Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
KayakGZ

Have The Rules Changed?

Recommended Posts

This morning, for new caches were published by NawthnRevuah in my area. I went for one this morning, and found problems. I sent the following letter to the reviewer:

Hello, this is KayakGZ. Today, several new caches were published under the name "thefabledhami". I went for "Ocean Overlook" this morning, and found several problems with it. In fact, all four of his new caches seem to have issues, which I'll get into.
First, "Ocean Overlook". It is located on Enders Island, which is a religious retreat open to visitors.  To get to GZ, the cacher must climb over rocks on which "stay off rocks" is clearly marked. No other way to GZ. He also suggests picking an apple off a tree. Enders Island is a nice place, and the presence of a geocache that encourages trespassing and theft is not a welcome addition. I strongly doubt that permission was granted.
Nearby, "Rocky Undertaking" is located under a narrow, causeway-like bridge, wide enough for one car. I was under the impression that caches could not be placed under bridges.
"Searching For Treasure" is located on Ram Island, which I believe in on private property. A few years ago, I paddled my kayak NEAR the private island, and was greeted by two unfriendly (guard?) loose dogs.  He either got very lucky in hiding this, or the dogs don't live there anymore. Again, I doubt permission.
"Bookworm" is located in the stacks of a public library. Once again, I doubt that the library gave permission.
Have the rules changed? Thanks for your attention.

"thefabledhami" is a new cacher, with 16 finds and these four hides. I don't know why these slipped under the radar. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Have you talked to the cacher and shared your concern? As a new cacher he might need some help.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

No, none of the rules have changed. :rolleyes:

 

"Ocean Overlook" provides access instructions.  There's nothing that would suggest to the reviewer that prohibited activities are required.

"Rocky Undertaking" is placed under a small bridge.  The listing guideline references "highway bridges."  I don't see a highway bridge in this area.

"Searching for Treasure" was hidden with permission from the property owner.

"Bookworm" was hidden with the library's permission, but does not conform to the guidance for indoor caches.  It needs a separate stage outside the library.

Edited by Keystone
  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, KayakGZ said:

Again, I doubt permission.

I wouldn't presume, without additional information.  We can't necessarily see the conversation between the Reviewer and the CO, and there may be additional information that we aren't seeing.

 

Interestingly enough, there is another cache on the island that has been active for quite some time without incident:  https://coord.info/GC3WJJ9

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, KayakGZ said:

This morning, for new caches were published by NawthnRevuah in my area. I went for one this morning, and found problems.

I sent the following letter to the reviewer: ...

 

Curious, did you email the CO as well ?    I see he did respond to your "CHOSE not to go to GZ"  DNF on a cache page...     

He might have replied the same in email too.    

I just find it odd to go straight to the Reviewer, creating issue on something you admittedly aren't sure about.

 - Then bring up the same Reviewer here in a world-wide forums.  One of those "how to make friends..." things.  ;)

Remember that you mentioned something about islands once before,  and looking back, I see you had plans on placing caches on islands too...

That's a fun coincidence.   :)

 

  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I just find it odd to go straight to the Reviewer

Some people are more comfortable going straight to someone they are familiar with, rather than confronting a new User, and the title of the topic is merely asking whether there has been a change (which Keystone addressed).

 

I think it's fair to ask, just like it's fair that we give them our accumulated wisdom and critique ;)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, KayakGZ said:

This morning, for new caches were published by NawthnRevuah in my area. I went for one this morning, and found problems. I sent the following letter to the reviewer:

