I never got my “feelings of concern” across correctly with respect to groundspeaks reply. 

 

IMO the access right is not valid here as that’s up to reviewers. It isn’t what bothers me either. I’m sure millions of caches are placed around the world with out permission

 

Do others think it ok that Groundspeak allow log to remain deleted because of describing the location as disgusting and not looking at why it was described as such?  As the rest of the log clearly states the fear of safety for kids and dogs. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by MuzzaDazzler
Typos

[+MuzzaDazzler]

niraD

 

I guess you come close to answering this actually. In stating that they don’t police “attributes”.  I guess one persons safe location to another can be different. But pretty sure everyone would call this unpleasant for everyone. 

 

But food for thought.  Thanks. 

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, Roseysaurus said:

I was the one who logged this cache and had it deleted. Nothing in my log was offensive or a lie or personal. I wrote my log to try and deter people with kids and dogs from going to a potentially hazardous location. I received a long message from one CO that basically accused me of being abusive. I was blunt but in no way abusive

 

And this is the real issue here.

 

As a fellow geocacher I would want your informative log to stand so that either I had some insight as to what to expect at GZ or so that I could decide this wasn't the sort of cache I wanted to go looking for and could avoid wasting my time.

 

Geocaching is a community activity and always has been. The process of sharing our opinions and experiences through our logs as a means of informing our fellow cachers is fundamental to that community approach. I worry about the motivation behind this form of censorship and the negative impacts that could arise from it over the longer term.

[+JL_HSTRE]

10 hours ago, MuzzaDazzler said:

Is referring to a cache site as disgusting abusive such that they should uphold that it is deleted by the CO?

 

You keep referring to this. Problem is, based on the history of people posting about such things on these forums, everyone here is rightly skeptical to wonder what is the full text and other side of the story regarding the "not abusive" log and the "abusive" reply by the CO.

 

As for the cache itself:

 

1. Is the cache location on public property? Or private property stated as with permission?

 

2. Is there any No Trespassing or other prohibitive signage, either on the locked gate or the open animal waste area?

 

3. Is the cache in the waste area or do you pass through the waste area to reach it?

[+thebruce0]

4 hours ago, MuzzaDazzler said:

the access right is not valid here as that’s up to reviewers. It isn’t what bothers me either. I’m sure millions of caches are placed around the world with out permission

 

If you really want to see the cache disabled or archived, or otherwise properly adjusted by the CO, I'd suggest contacting the land owner and asking if permission was granted on that property for a geocache.  Either there was, wasn't, or it's not private property. Only one of those options will get the cache archived.

Everything else, as explained above, are things that GS can't really "enforce".

 

The log deletion is another matter, and also as commented above, it's hard for anyone to draw a conclusion without knowing the full story, or both sides. All too often the forum is where one side of a conflict airs their grievance, and it's not a fair or balanced explanation; not the whole story.  So don't take it personally that everyone isn't jumping to a conclusion on your side.

[+hal-an-tow]

3 hours ago, terratin said:

 To be honest, this does not sound much different than the farms me and other kids used to play on, and hide from the farmers. Probably not the best place for a cache, but what is disgusting for some might be interesting for others.

 

I would probably be more concerned about the access issue. Ok, there is a locked front gate. Thus no access there. Are you allowed to walk over fields where you live? If so, and this area is not private property then I don't see an issue there. Geocaching IS an outdoor game after all, and most caches I at least find are not on paths but hidden somewhere in nature away from paths. If not then I would probably post a NM first, only focussing on access and private property, then a NA if nothing is done. Also makes me wonder why you went there in the first place if access seems a problem? Why not turn around and drive away?

 

British law does not permit walking around farmland except on officially designated and mapped legal rights of way (there are exceptions where there is the 'right to roam' mostly in upland areas, and not local to  the O.P.) or permissive access land set by the landowner and always clearly signed as such . Certainly in lowland rural areas near towns farmers are going to be deeply unhappy to have folk trespassing, especially in areas of the farm where hazards exist and the farmer may find themselves sued for compensation for any injury which occurs ( strange but true  - thank you, no win no fee lawyers ) Groundspeak in the USA really  does not have a grasp of our R.O.W. laws , they devolve that task to the reviewers. Should anyone get hurt whilst caching the reponsibility will be lain at the door of the cache setter, not at groundpeak, that's the way it is set up, so potential broken glass cuts or whaterver are none of their concern.

