|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 17, 2014 9:37:41 GMT -9
I am wondering how to go about creating a night cache here in Alaska. In other states I've lived, Reviewers have had different takes on the use of "Fire Tacks" for reflectors.
Could we outline the relevant guidelines, and the current process used by our Reviewer to approve/rework use of "Fire Tacks" for night caches? (shy)
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by akgh519 on Jan 17, 2014 10:50:13 GMT -9
Fire tacks have been used at many night caches here in Anchorage. Groundspeak does and has sold fire tacks in their 'store' so to me that would mean there are no limits to using them. As for rules and or guidelines about night caches, I have not found any. I have been told by some of the local cacher's that you must be able to see from tack to tack but I have never been provided with print of this or any rule and I generally don't follow it. I have developed, published and adopted many night caches and have not been required to do anything more by the reviewer than is required for a puzzle cache ie provide a beginning and final coordinate and the other information required on the 'build a cache' form. I have never been asked by the reviewer what type of tack I used.
I will be interested in any other comments that come from this thread.
NS, contact me personally if you would like to discuss any specifics or cache development further...
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jan 17, 2014 10:50:26 GMT -9
I'm sure GLR will pop in at some point, but I'm a little unclear about what it is about fire tacks that would have "different takes" by other reviewers? There is no guideline that specifically places fire tack in a special category over other types of reflectors. Reflectors are reflectors. Groundspeak's guideline on night caches is located at support.groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=69It specifically states: The one argument that I make about night cache listings is in reference to the use of the puzzle cache category. If a night cache takes you to the starting reflector and you follow a straight forward trail of reflectors from that published point all the way to the final cache, it is without any shadow of a doubt, a Multi-Cache. Just think of each reflector as a reference point in the trail that points you to the next one. Instead of reading off coordinates from a log or whatever to take you to the next point, you are using your flashlight to find the next point on the trail. There is no puzzle. The attributes will place it into the proper category of night multi-cache when you pick the flashlight and night icons. For a night cache to be a puzzle, there needs to be something puzzling about finding the container. You need to have something that requires at least some minimal deciphering, such as encoded UV markings or reflector patterns that are something other than just a straight up "follow this path to the box".
|
|
|
Post by akgh519 on Jan 17, 2014 10:56:46 GMT -9
Thanks for posting the link Scott. A lot of suggestion but not any firm rules. I have read it many times and it leaves a lot of leeway for cache development! Even evil cache development !!! Interesting thought about mystery vs multi. Might have to rethink some of the 'type' I have chosen on some of mine!
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Jan 17, 2014 12:11:38 GMT -9
I'll take a shot at answering your question, Joel, but I'm not exactly certain what you are asking. I'll also respond to other comments in here. Historically, some (never in Alaska) reviewers required the coordinates of each fire tack and counted them as a multi-cache physical stage placed in the field and blocked other physical caches from being placed within 528' of each and every marker. That should no longer be the policy anywhere. The reasoning for fire-tacks being exempt is because they Hold/display no information. Historically, prior to the advent of cache page attributes, many night caches were listed as puzzle caches to raise cacher awareness that there was something more to the cache than just showing up with a GPS. Operation Blue Moon and Mission: Impossible are early examples, though now the latter is incorrectly listed as a traditional cache. Interestingly, Tactical Advantage was listed as a multi-cache even though it is a night cache and one has to complete the first two caches to get to the starting point. So, even the Puzzle/Mystery type wasn't consistently applied way back then. Regardless of which cache type was chosen back then, it's not recommended the cache type be changed today because doing so will change cachers' historical statistics which could be a problem for completed challenges, etc. Today, with cache page attributes such as and and , then what SSO JOAT says about night caches being multi-caches is correct unless there is an element of up front puzzle homework required. If there is a puzzle to solve in the field, then the field puzzle attribute should be placed on the cache page. Bottom line, the simplest night cache needs GPS navigation to get to the starting point which does not have to meet the proximity guideline, one or more fire tacks can lead to the final location, and there must be a physical container, with hidden coordinates provided on the cache page, for the final stage that does meet the proximity guideline for any other physical caches in the area.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 17, 2014 13:26:51 GMT -9
Wow, not the direction I was going with this, but thanks, everyone.
I've done night caches before, and helped develop them. Where I've run into differing opinions is on the guideline:
Between personal experience, and the threads I've read on the GS forums, it seems that some Reviewers have a rather "black-and-white" rule about "damage" and "defacing". Meaning, it could be argued that, because screws, hooks, nails, etc into trees are not allowed, neither should a tack.
So, that's where I was trying to ask about it, without mentioning the issue directly; it's a can of worms where I came from.
Anyhow, after reading the replies here, stay tuned for a night cache in Homer coming very soon.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Jan 17, 2014 14:13:29 GMT -9
I'll offer my subjective take regarding the damage/defacement guideline after rooting around the Reviewer Forums and finding that fire tacks are considered all right if they are all right with the Land Manager, and that there are some (apparently, a very few such as Land Trust areas of the UK) Land Managers that have declared them verboten.
Screws, nails, hooks, etc., can eventually be "absorbed" into the tree as the tree grows and permanently hidden. Then, someday, the tree falls or is cut down. During the process of sectioning the tree, the woodsman damages his cutting tool running into an unexpected piece of embedded metal. Alternatively, suppose at some point the Cache Owner removes the cache and the retention device. Does the nail, screw, hook, etc., leave a hole that is going to require some time to heal and therefore leave the core of the tree open to pathogens for a period of time?