Hello, this is KayakGZ. Today, several new caches were published under the name "thefabledhami". I went for "Ocean Overlook" this morning, and found several problems with it. In fact, all four of his new caches seem to have issues, which I'll get into.
First, "Ocean Overlook". It is located on Enders Island, which is a religious retreat open to visitors.  To get to GZ, the cacher must climb over rocks on which "stay off rocks" is clearly marked. No other way to GZ. He also suggests picking an apple off a tree. Enders Island is a nice place, and the presence of a geocache that encourages trespassing and theft is not a welcome addition. I strongly doubt that permission was granted.
Nearby, "Rocky Undertaking" is located under a narrow, causeway-like bridge, wide enough for one car. I was under the impression that caches could not be placed under bridges.
"Searching For Treasure" is located on Ram Island, which I believe in on private property. A few years ago, I paddled my kayak NEAR the private island, and was greeted by two unfriendly (guard?) loose dogs.  He either got very lucky in hiding this, or the dogs don't live there anymore. Again, I doubt permission.
"Bookworm" is located in the stacks of a public library. Once again, I doubt that the library gave permission.
Have the rules changed? Thanks for your attention.

"thefabledhami" is a new cacher, with 16 finds and these four hides. I don't know why these slipped under the radar. 

 

Honestly, there may not be a problem with any of these caches. You doubting that permission was given does not mean that permission was not given. You really need more evidence before immediately assuming something's wrong. At the same time, there's a decent chance your spidey senses are correct that one or more of them aren't adhering to guidelines. Talking to the cache owner with concerns might be a way to clear things up but if you're hesitant doing that, you can contact the reviewer to let him or her look into the perceived issues.

 

As far as the bridge cache, there is a restriction mentioned in the general guidelines. I believe though, this restriction is not set in stone. I would say it depends on a few factors such as the bridge's location, how busy the traffic is, and/or maybe the region of the country. 

Share this post


Link to post

so... id contact the owner first and see what they say... if you still think it breaks the guidelines then contact your reviewer. maybe they are just a new cacher.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Touchstone said:
5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I just find it odd to go straight to the Reviewer

Some people are more comfortable going straight to someone they are familiar with, rather than confronting a new User, and the title of the topic is merely asking whether there has been a change (which Keystone addressed).

Yep. There have been times when I've contacted the CO privately, there have been times when I've posted a log (NM or NA depending on the issue), and there have even been a few times when I've contacted the volunteer reviewer privately. It depends on the context.

 

I think the last time I contacted the volunteer reviewer privately was years ago, for a cache with a particular ongoing guideline issue and an ongoing "conversation" between the CO and the volunteer reviewer. The CO had claimed to fix the issue and reenabled the cache, multiple times. I saw no point contacting the CO, given the history plainly recorded in the logs. I hadn't visited GZ so I didn't feel comfortable posting a log. So I contacted the volunteer reviewer privately.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you to Keystone for giving us the full story. It sounds like one of the caches may have an issue, but that the others are just fine (as far as the information provided to the reviewer goes).

 

6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Unfortunately, there's nothing in the cache description that says the cache is on private property and was placed with permission. 

 

This is an interesting point, and one that I've run into in the past.

 

In my opinion, if a cache looks like it's on private property and permission has been granted, it would make a lot of potential seekers feel better if they saw a statement in the cache listing saying so. @Keystone, I know you and your fellow canine companions can't require adding such a statement, but do you ever recommend it to COs? If so, how often do COs tend to agree with you and do so?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

In my opinion, if a cache looks like it's on private property and permission has been granted, it would make a lot of potential seekers feel better if they saw a statement in the cache listing saying so. @Keystone, I know you and your fellow canine companions can't require adding such a statement, but do you ever recommend it to COs? If so, how often do COs tend to agree with you and do so?

From the Guidelines:

 

Quote

If you have permission to place a geocache on private property, indicate this on the cache page for the benefit of the reviewer and those seeking the cache. A community volunteer may ask you to provide contact information of the person giving permission.

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Thank you to Keystone for giving us the full story. It sounds like one of the caches may have an issue, but that the others are just fine (as far as the information provided to the reviewer goes).

 

7 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Unfortunately, there's nothing in the cache description that says the cache is on private property and was placed with permission. 

 

This is an interesting point, and one that I've run into in the past.

 

In my opinion, if a cache looks like it's on private property and permission has been granted, it would make a lot of potential seekers feel better if they saw a statement in the cache listing saying so. @Keystone, I know you and your fellow canine companions can't require adding such a statement, but do you ever recommend it to COs? If so, how often do COs tend to agree with you and do so?

