Groundspeak Contacting Land Managers!

[ju66l3r]

This thread was begun in the New England forum because a recent night cache was inappropriately handled by Groundspeak.

 

My interest in posting about it here is that a serious precedent has been set. By having a Groundspeak representative (logging under their player name...) contact a land trust representative about problems noted with a cache, they undermind the cache hider and their relationship to the land manager.

 

The working relationship that Groundspeak has is to the hider. If they do not trust their own agreement with the hider that they have permission to hide where/how they have hidden the cache, then what use is it to request this agreement with the hider in the first place?

 

In this particular instance it seems that a Groundspeak volunteer contacted Groundspeak in their "geocacher" face and had another Groundspeak volunteer contact the land trust to argue *against* a cache (which was placed by a friend of the land trust!). Why should problems with a cache not be taken up with the *hider* of the cache!?

 

Groundspeak is a *listing service*. If the listing service does not like the answers it is getting from the hider requesting the listing (and in this case, it doesn't even seem like they even asked the hider for answers!!), then it should tell them it does not want their business. By going past the hider to the land trust, they not only jeopardize working relationships with hiders and land managers concerning Geocaching.com caches, they also jeopardize hiders' geocaches listed on other servers. That is unacceptable.

 

Also, it'd be nice to know that now that the land trust in question is happy with geocaching (again)...how long do we wait for a now second cache listing to become unarchived because of an administrator acting in a poor fashion?

[+fly46]

And yet, by using this 'listing service' you agree to their terms and conditions.

If you don't agree with the way they do it, go over to the other site.

 

Do I completely agree with their decision? No, but at the same time... You do what you think is right at the time in which you do it.

[magellan315]

You won, the cache and Geocaching was formally approved by the board. As far as the process that GC.com followed that created this situation, I'm sure they are very aware of what has happend and will take steps to correct it.

 

Just let it go.

[+briansnat]

It looks like the geocachers who reported the cache had legit concerns about the cache and reported them to GC.COM.

 

I don't see were the Groundspeak volunteer "argued against the cache" but because of the nature of this cache (1. A trail of nails in trees, and 2. A night cache in a place that is closed at night), contacting the person who gave permission to make sure everhing was kosher was understandable.

[ju66l3r]

Why not first contact the hider?

 

Why not require the hider to provide the desired permission from the land manager in the form of an e-mail, etc?

 

Their problem is with the hider...not with the land manager.

[+as77]

The problem is that gc.com doesn't simply consider itself "a listing service", i.e. a service that helps folks who geocache. They consider themselves the creators, providers, rulers, owners of the sport itself.

[CoyoteRed]

After seeing the players involved...

[+Mopar]

Well, I guess I'm more then a bit biased here, but that never stopped me.

 

I think Groundspeak doesnt just have a right, but maybe even has a duty to follow up with a land manager in a case like this.

 

In a case like this I mean one where the cache hider has placed a cache on *private property* and then cache finders are told the property owner has NOT given permission and they do NOT have permission to be there.

[+Gorak]

The problem is that gc.com doesn't simply consider itself "a listing service", i.e. a service that helps folks who geocache. They consider themselves the creators, providers, rulers, owners of the sport itself.

Sadly, this is too true, as I've said many times before.

 

After seeing the players involved...

No surprises there...

[Rabbit and Turtle]

Normally I keep my mouth shut on the forums, but this is bothersome. It seems to me that a person who happens to be involved with Groundspeak found the cache and didn't like it. Instead of just posting their opinions on the cache page, they seem to have gone out of their way to create an issue with the land manager. This seems petty and a sort of a stab in the back of the cache hider, who had already developed a good relationship with the land managers prior to hiding his cache. The hider did nothing wrong, and should not have to defend his already approved cache.

[+Monkeybrad]

SCENE 1

POLICE FLUNKIE: There has been a situation that has resolved itself.

 

RICK: Maybe we should bring it up in the forums and see if we can get a fight started.

 

ILSA: But Rick, that won't help, it will only cause animosity and infighting.

 

SAM: Besides Boss, who are we gonna get to bring this up and slam Groundspeak?

 

RICK: Hmmmmm....

 

ILSA: Hmmmmm.....

 

POLICE FLUNKIE: (blank look)

 

INSPECTOR RENAULT: This cannot stand, round up the usual suspects.

 

(Music Swells, Fade to Black)

 

SCENE 2

(Lights up, the usual suspects arrive)

 

Insert this thread.

[+mtn-man]

Since the original poster has raised the same questions in the other topic he links, I am going to close this topic as a duplicate topic. Feel free to continue the discussion there.

 

Do not unlock this topic or post a new topic in the General Topics area.