+weswada Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Howdy, Hope you can 'spare a click' and vote on this one so i can get it resolved by the Groundspeak folks. I hid a cache in a nice spot on a nice trail in January 2003. It was a temporarily closed trail, so i mentioned that there were 'no trespassing' signs. So my cache was archived instead of approved until the county reopens the trail to the public. This meets the terms of geocaching.com guidelines. So i wait patiently until it becomes open to the public, so i can notify geocaching.com to activate my cache. Then i find out months later, that there is a cache next to mine and that someone else hid it a month after myself, and didnt mention the closed trail or the 'no trespassing' signs. So their cache was approved and active. I thought of it first and was honest about the condition and safety of the trail. and now i'm penalized, it seems. i wrote to the staff and they havent come to any decision. The terms of agreement on geocaching.com says that if i get a majority vote, then the outcome can be used to make them 'adjust' the situation. Can you help me by voting below? Thanks! [This message was edited by weswada on July 28, 2003 at 01:20 PM.] Quote Link to comment
+canadazuuk Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 we need a special tribunal executive appointed Quote Link to comment
+Runaround Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Two questions before I vote: 1. If it was a closed trail, how did you hide your cache in the first place? 2. Has anyone who found the other cache mentioned the closed trail or the signs in their logs? Could they have found an alternate route that didn't require them to take the closed trail? Now where did I park my car??????? Quote Link to comment
+Cornix Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Stuart's Law of Retroaction: It is easier to get forgiveness than permission. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 There's a cache there. What's the difference if its yours or someone elses? On the up side, it gives you another one to find. Would that hard to move your cache .10 mile away? I agree that the other cache should have been archived because it was illegal, but apparently other finders didn't notify this website that there was a problem and now it's legal, so it doesn't make sense to archive it. I do have one question. If the other cache was listed in Feb., how you could have not been aware of its existence? No island in your state has more than 95 caches. I know I'd certainly be aware of it if a new one appeared. "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry [This message was edited by BrianSnat on July 28, 2003 at 03:49 AM.] Quote Link to comment
+Team Lawrence Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Cornix:Stuart's Law of Retroaction: It is easier to get forgiveness than permission. I've got to mention that this was originally a quote from one of my all-time heros, Grace Hopper. Quote Link to comment
+Og's outfit Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 I voted, "YES" fight for your rights. I did that only because YOU were the one that got there first, and you followed the rules My vote made it a 50/50 tie. Maybe you could solve this easier if you just move your cache .1 mile away, as Briansnat mentioned. That way you would still have your cache, and you could log the interloper's one, too. You will allways know that you were "first", and it might save ill-will between you and other local cachers. There's my 2 cents worth. OG Prophetically Challenged (or is that Pathetically?) Quote Link to comment
+cachew nut Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Let me understand, are we voting to convince TPTB that your illegal cache should be allowed? Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 If TBTB let the "illegal" cache remain (assuming the only way to access the cache is through a closed trail), and then tell you that you not cannot place your cache because its too close, they are effectivly condoning the actions of placing an "illegal" cache by ommitting details of the hunt that would be violative of their rules. Condoning the "illegal" cache in this circumstance would send the message, to me, that as long as you explain your cache in a way that is "approvable," we don't care if it actually breaks the rules. I suppose I should monitor this situation carefully, because I want to know, in the future, if I should just describe my cache to please the approver, even if the actual circumstances are different. Pan "The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there." EDIT: Cachew nut has an interesting point. My opinion here is dependent on the fact that your cache wouldn't now be "illegal" too. Has the trail reopened? Quote Link to comment
Zaphod Beeblebrox Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Geocachers who enter closed areas should have their geocaching licenses revoked. Quote Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 If the trail is still closed, and the closure was reason enough to archive your cache, then it seems the other cache should also be archived. Then you'll have to race to get your cache unarchived once it's reopened. If the trail is now open, then I'm afraid you lose out. The thing to do might have been disabling it upon submission with a note to the approver. I don't know if that would have worked, but it was doomed to failure the way it was submitted. Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Scientific poll? 3rd choice should be "both were placed illegally. Both should be archived." My opinion is, the one who asked permission to place the cache wins. Did either of you ask permission? Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 If the trail is still closed, both should be archived. If the trail later becomes open, get yours unarchived first. Otherwise, move your cache down trail. Quote Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by sbell111:If the trail is still closed, both should be archived. If the trail later becomes open, get yours unarchived first. Otherwise, move your cache down trail. What sbell111 just said...yea, that's it. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 The majority vote didn't mean jack on the one case I brought up. Neither did the permission issue (it was a VC on NPS lands) It was never addressed directly (I gave up watching the thread and never got or heard of an email from those involved) Your cache isn't broke. Your terminology is off. It's common for trails to be closed for repair or winter etc. "Closed for season" is a more apt description of what you have. If they used "No Trespassing" for a closed that's just bad wordplay on the part of the trail owner. Since Jeremy has given his opinion, go for permssion, and get it first. Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Which one has the lower GC#? There was a similar battle awhile back (was that yours, RK?). One person asked for permission. While the paperwork was being processed, another cacher submitted a cache without permission. The cache that was submitted first ended up 'winning' the spot even though the other cacher was trying to do it properly. The admins said whichever cache was placed first gets posted on the site. This sounds similar to your situation, but you submitted your cache first and the other guy got the site. Can we have the admins use the same rules for everyone? Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness Quote Link to comment
Pantalaimon Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 quote:Can we have the admins use the same rules for everyone? HA! Good luck with that one! Pan "The internet to tell me where. A GPS to get me there." Quote Link to comment
mckee Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 What does it matter? In the grand scheme of things, this probably won't alter the course of human history, nor will it require someone in the distant future to travel back in time to correct this, thus saving mankind from almost-certain grave fate. They probably won't even make a movie about it. Not even an infommercial. The trail is open, activate your cache. Even if it's located nearby another cache. This has happened before, and it's a bonus for people searching for both caches. Now go and have fun! Quote Link to comment
+weswada Posted July 28, 2003 Author Share Posted July 28, 2003 Hi, Its me, 'lookin' for justice dude.' Thanks for all your posts. verrry interesting, to say the least. I was hesitating, but i'm glad i did the post after all, as it helps us to understand and clarify issues such as these. and to hear the experience of others who were in conflicting situations. Let me backup a bit and explain, as i think this will help to clarify many of the comments and suggestions. This is one of the most well known, if not the MOST well know trail on the island for a number of reasons, its name, its difficulty, and the height and view at the top. there's a organization that is caretaking the trail and pushed for its status as a state trail. and there are a handful of websites about it! thus the cachet of having a cache there! Of course the controversy of it being closed a few years ago, then renovated, and then now pending reopening by the state, is another thing that is causing pent up demand. You can read my original message, if you like, totally optional (as its a long read - see letter below), that i originally sent, so you can understand my feelings, as this will answer much of your inquires: -----BEGIN----- 5/1/03 hello jeremy, have a bit of a situation and would like to appeal to your sense of fairness and justice. have enjoyed geocaching and would like all to participate and have fun. but we all do want to follow the guidelines to keep it safe and fun. i placed a cache in january and was told that since the trail was not yet officially open by the county, with No Trespassing signs posted, i should wait for the official opening when the signs are removed and the public is free to enter. i realized my mistake in placing a cache in a no trespassing area and left the cache archived until the trail is reopened this year. then i found out from others cachers that someone else, a month after my hide, had put up a cache, omitting the fact that the cache was 'illegal' and not adhering to the guidelines of geocaching.com. i now find that i am unable to have my cache unarchived as it says that my cache is too close to an existing cache, the one in dispute! i surely dont want any 'bad blood' amongst us cachers, so i thought long and hard about just letting my cache site go, but everyone has been telling me that i should appeal to you for the sake of justice and that even your guidelines state that older caches have presidence, which i was not aware of. so, now feeling more rightful, i decided to write. after all, i did place the cache first and had the idea to put it where i did and mentioned honestly and accurately that the trek was in a officially still closed but newly renovated trail. meanwhile, the opposing cache failed to mention that the cache was in a closed trail and was able to get the cache posted by being misleading. we dont want to reward people who dont follow the guidelines and penalize honest cachers do we? What would be fair is to put my cache