 

I can't speak for any other reviewers, but I always requested that a CO add wordage in their cache description about permission info when the area was obviously private. I never said that it was required, I just told them that it would make future cache seekers more comfortable if they knew for sure there was permission. I know that it makes me feel better as a cacher. The CO's always added the information on the cache page, with no issues, after that.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 8/26/2019 at 6:39 PM, cerberus1 said:

I just find it odd to go straight to the Reviewer, creating issue on something you admittedly aren't sure about.

 

If you report to the reviewer you are not creating any kind of issue. It is more propable that you create an issue if you contact directly to the CO. If you report to everyone - then we certainly have an issue. :)

 

 

 

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

The C.O. is a new cacher-16 finds and four hides. I agree that it would be much better if he had mentioned that the Ram Island cache was placed with permission. I DID contact the C.O., and while he knew the property owner's name, he STILL didn't claim or mention permission. I guess I should give the Benefit Of Doubt to the new C.O.  Read my logs for the other cache on Ram Island. 

BTW, no answer for the note I sent to the Reviewer yet .

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, KayakGZ said:

BTW, no answer for the note I sent to the Reviewer yet .

You were zero for four on bad assumptions and allegations, so you could follow up with an apology.  You missed the one legitimate issue with these caches.  Hzoi may be along to ask you about your badge.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, KayakGZ said:

Read my logs for the other cache on Ram Island. 

Done.  Looks like the CO responded the same day.  Very conscientious CO.  Wish we had more CO's like that around 8)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Some people are more comfortable going straight to someone they are familiar with, rather than confronting a new User, and the title of the topic is merely asking whether there has been a change (which Keystone addressed).

Well, it might be easier to talk it over with the CO. If the OP's intent is to "confront" before he's heard the CO's side of it , I can see why he'd want to go through a 3rd party.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, KayakGZ said:

This morning, for new caches were published by NawthnRevuah in my area. I went for one this morning, and found problems. I sent the following letter to the reviewer:

Hello, this is KayakGZ. Today, several new caches were published under the name "thefabledhami". I went for "Ocean Overlook" this morning, and found several problems with it. In fact, all four of his new caches seem to have issues, which I'll get into.
First, "Ocean Overlook". It is located on Enders Island, which is a religious retreat open to visitors.  To get to GZ, the cacher must climb over rocks on which "stay off rocks" is clearly marked. No other way to GZ. He also suggests picking an apple off a tree. Enders Island is a nice place, and the presence of a geocache that encourages trespassing and theft is not a welcome addition. I strongly doubt that permission was granted.
Nearby, "Rocky Undertaking" is located under a narrow, causeway-like bridge, wide enough for one car. I was under the impression that caches could not be placed under bridges.
"Searching For Treasure" is located on Ram Island, which I believe in on private property. A few years ago, I paddled my kayak NEAR the private island, and was greeted by two unfriendly (guard?) loose dogs.  He either got very lucky in hiding this, or the dogs don't live there anymore. Again, I doubt permission.
"Bookworm" is located in the stacks of a public library. Once again, I doubt that the library gave permission.
Have the rules changed? Thanks for your attention.

"thefabledhami" is a new cacher, with 16 finds and these four hides. I don't know why these slipped under the radar. 

The problem is when a reviewer looks at the map unless it’s marked she does not see it’s a private island. Do cars use the bridge? If it’s a walking bridge it’s fine.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Keystone said:
13 hours ago, KayakGZ said:

BTW, no answer for the note I sent to the Reviewer yet .

You were zero for four on bad assumptions and allegations, so you could follow up with an apology.  You missed the one legitimate issue with these caches.  Hzoi may be along to ask you about your badge.

 

Sorry - late to the party on this one.  And a one, and a two, and a...

 

ab65d6b2-3e56-48d9-89f1-7cbcf432e8f0.jpg

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post

Let's just see about that. I messaged the C.O, asking if he had permission to hide a cache on Ram Island, and no answer. He answered other messages, but not that one.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

And I noticed he didn't respond to the note that was left the same day of publication...