 

A locked front gate is strong evidence that the farmer does not welcome uninvited visitors, and if there is no legal right of way passing close to GZ from the other side I cannot imagine how a UK reviewer published the listing without proof of permission unless that other side appears to  be a public park or permissive access area with free access rather than a private farmer's field. 

 

Complaining to Groundspeak about a deleted log was the right thing to  do, however , all  they are interested in is the evidence they have, which is the content of the log (archived is not the same as deleted, it's still there for them to  see) and any communication since via the message centre or e-mails through their system. Goodness knows how many disputed log complaints they get to handle in a week , but I'd imagine it's a lot, and most of those disputes fall into a number of common categories which no doubt have a stock e-mail response ready at the push of a button. It may be that your communication got a quick skim read and a stock  response, when you were expecting a knowledgeable informed and thoughtful individual reply. Assuming you signed the log, you should get the find, I can't see there can be any doubt about that, the CO cannot deny it. If they don't like criticism of their GZ, and Groundspeak think that the log is in some way unacceptable, well, they may be wrong , but there's  not a lot you can do about it, their database, their rules. Log it with a bare 'found it' or an unhappy smiley or something, and move on.

 

I'd suggest you approached getting this this apparently guideline contravening,  trespass requiring,  and maybe dangerous listing sorted out in the wrong way, as I said above, their database, their rules ! So, show that the cache contravenes those rules and has no implicit or explicit permission. Find which reviewer published it, and send them a message with information about the location - if the locked gate isn't visible on google street view, add a photo, if there is a 'private' or 'no trespassing'  notice be sure to include it. Do a screenshot of the OS map showing no R.O.W. , add a photo of the rear access and the state of the area. The reviewer knows the UK R.O.W. setup, understands the conventions of our countryside, and  is responsible for allowing the listing to be published, and if they are shown that they may have made an error of judgement in not asking for specific permission for this particular cache, they can disable the listing and require evidence from the CO that permission is in place. It is entirely the responsibility of the CO to prove permission, not yours to prove a lack of permission, so rousing credible doubt should be sufficient . If that reviewer doesn't respond after a few days, try another,  the publishing reviewer may be retired/ill/holidaying, and the matter needs looking at asap.

 

I've put plenty of logs saying the GZ is an unpleasant , rubbish strewn place to be looking for a cache, or too trespassy for  me to risk going to  - but they are generally a DNF or a note respectively , and so far none has been deleted, perhaps as well as not caring about their caches , such COs also don't tend to care about  the logs ! Most cachers may not bother reading the previous logs, but for any who do, I agree with you that a dubious location is something you should mention so people can make an informed decision when planning an expedition.

 

Finally, I'd treat the CO's other listings with great caution, if they consistently flout access law ( and from what I've seen, such cache setters do have a pattern of behaviour )or stretch the rules in other ways, I ignore their listings. Finding and logging them is a sort of validation of the cache which I'm not happy to make, I'd rather miss out on the smiley than endorse a dodgy cache.

 

 

[+Touchstone]

Judging from the conversation, it sounds like this "dog and child friendly" quality that your seeking is just a bit out of Groundspeak's stated mission.  I'd hazard that this "dog and child friendly" aspect of the game varies from one region to another, and what works in one area, won't work in other areas very well.  This might be something a local group can encourage, on a local level.  I'm not sure Groundspeak, being a global company, is the right vehicle to push forward this idea.  Maybe you can develop something locally, through Events and education, to encourage the types cache placements the local Community deems appropriate.

[+cerberus1]

7 hours ago, Roseysaurus said:

I was the one who logged this cache and had it deleted. Nothing in my log was offensive or a lie or personal. I wrote my log to try and deter people with kids and dogs from going to a potentially hazardous location.

 

Curious, what are other cachers logging? 

If it's that bad I'd assume others opinions would also come close to your statements, so why did yours get picked to delete?

Thanks. 

[+hal-an-tow]

7 hours ago, Roseysaurus said:

I was the one who logged this cache and had it deleted. Nothing in my log was offensive or a lie or personal. I wrote my log to try and deter people with kids and dogs from going to a potentially hazardous location. I received a long message from one CO that basically accused me of being abusive. I was blunt but in no way abusive. Several of this series had us walking in places with no footpaths not I highly doubt permission.