in disable status in preparation, prior to the trail being opened to the public, and to archive the other person's cache as well and inform the cache owner to relocate the cache beyond 528ft. and submit to unarchive. But please dont upset the conflicting cache owner, after all, that wont do any of us any good, and he may just pillage my cache! so if you do decide in my favor, just let him know that due to a oversight, his cache is too close to an existing cache, and if he can relocate it to another spot at least 528ft. apart, and then submit new coords and request activation when the trail is opened. Let me know. Aloha! -----END----- Keep posting and voting and lets see how it turns out. I'm fine no matter what happens. Aloha! here are my responses to the posts so far: - i like how in most forums, the 'first post' is the silliest, and most useless... :/ - the trail is 'closed' in terms of 'no trespassing' signs, but not 'physically' closed. word got around that the trail was completed after the military and state repaired all the stairs and railings and so folks were 'unofficially' hiking it everyday, prior to it being 'officially' opened by the state. - the trail is currently guarded by a uniformed police officer during daylight hours, until the state has completed their 'warning' signs and officially opens the trail to the public. so no way to go back up and move, change, or do anything. - what frustrates me, is that, while we wait for the trail to be opened, mine is 'archived,' so no one can see or read it, and the later cache, is 'inactive' so you could read it, get the coords, and still find it and log it 'after the fact,' if you know what i mean... :s - there is only 1 way up, no other routes to the summit, so no, there is no alternate 'legal' way up the trail. - just go move your cache? well yes, i can, thats why you should vote #2. but this is one fairly strenous trail (3+ hours straight up, round trip 5+ hours) and so, i'm not inclined to just go up there and move stuff around until i get a clear ok, either way. - y didnt i notice the opposing cache sooner? you misunderstand, i have been patiently waiting for the official trail opening, and then a cacher friend of mine told me that there was another one already up there in use, as he wanted me to go retrieve his 'wasted' travel bug... - moving the cache .1 mile away may be possible, but its quite iffy, keep in mind this is the peak of a mountain range and so there isnt much room up there, and i NEVER want to place a cache where it can endanger folks who seek it. And for the same reason, i have refrained from putting it along the trail up, as that is quite risky as if you let go of the vertical stairs railing, it may be your downfall...literally! Plus the hike is quite vertical, so i wonder if i would be able to extend out of the .1 mile requirement even along the trail stairs! - you have a point there about 'approving an illegal cache.' thats why, in my letter to them (below), i stated as much, instead of just 1 archived and the other 'inactive' which is screwy as it stands now. Dont kid yourself, i find that many cache descriptions are already 'embellished' or 'omitting' information to ensure that they get approved. but how would we prevent this? probably can't. i personally, take it upon myself, to just want to be honest and be true to my own play rules, as well as Groundspeak's. after all, how can i be a good ambassador or geocaching if i'm doing all kinds of stoopid stuff?! - license? what license? where do i get my geocache license? - i was not aware of the rules and so when i submitted my 'no trespassing' description of the cache (see letter above), and it came back as a no no, then i realized, 'oh yeah', that wouldnt be good. and so i thought, 'no problem', i'll just resubmit when the trail is opened...and then someone circumvented me, and the system! - Jeremy! thanks for contributing. ask permission? from Groundspeak? from the state? i'm not sure i understand? please clarify, or point me to your rules/terms/instructions so we can better understand... - i like the idea of having both archived. i think thats fair. as it stands, i'm upset cuz mine is archived, and the other inactive. if we both had equal treatment, this poll would not be here... - lower GC#? i dont see any #'s. only waypoint! where? what? help! - yes, this is NOT the end of the world. its only a game. thats why i let it go awhile after hearing about the unscrupulous way a cache got up there when mine didnt. but when my friend told me he wanted his travel bug to 'live' and that i should try as i'm in the right. and we had all these questions about how far apart do the caches need to be, whats the diff between inactive and archived, and such, we thought it a good exercise in better understanding geocaching and Groundspeak. i'm fine no matter how it turns out, but of course good feelings about the sport that i evangelize and how its run...is a nice plus, and would keep me interested in the sport. Keep caching! Quote Link to comment
dsandbro Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 There's only one fair way to settle this. Squirt guns at 20 paces. =========================================================== "The time has come" the Walrus said "to speak of many things; of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and Kings". Quote Link to comment
+SpongeRob Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Well last I looked it's 73% to 27%. Just when does the poll end and justice served? Honestly I get tired of all the geocaching.com politics. The hypocrisy never seems to end. Youre supposed to be hunting down a cache. Go find a cache and get over it. -- SpongeRob rwmech@keenpeople.com www.keenpeople.com WPWU826 Cache'n Retrievers Quote Link to comment