 

Quote

Be careful getting this one folks...Ram Island (where the cache is located) is private property.

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, KayakGZ said:

Let's just see about that. I messaged the C.O, asking if he had permission to hide a cache on Ram Island, and no answer. He answered other messages, but not that one.

 

He answered the reviewer prior to publication, which is the better conversation to have.  Ideally, the CO would also have stated their permission as part of the cache description, as has been noted above.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 5

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, KayakGZ said:

Let's just see about that. I messaged the C.O, asking if he had permission to hide a cache on Ram Island, and no answer. He answered other messages, but not that one.

 

On ‎8‎/‎26‎/‎2019 at 6:34 AM, Keystone said:

"Searching for Treasure" was hidden with permission from the property owner.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I want to chime in because someone did this to me, once. One of my caches published and then a do-gooder very quickly messaged the reviewer (not me, ever) that permission for that location was IMPOSSIBLE. The reviewer contacted me to make double-sure I had gotten the permission. I felt sad and worried that someone out there was doing that sort of thing, and not even trying to contact me, made me feel real small, but thank goodness, of course I had gotten permission. It wasn't impossible at all. I'm glad no one posted a nasty-gram on the cache, as is seen in this case (I've had that, too). The 2nd DNF on the Ender island is a better example of how to respond, more tactful and educational.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

I went to a lot of trouble with the city records dept to determine the property owner where I wanted to place a cache. I wrote them a nice note, and they responded in writing  that they didn't want a geocache on their property. 

Several months later someone placed a cache on the property. I told the CO, who was very upset at my NA since she talked to neighbors who didn't care if a cache was placed there, and the CO "knew" that "no one" owned the property. I let the reviewer know that the property owners very specifically stated that they didn't want a cache on their property and I had documentation. The cache was allowed to remain.

Lesson learned. 

  • Surprised 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

I want to chime in because someone did this to me, once. One of my caches published and then a do-gooder very quickly messaged the reviewer (not me, ever) that permission for that location was IMPOSSIBLE. The reviewer contacted me to make double-sure I had gotten the permission. I felt sad and worried that someone out there was doing that sort of thing, and not even trying to contact me, made me feel real small, but thank goodness, of course I had gotten permission. It wasn't impossible at all. I'm glad no one posted a nasty-gram on the cache, as is seen in this case (I've had that, too). The 2nd DNF on the Ender island is a better example of how to respond, more tactful and educational.

 

It is necessary that the reviewer knows the facts. I don't understand why you worry if you really have the permission. I have tried diffferent ways to react and I can tell you that reporting to the reviewer was overall the best solution.

 

(A) Reporting to reviewer: The issue solved promptly without drama.

(B) Reporting to the CO: The issue still exists.

(C) Posting a nasty-gram: The issue was solved after the CO reported to the reviewer about my nasty-gram B)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I went to a lot of trouble with the city records dept to determine the property owner where I wanted to place a cache. I wrote them a nice note, and they responded in writing  that they didn't want a geocache on their property. 

Several months later someone placed a cache on the property. I told the CO, who was very upset at my NA since she talked to neighbors who didn't care if a cache was placed there, and the CO "knew" that "no one" owned the property. I let the reviewer know that the property owners very specifically stated that they didn't want a cache on their property and I had documentation. The cache was allowed to remain.

Lesson learned. 

 

Wow. I suppose the next step if you wanted to delve further into 'cache police' territory would be to inform the property owner, then they could contact HQ and tell them the cache isn't allowed. That might even embarrass the reviewer for continuing to allow it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

I want to chime in because someone did this to me, once. One of my caches published and then a do-gooder very quickly messaged the reviewer (not me, ever) that permission for that location was IMPOSSIBLE. The reviewer contacted me to make double-sure I had gotten the permission. I felt sad and worried that someone out there was doing that sort of thing, and not even trying to contact me, made me feel real small, but thank goodness, of course I had gotten permission.