 

My log was then deleted. I logged it again and then received more messages from the other CO calling me abusive again. I then suggested they look up the word abusive. My next message had the dictionary definition of abusive with their interpretation of how I had been "habitually cruel". 

 

A lot of their caches are difficult to log, I have always been respectful in my logs and not said too much about the rubbish nearby or strange locations. This one, however, is different! I have done many caches that are higher terrain, with my 8 year old, and I would take him back to most of them. This is a 1.5/1.5, with a "recommended for kids" attribute. It is behind a locked gate which can also be approached via a field with no public footpaths. It has big mounds of woodchips and manure. Disgusting rank water of unknown depths. Rubbish, broken glass. And I'm pretty sure no public access. I was very tempted to log an NA straight away but felt that harsh for a new cache. 

 

So in trying to let people with kids and dogs know what this location is like I've had my log deleted and been accused of being abusive. Something which I am not. Ground speak don't like my tone, believe me, I was being restrained. It is foul and hazardous and not a place I ever want to have to visit again.

 

"habitual cruelty" = 2 logs with a negative assessment of the loveliness of GZ ?  Hilarious.

Really, dont engage with these people, they bruise far too easily.

 

It was a mistake to answer them (especially engaging sarcasm mode for the definition of 'abusive'  which obviously stung them , despite being true !) , as it then appears to be a dispute between cachers which must be  a total pain in the posterior to police from a distance, whilst if you'd  not replied to the CO  ,  but just sent Groundspeak the log deletion info and those messages to you from the CO the outcome may have been different.

 

Mind you, If Groundspeak are deleting logs based on their tone , I have seen some particularly nastily expressed logs from a couple of cachers on a puzzle series I've been working away at solving recently   ... 

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I think this thread is a great example of why you simply can't judge something without the facts. It's human nature for someone to paint what they say/write in a flattering light while leaving out the parts that might not make them look so rosy. And, of course, to make the other guy look like the biggest jerk in the world at the same time.

 

In this case, I'd side with GS. They are the ones that see the truth happening behind the scenes and have had to moderate tons of disputes between CO's and finders. If they deem a find log worthy of being deleted and archived, something tells me that find log contained more nastiness than "this place isn't fit for kids. What a dump". 

 

I also share the opinion that if you are approaching GZ and you find manure, glass, woodchips, rank water, rubbish, etc. and you don't care to visit a place with those things present...then just leave. Saying you hate that kind of place and find it disgusting doesn't hold much weight if you power through and get the smiley. If your goal is to get the smiley, then who cares what kind of dumping ground the cache is hidden at? If your goal is beautiful locations, then you can always turn around and find someplace more appealing.

 

I understand wanting to write a log to express your thoughts and perhaps let others know what they might be in for, but that needs to be done with civility. Most disagreements can be settled at DEFCON 5 but way too many people go immediately to DEFCON 1 and start launching nukes. 

[+arisoft]

9 hours ago, Roseysaurus said:

I was the one who logged this cache and had it deleted. Nothing in my log was offensive or a lie or personal. I wrote my log to try and deter people with kids and dogs from going to a potentially hazardous location. I received a long message from one CO that basically accused me of being abusive. I was blunt but in no way abusive. Several of this series had us walking in places with no footpaths not I highly doubt permission.

 

It the CO feels that your log was abusive, you should edit the log as requested whatever you feel yourself. The CO is like a resposible editor in a newspaper. If the CO do not like your attitide you should change it. It is not matter of who is right or wrong, it is matter of power and responsibility. There are other means to change things. You can report to reviewer or make appeal. I have done both with huge success. No need to create a social drama.

Edited June 2, 2018 by arisoft

[+cerberus1]

9 hours ago, Roseysaurus said:

My log was then deleted. I logged it again and then received more messages from the other CO calling me abusive again. I then suggested they look up the word abusive. My next message had the dictionary definition of abusive with their interpretation of how I had been "habitually cruel". 

 

The only time we ever had an issue with a CO on logging,  I logged again with a very short log,  just barely above a "TFTC" that we see a lot of today.   

The intention for the new log was to simply log  Found It.  The other 2/3rds needed that day for some stat thing at the time... 