dave and jaime Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 a question that hasnt been asked is what is the defination of a closed trail? here a trail being closed generally means that it isnt maintained and that you are on your own when it comes to insurance. does being closed mean that you cant access the trail unless you trespass/enter illegally or does it mean that the stair/walkways are under construction and you should not enter? if you can only access the trail via trespassing then i agree that you got the short end of the stick for being honest, but if you can still avail of the trail but it is much riskier then i think that the other cacher in question acted amorally but did nothing wrong and you still got shafted. in any event i think you got an interesting case to argue and in light of you description of the area and the event maybe, depending on how close the caches are, when the trail area is opened there should be 2 caches. ps how close are the 2 caches anyway? 'Get to the point---speak English!!!!' Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by weswada:- lower GC#? i dont see any #'s. only waypoint! where? what? help! On the cache page there should be a small map of the state (or several states if they're back east). Next to it it tells you what state it is in, when it was hidden, the waypoint ID, and a link to make the page print friendly. The waypoint ID is listed as GCxxxx where xxxx stand for the unique number of the cache. GCG001 was placed before GCG002, etc. If YOUR cache has a lower number, then it was submitted to geocaching.com first and should be approved before another cache in the same spot. The approvers can view archived caches, but must have overlooked yours when approving the second cache. As long as the description on your cache page mentioned waiting for the official opening of the trail, the 'spot' should belong to your cache. Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness Quote Link to comment
+weswada Posted July 28, 2003 Author Share Posted July 28, 2003 squirt! squirt! spongie, guess the poll ends when jeremy or TPTB say so, if u're asking me... hey sax man, thanks 4 educating me. my cache id=49678 and their id=54977. d&j, the caches r under the min. 0.1 mile (528ft.) restriction imposed by Groundspeak. something i did not know existed until this happened. and whats the odds we would both hide our caches so close together?! thats how tight it is up there! yo! Quote Link to comment
+RJFerret Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Democracy in action, I love it! Unlike our govt., which is ruled by the minority, here we can have an open appeal and direct vote. - I don't believe the 2nd placer should be rewarded for going against the rules. - I do believe the initial placer should be rewarded for following the guidelines. - I do believe "first come, first served", such that the lower GC # should get priority. I would not be as offended were my approved cache subsequently denied listing based on a prior one, as much as having an interloper come in after me! I think the GC # solution is a wonderful egalitarian solution, and eliminates extenuating circumstances to a great degree (speeding the resolution). Let's adopt that rather than taking the time to be democratic--it'll save placers time, forum readers time, volunteer approvers time, TPTB time, etc. Enjoy, Randy PS: Of course, the 2nd placer will probably simply make his an offset, with the first state 0.1 mile away, and the destination yours. That way they'll log the finds on his cache page, and he can post a not found on your page when it needs maintenance! PPS: The real solution is to share, move apart, but promote each other on the pages and in the caches. Quote Link to comment
+Night Stalker Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 I had a similar experience. I placed a cache in a National Park and received permission. It was a virtual cache. Another cacher placed a cache at the same location and did not attempt to get permission, so their cache was approved while mine was waiting for approval. Mine has been archived since it was not submitted first. I appealed, but never received any reply from anyone but the other cacher who basically stated that I should get over it. Since I never received any reply of any kind I finally got the message and gave up. I hope you have better luck. Quote Link to comment
dave and jaime Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by weswada:... d&j, the caches r under the min. 0.1 mile (528ft.) restriction imposed by Groundspeak. something i did not know existed until this happened. and whats the odds we would both hide our caches so close together?! thats how tight it is up there! yo! i gathered that(sarcasim), but is it 525' or 50'? one could be worked around but according to your description the other couldnt. btw, anyone else having problems with the url, gremlins etc? 'Get to the point---speak English!!!!' Quote Link to comment
+nincehelser Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 I remember Night Stalker's issue and feel for him. Unfortunately, it does seem that people who try to follow the rules sometimes get penalized, and there seems to be no recourse. I think there are some problems with the approval process, but darned if I know how they might be fixed, but I do know it's driving some people away from this site. George Quote Link to comment