 

We've done that on occasion... 

 Some COs having a hissy-fit, getting loud and sharing with others, over helpful advice from another, or simply leaving a NM.    

One once was a cache on private property ...ours ... and the CO telling me I'm a @$&# ,  he got permission from the owner.    ;)

 - That knucklehead emailed every person they were aware of, we're getting emails asking about this nut job,  and he didn't realize he was bad-mouthing the "owner he knew..." until he showed once to an event.  

It turned out another told him "right of way is public access" and he asked no one...

 

I don't care what people think, but for some time the other 2/3rds was treated really badly at events over some things that I do.

Those people we know who have over-reactive, histrionic behavior, we send a mail to the Reviewer. 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

One of my caches published and then a do-gooder very quickly messaged the reviewer (not me, ever) that permission for that location was IMPOSSIBLE.

 

I'm sure in the past they approached the land manager with an arrogant, self-entitled attitude and were rejected, and then assumed that if even THEY couldn't get permission, then there's no way any other lesser member could.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

I want to chime in because someone did this to me, once. One of my caches published and then a do-gooder very quickly messaged the reviewer (not me, ever) that permission for that location was IMPOSSIBLE. The reviewer contacted me to make double-sure I had gotten the permission. I felt sad and worried that someone out there was doing that sort of thing, and not even trying to contact me, made me feel real small, but thank goodness, of course I had gotten permission. It wasn't impossible at all. I'm glad no one posted a nasty-gram on the cache, as is seen in this case (I've had that, too). The 2nd DNF on the Ender island is a better example of how to respond, more tactful and educational.

 

Who knows? That cacher may have been denied permission at that location by one person but then you came along later and got a yes from another person. From what you said, it sounds as though the cacher used one of the options at his disposal to help make sure everything was ok with your cache. I imagine the process went something like this

 

Cacher emailed reviewer with his concern,

Reviewer looked over the cache listing and then contacted you to double check,

You responded back to the reviewer with a "you had permission",

And the reviewer said "Ok, Sounds good, Thanks!",,,, or something similar.

 

I don't see anything here that should a have made you feel sad or small. As has been stated, there are cache owners out there that get very defensive and downright upset when someone expresses a concern or says something about their cache. Letting a reviewer know about a potential problem is a good way to get things straightened out. It also helps alleviate some of the drama that might arise if a cache owner is contacted directly. ;)

 

Edited by Mudfrog
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

Who knows? That cacher may have been denied permission at that location by one person but then you came along later and got a yes from another person. From what you said, it sounds as though the cacher used one of the options at his disposal to help make sure everything was ok with your cache. I imagine the process went something like this

 

Cacher emailed reviewer with his concern,

Reviewer looked over the cache listing and then contacted you to double check,

You responded back to the reviewer with a "you had permission",

And the reviewer said "Ok, Sounds good, Thanks!",,,, or something similar.

 

I don't see anything here that should a have made you feel sad or small. As has been stated, there are cache owners out there that get very defensive and downright upset when someone expresses a concern or says something about their cache. Letting a reviewer know about a potential problem is a good way to get things straightened out. It also helps alleviate some of the drama that might arise if a cache owner is contacted directly. ;)

 

 

Could be my mistake, but the tone and impression I got at the time was malignant, not "Oh gosh I'm just doing my duty making sure everything here is A-OK". The reviewer showed me the email he received and it wasn't nice. The reviewer also had their own strong wording along the lines of "you better not have lied to me." It definitely made me feel bad. Not the sort of interactions and feelings you're going for in an uplifting hobby such as this. I wish now that I had kept the emails but apparently I've been "trashing" emails on that account, not archiving. Oh well, probably for the best.