Having been hassled by a few COs, to the point I no longer do certain caches, the last thing I'd do is argue with a stranger over dumb stuff.

 

I realize that it really bugged you, but back and forth messages probably didn't help your case with HQ.  IIRC they can see those, and know they can see what you said in your deleted logs.

[+niraD]

10 hours ago, Roseysaurus said:

This is a 1.5/1.5, with a "recommended for kids" attribute. It is behind a locked gate which can also be approached via a field with no public footpaths. It has big mounds of woodchips and manure. Disgusting rank water of unknown depths. Rubbish, broken glass. And I'm pretty sure no public access. I was very tempted to log an NA straight away but felt that harsh for a new cache. 

What battle are you trying to fight here?

 

If you want to warn potential seekers of the conditions at GZ, then stick to the facts: mounds of woodchips and manure (which just sounds like a compost pile to me, FWIW), stagnant water, rubbish (maybe some CITO is in order), and broken glass. Leave out opinions like the word "disgusting" or that it is not suitable for kids. If Groundspeak won't reinstate that log, then go with a "TFTC" log as suggested by cerberus1.

 

If you want the CO to remove the "Recommended for Kids" attribute, then you've done all you can. Continuing to argue with the CO will probably just make him stand his ground more firmly, and this isn't a battle that Groundspeak is going to support you on.

 

If you want the cache archived, then your best bet is to pursue the lack of permission, as has been suggested multiple times.

[+Team Microdot]

If someone finds GZ disgusting they should be free to say so in their logs.

 

As far as anyone knows that might be precisely the reaction the CO was looking for.

 

Who are we to judge?

[+arisoft]

8 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

If someone finds GZ disgusting they should be free to say so in their logs.

 

Sometimes it may be inappropriate sometimes not. Do not forget that you are writing the log primary for the cache owner and yourself. Most content problems arise when you are trying to write a log like a blog, primarily for some other audience. When you visit your friend's house, do you write that the house was disgusting into the guestbook?

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

When you visit your friend's house, do you write that the house was disgusting into the guestbook?

 

None of my friends have a guestbook in their house.

 

Nor are any of them disgusting.

 

So no.

 

[+barefootjeff]

12 hours ago, terratin said:

I would probably be more concerned about the access issue. Ok, there is a locked front gate. Thus no access there. Are you allowed to walk over fields where you live? If so, and this area is not private property then I don't see an issue there. Geocaching IS an outdoor game after all, and most caches I at least find are not on paths but hidden somewhere in nature away from paths. If not then I would probably post a NM first, only focussing on access and private property, then a NA if nothing is done. Also makes me wonder why you went there in the first place if access seems a problem? Why not turn around and drive away?

 

A locked gate doesn't necessarily imply private land or no access. Most of our parks and public reserves have locked gates on them just to keep motor vehicles out, not people on foot. It should be pretty easy to check on-line zoning maps to see whether it's public or private land.

With mention of dogs, I should also point out that the attribute with the dog on it means "dogs allowed", not "dog-friendly". In any case, neither GS nor the reviewers are able to enforce attributes since they haven't been to GZ to see it for themselves, and kid-friendly can mean vastly different things to different kids and parents - without having seen GZ, one could speculate that some might even see it as a learning experience (this is what happens if you don't tidy your room!).

[+MuzzaDazzler]

I do appreciate the input here and respect that I cannot quote.  I was not the logger so have no access to the original log. So yes, I don’t think it was personally abusive but I cannot quote.  I read it as it was published and then was informed it was deleted for abuse. 

 

That Groundspeak have stock answers is possibly correct.  And I guess “mistakes” will slip through the net. 

 

I’m also aware that these can become a witch hunt on platforms such as this and fb which was why I declined to give a GC number for identification. 

 

My agenda has never ever been to castigate the CO, the reviewer nor to have the cache archived. It was amazement at the fact that they upheld deletion when kids safety is at stake.

 

 I now see that no one really feels that is their remit (I do) but  then I question why they allow logs to be deleted in this manner so that others can inform the next cachers what to suspect. 

Edited June 2, 2018 by MuzzaDazzler

[+Harry Dolphin]

My viewpoint:  As others have said, we are only hearing one side.  No direct quotes.  That makes it difficult.