georapper Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 i put my cache in a national park, it was archived until moved. so i moved it 1 freakin mile to the border of the park and got it approved. i didn't whine about that. freakin' A, do all you geocachers whine this much? waaaaaaa.... move your cache .1miles away, is it that difficult? if you whine this much, maybe you shouldn't be doing this. go whine somewhere else. Creativity Within The Bounds Of Conformity Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by weswada:my cache id=49678 and their id=54977. Obviously, your cache was submitted long before the other one. The admin(s) probably saw that yours was archived, but didn't read the description as to why. If you explained the temporary closure in your cache description, then they messed up in allowing the other cache without contacting you first. If you didn't have it in the description, then you messed up. Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness Quote Link to comment
+Frolickin Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 Just out of curiosity, when your cache was archived (January), was it physically removed from the trail? Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:The admin(s) probably saw that yours was archived, but didn't read the description as to why. If you explained the temporary closure in your cache description, then they messed up in allowing the other cache without contacting you first. If you didn't have it in the description, then you messed up. Permit me to point out that approvers only recently acquired the ability to see archived caches when searching for the nearest cache. This capability was added as part of the new search page features. At the time of the second cache submission, the approver would not have seen the archived cache when running a search for the nearest caches. -------------------- Saving the day and approving all the caches... before bedtime! Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted July 29, 2003 Share Posted July 29, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Keystone Approver: quote:Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:The admin(s) probably saw that yours was archived, but didn't read the description as to why. If you explained the temporary closure in your cache description, then they messed up in allowing the other cache without contacting you first. If you didn't have it in the description, then you messed up. Permit me to point out that approvers only recently acquired the ability to see archived caches when searching for the nearest cache. This capability was added as part of the new search page features. At the time of the second cache submission, the approver would not have seen the archived cache when running a search for the nearest caches. Thanks for clearing that up. My new question to Weswada is why he didn't say something immediately after the second cache was placed? How long had the second cache been there before he realized it was in his spot? Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness Quote Link to comment
+weswada Posted July 29, 2003 Author Share Posted July 29, 2003 rapper, not whining, just trying to air discussion, as i said, i'll accept whatever happens... frolick, nope, AFAIK, the cache is still there, waiting for someone to 'first find' it...unless the rain and winds have blown it off the mountain, along with my friend's TB... Sax man, it was a few months, i figure, b4 i heard about it. no reason for me to suspect any other activity to be successful when mine wasn't... Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 quote:Originally posted by weswada:Sax man, it was a few months, i figure, b4 i heard about it. no reason for me to suspect any other activity to be successful when mine wasn't... How close do you live to the cache site? Is it within the 100 mile radius of your zip code? Hawaii isn't very big, so I'd imagine most, if not all, caches placed there would come up on a search from your zipcode or home coords. I did a search from the first hide listed on your profile and came up with 109 caches. Surely you check for new caches at least once a month? Many of us on the mainland check weekly or daily (even hourly sometimes). I find it hard to believe that you were unaware of a new cache being placed there for several months after it happened. Sure, not everybody lives breathes on this site alone, but not checking for new caches in 4 months or so? Sounds like you abandoned the area your cache was placed in. If you had noticed it within the first couple of weeks you would have a more convincing arguement. Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness Quote Link to comment
+Frolickin Posted July 30, 2003 Share Posted July 30, 2003 quote:Originally posted by weswada:nope, AFAIK, the cache is still there, waiting for someone to 'first find' it...unless the rain and winds have blown it off the mountain, along with my friend's TB... I'm confused. You placed the cache in January. It was archived immediately. The cache has remained out there. The trail is still closed. This sounds like litter. Fro. ________________________________________ Geocaching . . . hiking with a purpose Quote Link to comment