My point is that this is a social hobby, of sorts, and we should try to be mindful of others' feelings. There are "good" and "better" ways (as well as "bad" and "worse") to approach an issue. Fortunately I was resilient enough to shrug this off and try to see it as maybe just the innocuous way you say in your post (though in my heart I know that's definitely not how it was meant, I read the email) but maybe someone else would be pushed away from the hobby. Are our actions and interactions going to strengthen the player base and the hobby itself, or damage it?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

Could be my mistake, but the tone and impression I got at the time was malignant, not "Oh gosh I'm just doing my duty making sure everything here is A-OK". The reviewer showed me the email he received and it wasn't nice. The reviewer also had their own strong wording along the lines of "you better not have lied to me." It definitely made me feel bad. Not the sort of interactions and feelings you're going for in an uplifting hobby such as this. I wish now that I had kept the emails but apparently I've been "trashing" emails on that account, not archiving. Oh well, probably for the best.

 

I understand you feeling. Just remember that voluntary reviewers are not well trained for customer service. For me, a reviewer insisted that I lied about a thing we have not ever discussed. I was almost posting an appeal just for the bad behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

 

Could be my mistake, but the tone and impression I got at the time was malignant, not "Oh gosh I'm just doing my duty making sure everything here is A-OK". The reviewer showed me the email he received and it wasn't nice. The reviewer also had their own strong wording along the lines of "you better not have lied to me." It definitely made me feel bad. Not the sort of interactions and feelings you're going for in an uplifting hobby such as this. I wish now that I had kept the emails but apparently I've been "trashing" emails on that account, not archiving. Oh well, probably for the best.

My point is that this is a social hobby, of sorts, and we should try to be mindful of others' feelings. There are "good" and "better" ways (as well as "bad" and "worse") to approach an issue. Fortunately I was resilient enough to shrug this off and try to see it as maybe just the innocuous way you say in your post (though in my heart I know that's definitely not how it was meant, I read the email) but maybe someone else would be pushed away from the hobby. Are our actions and interactions going to strengthen the player base and the hobby itself, or damage it?

 

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

I understand you feeling. Just remember that voluntary reviewers are not well trained for customer service. For me, a reviewer insisted that I lied about a thing we have not ever discussed. I was almost posting an appeal just for the bad behaviour.

 

I got harassed, pretty much called a liar, on a cache that I owned a while back. The reviewer insisted that I was trying to skirt listing guidelines. I got back in his face and we got things straightened out, but he never did admit he was wrong or offer up any kind of apology. I realize he had probably seen and put up with all kinds of carp from cache owners but it still wasn't right for him to jump to the conclusion, before contacting me, that I was trying to pull a fast one. 

 

Korichnovui, I may be wrong but I doubt many reviewers share emails like yours did. In my opinion, that was wrong and shouldn't have taken place unless consent was given by the reporter of the perceived problem.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

To be clear, I’m not bashing the reviewer, that person has helped me a lot really. It was just a stressful situation really and if I wanted to ascribe blame it would be towards the “do-gooder”.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

To be clear, I’m not bashing the reviewer, that person has helped me a lot really. It was just a stressful situation really and if I wanted to ascribe blame it would be towards the “do-gooder”.

 

Do you think that it is less stressfull when someone do-gooder posts a "Needs Archived" to your cache because he thinks that it is not allowed by the land owner?

 

11 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

The reviewer showed me the email he received and it wasn't nice.

 

I think that this was not the correct or the best way to handle this. If I want to report something to the reviewer, I really want that I just report and what happens next happens only between the reviewer and the cache owner, if the reviewer considers that there is something to be sorted out. Making the issue somehow personal should be avoided.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Korichnovui said:

To be clear, I’m not bashing the reviewer, that person has helped me a lot really. It was just a stressful situation really and if I wanted to ascribe blame it would be towards the “do-gooder”.

 

In the end, given the kerfuffle, did you put a note on your description letting finders know that you have permission for the cache?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, arisoft said:
11 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

The reviewer showed me the email he received and it wasn't nice.

 

I think that this was not the correct or the best way to handle this. If I want to report something to the reviewer, I really want that I just report and what happens next happens only between the reviewer and the cache owner, if the reviewer considers that there is something to be sorted out. Making the issue somehow personal should be avoided.