I had one CO delete my log twice because she did not like my log,  Probably something like:  Ugly area, why did you hide a cache here?  GS reinstated my log, and locked it.  The CO encrypted my log.  I decrypted it.  I guess GS did not find my log offensive.  But times have changed.  Think I had a similar problem with a cache in the parking lot of a porn store.  That one became a DNF since caches are permitted in the parking lots of porn stores...  Which I found to be quite offensive...

On the other fin, my nephew deleted two logs on his EarthCache since the cachers did not answer the questions.  One cacher accepted that.  The other continued to log the cache.  After the third deletion for not answering the questions, that CO became quite insulting.  The e-mails were sent to GS, and that cacher was banned from ever logging that cache.  

So, without knowing what the logs and e-mails said, it is difficult to offer my opinion.  As I said:  times have changed.  But my experience is that Groundspeak is quite good in what it does or does not accept.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

6 hours ago, MuzzaDazzler said:

It was amazement at the fact that they upheld deletion when kids safety is at stake.

 

Groundspeak doesn't take safety into consideration when dealing with publishing caches or resolving disputes. They have a disclaimer that spells out in no uncertain terms that when you go geocaching, you accept the risks associated with caching and that GS is not liable for anything that happens to you in the pursuit of a cache. 

When you go out caching, it is up to you to decide whether a cache is too dangerous to attempt to find. If you have a child along, then the child's safety is the parents responsibility. Not Groundspeaks and not the cache owners. 

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, MuzzaDazzler said:

why they allow logs to be deleted in this manner so that others can inform the next cachers what to suspect.

 

This question is answered in Terms of Use Agreement

Quote

You agree not to: Publish on our websites the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the geocache owner.

 

It is sort of spoiling when you describe the experience too detailed.

[+Team Microdot]

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

This question is answered in Terms of Use Agreement

 

It is sort of spoiling when you describe the experience too detailed.

 

Q. How is describing the area around GZ a spoiler?

 

A. It isn't - at least on a cache which is at the published coordinates.

[+hal-an-tow]

14 hours ago, MuzzaDazzler said:

I do appreciate the input here and respect that I cannot quote.  I was not the logger so have no access to the original log. So yes, I don’t think it was personally abusive but I cannot quote.  I read it as it was published and then was informed it was deleted for abuse. 

 

That Groundspeak have stock answers is possibly correct.  And I guess “mistakes” will slip through the net. 

 

I’m also aware that these can become a witch hunt on platforms such as this and fb which was why I declined to give a GC number for identification. 

 

My agenda has never ever been to castigate the CO, the reviewer nor to have the cache archived. It was amazement at the fact that they upheld deletion when kids safety is at stake.

 

 I now see that no one really feels that is their remit (I do) but  then I question why they allow logs to be deleted in this manner so that others can inform the next cachers what to suspect. 

 

I'll applaud and agree with all your comments apart from the last one, which I think is based on a  misunderstanding of what Groundspeak is: their remit is simple, but it's overlain with publicity puff which causes a higher than sustainable level of expectation from their customers. I'll explain:

 

I've said it before, I'll no doubt say it again : Groundspeak is not geocaching,  Groundspeak is a company who have made a business out of hosting a database of geocaches other  people set ( at their  own expense) and volunteers review ( for no financial reward ) . The advertising and publicity material giving a happy shiny impression of their centrality to the world of geocaching and fostering a club type feel raises the expectations of people that Groundspeak will be far more engaged in the actual experience of caching (and cachers) than they are.

 

The business is about selling access to the database, selling advertising , selling trackable numbers, selling apps. Essentially any disputes between cachers are going to be a business expense of time spent by paid workers (unless there are yet more unpaid volunteers doing that too for 'work experience' of course ... ) . Therefore for any dispute or complaint a quick decision and a stock reply is unfortunately going to be the likely response to what may be a complex and nuanced situation in a country the worker making the decision probably has never even been to. . What's in it for Groundspeak ? Nothing to be gained, just a loss of respect from at least one party in the disagreement, and possibly a tiny revenue loss if they later renounce paid membership.

 

A dodgy unpleasant GZ is no worry to Groundspeak,  as long as it appears to follow the rules, they will allow it. Then all responsibility for the listing is on the cache setter,  all responsibility for choosing to go to GZ is on the cache hunter - Groundspeak's hands are washed, their interest is minimal.