+weswada Posted July 30, 2003 Author Share Posted July 30, 2003 Sax man, Its all relative dude. If you live on a island barely 100 sq. miles. as you state, there's no reason to read multiple pages of caches when you know what trail you're going to and only need to see 1-2 pages of it. Some people look for new caches to find, others, choose a trail, and then determine if a cache exists, to seek, or to hide one if non exists. I am the latter about 90% of the time. Does that clarify? I still dont see your point, as even if i found it right away, i bet you i would be in the same situation i am in now...why would it b any different? it got active, while mine never did... Frolick, dont b confused, one man's garbage... Looks like this thread is cooked and ready to be served. we're about the only 3 left still posting to it and the poll ratio is pretty much static... Aloha! Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote: My new question to Weswada is why he didn't say something immediately after the second cache was placed? How long had the second cache been there before he realized it was in his spot? I asked the very same question earlier in this thread. If I lived on an island that only had 90 some caches, I'd be aware of any new ones that were posted. quote: I still dont see your point, as even if i found it right away, i bet you i would be in the same situation i am in now...why would it b any different? it got active, while mine never did... If you found there was an active cache in that area when you knew the area was closed, you could have had it archived. "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry Quote Link to comment
+Shoebox Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Have you talked to the owner of the second placer? Maybe if you explain the situation to them, they might move theirs and it would avoid the fight for permission stuff. Talk to them. Quote Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 quote:Originally posted by RJFerret:- I don't believe the 2nd placer should be rewarded for going against the rules. - I do believe the initial placer should be rewarded for following the guidelines. I agree with point one, the 2nd placer should not be rewarded for not following the guidelines. I disagree with point two for the very same reason. THis was not placed per the guidelines, for that matter, not even per the law. There were NO TRESPASSING signs in place per the original post. I wait and read the response and saw the logic that since others were disobeying the no tresspass signs, it was OK for his placement of the cache. I voted no because no other option was left, however both caches should be disallowed at this point even after the trail opens officialy. In reality, your upset because the second cache found a better way around the rules then you did. Quote Link to comment
+weswada Posted July 31, 2003 Author Share Posted July 31, 2003 Snat-man, I did notify TPTB about the illegality of the trail, and the cache. That is why it is now inactive, instead of active. But what i didn't get, is why it became 'inactive' instead of 'archived', like mine was. That's when i felt an injustice to this once simple mess... Shoe-man, Yes, i have emailed the cache owner via the geocaching site, and never got a response whatsoever, so either he's dead, moved, lost his internet access/email address, computer died, is currently serving in iraq, or got fed up with geocaching policy inconsistencies... Baloo, Like how you managed to slip in that the way to get things done, is to cheat and steal, to get the 'job done.' Thanks. I'll keep that dishonesty in mind the next time i submit a cache... I agree with you that both should be disallowed (as i mentioned in a previous post) but the reason i posted this, is exactly that. that one is currently 'inactive' while the other is 'archived.' Quote Link to comment
+Team GPSaxophone Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Email the approver listed on the bottom of your cache page. Tell them you would like the other cache archived dues to the 'no trespassing' signs. They might tell you that it is up to the other cacher, but if you can't get ahold of them through the site then you may have a case for an abandoned cache. Once the trail opens, move your cache at least .1 miles from the other one and submit it as a new cache. If the other cache is re-activated, then you have one to find yourself when you go out there again. Other cachers have twice as many reasons for hiking the trail since they can find 2 caches. Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness Quote Link to comment
+fly46 Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 I voted yes only because I'm tired of people breaking rules and screwing the rest of us in the proces.. I say move the cache and get over it, myself. Besides, if you say that there is a 5 mile walk round trip, more people will do yours if there are two of them up there... I don't know bout the rest of y'all, but I'd much rather walk that far for two caches.. Here's my Q though... Clarify this.... Were the No Tresspassing signs up when YOU went into the area and hid your cache? Because if they were, then YOU have no grounds to have your cache either, because that's also clearly against the rules for hiding a cache.. Quote Link to comment
+Brainerd Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Burn the witch! I agree, with fly46, BrianSnat, and many others. You are in the right, however, a .10th of a mile is nothing on a 5 mile walk. Is the other cache owner aware of the 'controversy'? If so, are they willing to move their cache? That would be the proper result, but it may not be worth the agitation and the raising of your blood pressure. Not until we are lost do we begin to understand ourselves. Henry David Thoreau Quote Link to comment
+Wadcutter Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Move on. Life is too short to worry about something so trivial. Quote Link to comment