 

I agree with everyone with regards to the reviewer showing you the email. I consider it a breach of trust.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

In the end, given the kerfuffle, did you put a note on your description letting finders know that you have permission for the cache?

Actually for that specific cache I didn’t. Maybe it’s a pride thing? But I did add the language in some subsequent caches that were in a similar environment / same ownership situation. I don’t really like having to do so as I consider it to be just one of the things a CO should do and I would hope it would be presumed behind the scenes. Having to explicitly state it on the page acknowledges that there is a problem with getting permission sometimes. I suppose it brings the issue into the light to make more people aware of that issue. It would just be nice if acquired permission were so common and matter-of-course that we wouldn’t have to state so on our cache pages — it would be safely presumed.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Korichnovui said:

Having to explicitly state it on the page acknowledges that there is a problem with getting permission sometimes. I suppose it brings the issue into the light to make more people aware of that issue. It would just be nice if acquired permission were so common and matter-of-course that we wouldn’t have to state so on our cache pages — it would be safely presumed.

 

Explicit permission isn't always required. There are areas where no permission is required, or where blanket policies apply. I greatly appreciate it when I arrive at a cache that looks like it's on clear private property and see it stated in the description that explicit permission was granted.

  • Upvote 3
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

 

Explicit permission isn't always required. There are areas where no permission is required, or where blanket policies apply. I greatly appreciate it when I arrive at a cache that looks like it's on clear private property and see it stated in the description that explicit permission was granted.

As do I. But I also think, "Wouldn't it be nice to know that permission was granted simply by virtue of the fact that a cache was placed here at all?"

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

As do I. But I also think, "Wouldn't it be nice to know that permission was granted simply by virtue of the fact that a cache was placed here at all?"

 

It would be nice. Unfortunately often caches are on private property without permission, and it's easy for it to get past a reviewer - whether deceptively or unknowingly or if things changed over time.  So there can be legitimate concern when someone arrives at a property, noting that the cache is within the property bounds with no indication that it's okay to, essentially, trespass.  It would be nice if a sign were put up saying 'geocachers welcome' - and sometimes this happens - but for the most part, as a geocacher seeking a cache with no indication of granted permission, I don't think it's safe to have any base expectation that current permission is granted to enter private property.

 

It's really only an issue when there's signage or indication that you need to enter private property. If there's no obvious restrictions or signage, then it's pretty much all a moot point.  Permission may be granted, but there's nothing facing the cacher saying "do not enter" to raise a concern.  If there is, then that little comfort note on the description saying "It's okay" is a very welcome addition.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

We attended months of a township's meetings before we finally got the meeting time to just explain the hobby.

They "heard bad things" about the hobby, but the  other 2/3rds has a lot more patience than I...   :)

Eventually we were told where a caches may go, and where they can't.   She placed a small in one spot the following weekend.

Within months, three more caches were placed by others, one in a sensitive area,  when the township asked us what the heck's going on.

Those people thought it was okay to hide because we had a hide there.   That park has no caches now,  burned by cachers.

I don't believe that if we wrote "placed with permission of..." on the cache page, it would have made a difference. 

Those same people would have assumed it's okay for them then too...

 

We had similar happen a couple of times, but those areas had a parks manager savvy enough to "correct it" for the ones who didn't ask. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Korichnovui said:

As do I. But I also think, "Wouldn't it be nice to know that permission was granted simply by virtue of the fact that a cache was placed here at all?"

  Our world is populated by humans, with all their attendant foibles.

 

Not in my immediate area, but nearby, there are some caches that are on commercial property.  On more than one awkward occasion, it was clear they knew nothing of the placements.  It makes me think that some folks view "private property" as only that belonging to private citizens, rather than also including businesses in their requests for permission.  When caching in that area, unless the cache description explicitly states that permission was granted, I'm very careful to scrutinize the lay of the land before proceeding ... and most often give it a miss, especially if placed by certain COs.

 

Besides cachers failing to attain explicit permission for whatever reasons, there are muggles that may well overextend their claims to properties.

