How To Get Cache Archived?

[Bobthearch]

I've reported two caches that should be archived. One is a vacation cache left on private property that No One has ever found. The second is a very fragile archaeological site. I e-mailed the Geocaching website a couple of months ago and absolutely nothing happened.

 

Shouldn't someone at least have responded to my e-mail? Both of the caches are still active. Here's a link for the private property cache:

 

Baldy01

 

Note that the cache owner has never visited the website, never logged a cache, and the e-mail address is no good. Odd how four accounts are watching this cache...

 

What's up? Is the local approver asleep at the wheel?

 

-Bob

[+Stunod]

I don't see your "Needs Archived" note on the cache page...

[+briansnat]

One of the admins will review your note and take action if think your concerns are legit. Could be a few days. They are hesitant to archive a cache that is actually there, because it then becomes geo-litter if nobody picks it up.

 

And yes, as Stunod said, there is no "needs archived" log from you on the page, so are you sure you actually did it? A regular e-mail to the website (which it seems you did) can get lost among the thousands they get every day. The Needs Archived log will go directly to the admins who can take action.

 

As for the one on the archaeological site, have you contacted the owner about it? Perhaps they are unaware and would be happy to move it. If they refuse, or ignore you, then go the "needs archvied" route.

Edited February 5, 2004 by briansnat

[+Mopar]

I've reported two caches that should be archived. One is a vacation cache left on private property that No One has ever found. The second is a very fragile archaeological site. I e-mailed the Geocaching website a couple of months ago and absolutely nothing happened.

 

Shouldn't someone at least have responded to my e-mail? Both of the caches are still active. Here's a link for the private property cache:

 

Baldy01

 

Note that the cache owner has never visited the website, never logged a cache, and the e-mail address is no good. Odd how four accounts are watching this cache...

 

What's up? Is the local approver asleep at the wheel?

 

-Bob

Looks to me the cache owner has found 2 caches, and hid 2 caches, the other hide is archived already. How can your local approver be sleeping on the job if you didn't log a SBA on the cache? They aren't all sitting in an office in Seattle huddled around a monitor watching the hundreds of emails a day I bet goes to the general contact email.

[Bobthearch]

The first cache, the non-existing one with private property issues: I didn't place a note on the cache's website, but if you think it would help... I ~did~ send e-mail about it and never heard anything. That was a couple of months ago.

 

The second one, the fragile archaeological site (don't want to place a link for it here): I ~did~ place a note on the cache page, four months ago, as well as send e-mail. It's a Virtual cache to begin with, so there's no litter issue.

 

-Bob

[+Mopar]

dadgum, 'Snat beat me to it while I was typing!

[Bobthearch]

Aha! I didn't read their entire stats. Notice that that the other cache they owned (archived) was in Akron. The last time they found a cache was 2001.

 

Going to place note on Bady01 page now...

 

-Bob

[Bobthearch]

Doing archaeological surveys, 50 years is a strict cut-off, no judgement involved. If there's a GLO survey marker from 1955, we don't record it. If the date is 1953 we do. 50 years...

 

In my opinion, they need to come up with a cut-off date, rather than an age. There's just too much 50s and 60s junk. Pretty soon we'll be recording trailer park pads as archaeological sites. I'd personally choose WWII as a cut-off. Post WWII stuff is so common, and so mass produced, and so well documented, that there's very little research interest or potential.

 

There are newer places of obvious historic interest, and places newer than 50 years old can be added to the National Register of Historic Places. That's not the same as an "archaeological site."

 

Just because sites aren't on maps, you aren't banned from visiting. You can still go there, they just don't advertise the locations publicly. You apparantly have no idea the amount and severity of vandalism and theft on public lands. Fossil-thieves and cave-defacers are also serious problems.

 

You might also be interested to know that the locations of archaeological sites are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Meaning you can't go to the B.L.M. and demand to see archaeological records, or any goverment records that show precise site locations. Caves have similar protection I think. Archaeological firms, such as where I work, often publish two versions of the same report, a full report with detailed location info that goes to the state and other government agencies, and one without specific site or artifact locations that can be released to the general public.