+baloo&bd Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 quote:Originally posted by weswada:Baloo, Like how you managed to slip in that the way to get things done, is to cheat and steal, to get the 'job done.' Thanks. I'll keep that dishonesty in mind the next time i submit a cache... I have no idea where you pulled this out of my post. At no time did it say anything about "get the job done". Where did I say cheat or steal? Did you confuse my post with another? There were no trespassing signs up, both should be disallowed. Quote Link to comment
+woodsters Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 Gotta agree with Baloo...Neither cache should be approved if either one was placed when the no trespassing signs were up. From what it sounds like is that you placed your cache in an illegal manner and sat on it to wait for it to become legal (trespassing signs removed). That would be like people going and placing caches on NPS lands knowing they are not supposed to and then waiting for perhaps the NPS to allow cahces and those would say I got here first. Well yeah, maybe they did, but not when it was legal. Should of make a call to the approver back when the other person placed theirs and if they did so behind trespassing signs. Kind of hard to push it now when there are no signs, theirs is apporved and yours isn't. Brian As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump Quote Link to comment
+weswada Posted August 1, 2003 Author Share Posted August 1, 2003 quote:Baloo posted: ...I voted no because no other option was left, however both caches should be disallowed at this point even after the trail opens officialy. In reality, your upset because the second cache found a better way around the rules then you did. Maybe i was a bit harsh in my post to interpret what you said as to be 'dishonest'. sorry. but it sounds like you say that the '2nd cache found a better way...' so that's where i got that interpretation. dont get me wrong. i totally agree with you. thats why i'm bothering...i would like to see both of the caches on the same level, both inactive, or both archived, not one of each, as it now stands... We're getting a lot of opinions that are similar. So let me clarify. Firstly, none of us foresaw this conclusion of this cache approval. We were so giddy about geocaching being so 'unknown' that we'd be the first cache on this 'famous' trail. The No Trespassing signs have been there 'forever' and so most hikers were blind to them, and actually used them as 'where to park' landmarks when giving friends directions. Then we read in the newspaper how the state was getting ready to open the trail publicly. Thus we did not place the cache hoping it would become open, we KNEW it would become open, and in short order. Placing it in a no trespassing area was an oversight. but there are many, many trails here that have such signs, so if we are to truly follow that, which i am willing, then, there are about another 10 caches currently active, that i am aware of, that would need to be archived as well. In addition, since everyone keeps saying 'just move your cache' which i'm willing to do, i think its good for us to get some perspective of just how difficult it may be to find a place to safely 'move the cache' on this particular trail, do to its 'verticalness' and limited trail route. Please view and reassess. click the 'start slideshow' button on the top right: Haiku Stairs slideshow The thread marches on! Quote Link to comment
+woodsters Posted August 1, 2003 Share Posted August 1, 2003 I would imagine the signs are there for a reason. If you think they are there for other reasons than to not pass them, then contact the responsible party for that land and the trail. Ask them if it is allowed to hike past those signs. Forward whatever response you get to the approver if they say its ok. I would also place it on the cache page, because if I were a cacher and were going after it and saw the sign when I got there, I would be pissed. Honestly even if they say it's ok and they leave the signs up, I don't think it's a good idea. I would hate to be the one that gets "caught" and charged with trespassing. It's a tough call of what to do. Yes it's not fair if others do that and you feel honest and don't do it. You can either let the other cache owners know, flag the ones that are behind markef no trespassing signs (and not nmake many friends), or just let it go and look for another place to put a cache. One illegal action by someone else doesn't warrant one from you in return... Brian As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump Quote Link to comment
Wanderingson Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Is this the same place as posted in this article? http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2002/Oct/10/ln/ln01a.html I may be new to this geocaching thing, but from what I see in this photo, it is crystal clear that violators of the trespass sign will be procecuted. I recently joined the ranks of geocachers, but have been an avid hiker for some time now. Somewhere along the line I thought I heard words to the effect that other folks were doing it. Hmmmmm--let me see which side of the brain that one comes from. As a responsible hiker, I would be a dadgum fool to cross this apprantly well secured area. As a geocacher, I have a responsibility to the rest of the geocaching community to ensure I live up to the self imposed community standards of this community. This must come from within--If I choose to violate something as simple as tresspassing, what's next, posteing a cache for Hop Sings Noodle Shop or better yet, leaving inappropriate materials in my caches just because I read in this forum that other folks had done so? Bottomline--When I make a choice to log onto this website and fire up my GPS, I assume certain responsibilities. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.