 

Case in point:  I had just taken a photo of the clue included in the first stage of a multi [located in another state], placed on the shoulder of a quiet road in the country.  As I prepared to return it to a structure clearly located on the road's shoulder (DOT property), a redneck in her monster truck veered in from the road, pulled in behind me, rolled down her window, and quite hostilely informed me that I was on her property and insisted I be gone immediately ... then sat there, essentially blocking me in yet making it clear she intended to make sure I left.  Okay ....  Rather than argue the point of property lines, I decided that whether or not she had the right, she definitely felt her 'space' was threatened by my presence and was ready to defend it.  I finally had to ask if she expected me to jump the curb, or would she be moving to unblock my egress?  Exasperated, she did move - spitting gravel - about 50 feet up the adjacent drive and stopped at her mailbox.  I moved on [with Stage 1 still in hand!] to the first convenient place and worked out the puzzle, figuring I'd give it a while for her to relax her vigil.  (As it turns out, that place I pulled in happened to be 4 feet from the final - ha - thank you muggle!  (And it was definitely on public property with blanket permission.))  About an hour later, I cruised back by.  The coast was clear, so I replaced Stage 1 - while stopped in the road (again, a quiet country lane) - then sped away.  To their credit, the COs did move that stage as soon as I let them know about the incident. 

 

In another, more caching-friendly town nearby, I had a cache in hand, walking back to my car to sign, when the nearby property owner arrived in his car and politely asked that I remove it - now.  Although it wasn't on their property (as he acknowledged without my pointing it out), it made him uncomfortable.  Explaining the hobby to him didn't change his attitude.  Feeling that it wouldn't show geocaching in a good light, and could alienate muggles from tolerating placements, to argue the point of right-of-way and property lines with adjacent owners, I acquiesced without further ado, informing the CO and posting about the removal in my NA log. 

 

So yes, it would be nice, but I'm not so sure that's a realistic expectation, given the nature of the [human] beast.

Edited by VAVAPAM
whatever
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2019 at 5:24 PM, The A-Team said:

Thank you to Keystone for giving us the full story. It sounds like one of the caches may have an issue, but that the others are just fine (as far as the information provided to the reviewer goes).

 

 

This is an interesting point, and one that I've run into in the past.

 

In my opinion, if a cache looks like it's on private property and permission has been granted, it would make a lot of potential seekers feel better if they saw a statement in the cache listing saying so. @Keystone, I know you and your fellow canine companions can't require adding such a statement, but do you ever recommend it to COs? If so, how often do COs tend to agree with you and do so?

Even if it is not required to add something to a cache listing indicating that a cache is on private property and that permission has been granted, I'd think it would be a courtesy to other geocachers for a CO to include something.   I can just imagine a scenario of LEO seeing a geocacher entering private property and questioning/detaining the geocachers because they are unaware that permission was been granted.  Having a print-out (or access to the listing from a phone) might make a potential encounter with a LEO or even the property owner go a bit smoother, then just a claim that "I have permission".   

 

As I see it, the cache in the library (except for the issue with the lack of a waypoint which requires GPS use) and the one under the bridge don't have issues but the other two may be cases of "just because you can place a cache, doesn't mean you should".  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/26/2019 at 11:04 AM, L0ne.R said:

 

Quote

"Searching for Treasure" was hidden with permission from the property owner.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC8CKB3_searching-for-treasure

 

Unfortunately, there's nothing in the cache description that says the cache is on private property and was placed with permission. 

 

Follow-up info. The reviewer has disabled the Ram Island cache. 

Share this post


Link to post

Follow-up:

2 of the 4 caches that the CO posted have been reviewer disabled.

The CO invites cachers to ignore signage on the second cache that was disabled, because he's seen people fishing at the end of the rock wall,. He concludes that therefore the signage to 'please keep off' is just a request that can be ignored. 

In addition, one of his 4 cache hides is in a library. No note in the description about permission being granted. A librarian asked a finder "did you do this?" But the librarian liked the cache, signed the log, and returned it to the shelf. 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...