 

Since your interest appears to be nature preservation, I bet you wouldn't want thousands of people trampling cryptogramic soil or fragile riparian areas. That could happen if specific fragile natural were labeled as such on public maps.

 

There's a similar re-occuring conversation that goes on in outdoor communities. Does advertising a great hiking spot, say by writing a Backpacker article, bring in so many people that the area is ruined? Or does it help protect the location by bringing attention to potential threats? Fortunately there are significantly fewer geocachers than readers of Backpacker and our impact is proportionately less.

 

It's not a question that will be easily answered on these forums. But what we can do is follow the established Geocaching guidlines, which prohibit placing caches at archaeological sites or in fragile environmental areas.

 

The problem is that some people, the type of people unlikely to be Geocachers, get "public" land confused with "their" land. Conversely, archaeological sites on private property are Not protected. If you have an arch site on your property, you can dig it up, bulldoze it, leave it alone, whatever. The only exception is that burials are protected on private land - via. the Unmarked Graves Protection Act, and another law meant to protect historic cemeteries that can also be applied to prehistoric burials.

 

Thanks for listening. Nothing but good wishes,

-Bob

[Bobthearch]

 

This is crazy! Where did the other posts go to? especially Renegade Knight's that I was replying to? Now everone probably thinks I'm crazy!

 

There were 14 posts to this thread just a minute ago. Honest!

 

-Bob

 

Edited February 5, 2004 by Bobthearch

[Bobthearch]

It worked! Thanks. I was really getting tired of seeing this one listed every time I searched for local caches.

 

Baldy01

 

I worked at Philmont Scout Ranch for ten years and know darn well they don't allow trespassing for any reason.

 

-Bob

[+Sparky-Watts]

Doing archaeological surveys, 50 years is a strict cut-off, no judgement involved. If there's a GLO survey marker from 1955, we don't record it. If the date is 1953 we do. 50 years...

 

In my opinion, they need to come up with a cut-off date, rather than an age. There's just too much 50s and 60s junk. Pretty soon we'll be recording trailer park pads as archaeological sites. I'd personally choose WWII as a cut-off. Post WWII stuff is so common, and so mass produced, and so well documented, that there's very little research interest or potential.

 

There are newer places of obvious historic interest, and places newer than 50 years old can be added to the National Register of Historic Places. That's not the same as an "archaeological site."

 

Just because sites aren't on maps, you aren't banned from visiting. You can still go there, they just don't advertise the locations publicly. You apparantly have no idea the amount and severity of vandalism and theft on public lands. Fossil-thieves and cave-defacers are also serious problems.

 

You might also be interested to know that the locations of archaeological sites are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. Meaning you can't go to the B.L.M. and demand to see archaeological records, or any goverment records that show precise site locations. Caves have similar protection I think. Archaeological firms, such as where I work, often publish two versions of the same report, a full report with detailed location info that goes to the state and other government agencies, and one without specific site or artifact locations that can be released to the general public.

 

Since your interest appears to be nature preservation, I bet you wouldn't want thousands of people trampling cryptogramic soil or fragile riparian areas. That could happen if specific fragile natural were labeled as such on public maps.

 

There's a similar re-occuring conversation that goes on in outdoor communities. Does advertising a great hiking spot, say by writing a Backpacker article, bring in so many people that the area is ruined? Or does it help protect the location by bringing attention to potential threats? Fortunately there are significantly fewer geocachers than readers of Backpacker and our impact is proportionately less.

 

It's not a question that will be easily answered on these forums. But what we can do is follow the established Geocaching guidlines, which prohibit placing caches at archaeological sites or in fragile environmental areas.

 

The problem is that some people, the type of people unlikely to be Geocachers, get "public" land confused with "their" land. Conversely, archaeological sites on private property are Not protected. If you have an arch site on your property, you can dig it up, bulldoze it, leave it alone, whatever. The only exception is that burials are protected on private land - via. the Unmarked Graves Protection Act, and another law meant to protect historic cemeteries that can also be applied to prehistoric burials.

 

Thanks for listening. Nothing but good wishes,

-Bob

Bobthearch, please report to electrotherapy. Bobthearch, please report to electrotherapy immediately!