 

Companies who foster a 'warm & fuzzy', best of friends impression as an outer layer over their basic, profit motivated purpose are courting enormous disappointment from their paying customers when circumstances eventually part the fluff, and reveal the hard reality beneath. .Trust me on this, I'm in the process of car buying, and I'm meeting a lot of lovely new best friends in dealers showrooms who are highly skilled at the warm and fuzzy routine, simply to get their hands on my money , it's fun (if slightly wearing) to observe their technique .I notice that strangely several of them share my slightly unusual muscial tastes,  but without being able to name any performers , just agreeing with the names I mention ...

[+K13]

Maybe the CO would allow a log something like this?...." Wow, what an adventure in finding this cache!  I worked out an alternate route to GZ after finding the locked gate near the roadway.  It was like a scene from a movie as I passed a few piles of decaying woodchips and other rubbish.  I was careful to avoid the broken glass and other debris and the puddles of dank water all about the area. I was thankful that my little guy was at the dentist today, or I would have spent more time looking after him, instead of the search for the cache. Cheers."

 

Sometimes you have to sugar-coat the description of GZ as a part of your story about finding that cache.

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Q. How is describing the area around GZ a spoiler?

 

The CO desides what is spoiling and what isn't. You newer know what is the experience the CO wanted you to have. In many cases it is the area around the GZ instead of the cache itself.

Edited June 3, 2018 by arisoft

[+LizzyRN]

On 6/2/2018 at 12:29 AM, Roseysaurus said:

I was the one who logged this cache and had it deleted.

Sorry, I attributed it to the wrong person. I'm sorry your log was deleted. I believe in honesty in our logs, without being foul or crass. Many of us use logs to determine if we'll seek a cache. Sour grapes to that CO.

[+Max and 99]

3 minutes ago, LizzyRN said:

Sorry, I attributed it to the wrong person. I'm sorry your log was deleted. I believe in honesty in our logs, without being foul or crass. Many of us use logs to determine if we'll seek a cache. Sour grapes to that CO.

 

I sure do!

[+MuzzaDazzler]

K13.  Brilliant.  I shall remember this response for future logs and may even go back and edit my own log. 

 

Hilarious approach.  I wish we had all written that. 

 

Still laughing.  It’s so good I think you must have been there. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by MuzzaDazzler

[+Team Microdot]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

The CO desides what is spoiling and what isn't. You newer know what is the experience the CO wanted you to have. In many cases it is the area around the GZ instead of the cache itself.

 

Ah - so we're supposed to be mind readers? Now I understand.

 

My mind reading skills are weak, so I guess I should play safe and just write a blank log so as not to offend the CO by inconveniently writing about something that they have predicted must be part of my subjective experience but must also remain secret.

 

It's all so terribly complex. Too much for my tiny brain.

 

Of course I'm joking. If my experience involved disgust I'm going to write about it. If the CO doesn't like it they should have put the cache somewhere better.

[+MuzzaDazzler]

From the terms of use.  

1. Misrepresent the location, permission status or legality of a geocache you have submitted through our services.

2. - What does misrepresent the location mean then???

1. Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute (including by emailing us) any content that threatens or attacks others on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, religion, age, disability or disease; is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, profanity, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, harmful to minors; or is otherwise reasonably objectionable to any person or entity.

2. -Not a lot of room for negativity with that last generalisation. 

But really time to let this go.  Will await to see how GS respond to my “official” complaint but it does look like they cover their bases. 

[+Touchstone]

32 minutes ago, MuzzaDazzler said:

From the terms of use.  

1. Misrepresent the location, permission status or legality of a geocache you have submitted through our services.

2. - What does misrepresent the location mean then???

1. Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute (including by emailing us) any content that threatens or attacks others on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, religion, age, disability or disease; is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, profanity, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, harmful to minors; or is otherwise reasonably objectionable to any person or entity.

2. -Not a lot of room for negativity with that last generalisation. 

But really time to let this go.  Will await to see how GS respond to my “official” complaint but it does look like they cover their bases. 

Misrepresenting the location would be to submit a Listing that passes Review, then to change the coordinates to the correct spot, post publication, with the intent to subvert a proper Review.  There are variations on this approach, that fall under the header of, "gaming the system".