On the other hand, fire/reflective tacks have a very narrow, relatively short shaft that may or may not penetrate all the way through the bark. When removed, they leave a very small open wound that will heal quickly and they are small enough, they won't damage woodcutting tools if left embedded.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jan 17, 2014 15:19:01 GMT -9
I think you could easily draw the distinction by looking at whether or not a tool is required to insert or remove the item. You need a tool for nails and screws, which are not supposed to be used. But a thumbtack is easily inserted and removed with just your fingers.
A nail or screw, since it is anchored deeper into the tree, will generally have the tree grow around it and become entombed into the wood. A thumbtack on the surface of the bark is going to move outward as the tree grows.
Nails, screws, and tacks by themselves don't cause any life-threatening damage to a tree. If removed, the tiny hole does no damage and just disappears. The bugs that can get into a tree bore their own holes, so a nail or screw hole create no additional risk to the tree. (If a tree-killing bug had to wait for someone to punch a nail hole in the tree so it could get in there, all the nail-hole bugs would have long since died off due to lack of nail holes).
Realistically, the "no nail" rule is pretty much a feel-good guideline intended to keep the land managers happy that cachers are not running around nailing a bunch of junk to their trees.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 17, 2014 15:29:54 GMT -9
Realistically, the "no nail" rule is pretty much a feel-good guideline intended to keep the land managers happy that cachers are not running around nailing a bunch of junk to their trees. I think you hit the nail on the head. Clearly, spruce beatles didn't need human help to spread their blight. Geocachers don't want to become known as the land users who nail and screw things into trees. Even when Land Managers approve nailing and screwing (and some have in certain jurisdictions), it sets precedence for copycat cachers to employ the same attachment techniques somewhere else without approval and the attachment method continues to spread. Clever hiders have found plenty of other ways to deploy caches in trees without breaking bark.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 17, 2014 15:30:17 GMT -9
Thanks for your Reviewer stance, Mike. That's the same interpretation I make, especially when aligning with my arborist knowledge and the guidelines. What you and Scott mention is the kind of thing that seems to create a back-and-forth, and leads to what I saw in Minnesota where Fire Tacks were verboten until further review by TPTB. Someone took issue with the interpretation as applied to screws in a tree, and took that frustration out on those who used FireTacks, essentially putting a moritorium on new night cache placement with tacks for a while. I moved before that ever got resolved. Then I later saw the issue taken up in the GS forums. Folks like the three of us have the "whether or not a tool is required to insert or remove the item. You need a tool for nails and screws, which are not supposed to be used. But a thumbtack is easily inserted and removed with just your fingers" viewpoint, and the proverbial "purist" (see the GS forums to see that one get tossed around...sheesh) will take issue with the apparent grey area. Anyhow, I just wanted to find out what our friendly neighborhood Reviewer had to say on the subject. Like I said, I've experienced the "no damage whatsoever" side of the spectrum and wanted to make sure it was ok to do here. Stay tuned for a new night cache, coming to the Wynn Nature Center!
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 17, 2014 15:34:57 GMT -9
Stay tuned for a new night cache, coming to the Wynn Nature Center! Cool area! Are the trails open after operating hours, now? When my family and I visited two summers ago, there was an entrance fee and I assume corresponding visiting hours along with an associated gate/rope with sign, but my memory isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 17, 2014 15:41:08 GMT -9
Stay tuned for a new night cache, coming to the Wynn Nature Center! Cool area! Are the trails open after operating hours, now? When my family and I visited two summers ago, there was an entrance fee and I assume corresponding visiting hours along with an associated gate/rope with sign, but my memory isn't what it used to be. Yeah, during the winter (when nights are long!) there are no fees. Snowshoes are almost a must as well! During the summer months of "regular" operation at the Wynn, the fee is supposed to be taken at all hours, but the executive director admits that it is simply a "donation" when staff is not at the cabin outside of normal hours. So, if cachers are so inclined, they are welcome to find caches during operating hours and pay the fee for a naturalist to be able to take them around and tour the grounds and learn a little more about the plants, animals, and history, or find the donation box if it is after hours/wintertime and drop a few shekels inside. There isn't a gate anymore, and they don't rope it off. When I lived right across the street, we would see folks start showing up at around 6:30pm (they shut down at 6) to go walk and take in the sunsets. It's an "honor system" situation, so long as they don't start to see vandalism. (And, I'll be sure to give contact info for the ED and permissions for Wynn caches in the Reviewer notes. Cathy and I have been given the "green light" on cache placements on their grounds up there)
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 17, 2014 15:42:29 GMT -9
And, if all goes according to plan, my wife will be the summer naturalist up there at the Wynn again this summer!
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Jan 17, 2014 15:55:47 GMT -9
There isn't a gate anymore, and they don't rope it off. When I lived right across the street, we would see folks start showing up at around 6:30pm (they shut down at 6) to go walk and take in the sunsets. LOL! We practically ran around the loops (and didn't get them all done) to egress before closing time as we didn't want the rig to get locked in. At least we earned the EarthCache and found a couple of traditional caches while were were at it. We'll apply the supplied local knowledge next time around.
|
|
|
Post by akgh519 on Jan 17, 2014 16:08:18 GMT -9
I try to use dead trees when possible so I don't have to worry about damaging them. This is not always possible but I do attempt to do so.
Can't wait for Homer's first night cache!
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Jan 20, 2014 11:58:12 GMT -9
Interesting read. I may have to go back and 'detune' a couple of reflectors on two night caches I own. Have to review the cache classification and (enhanced since I placed them) attributes available for use.
As a former land manager for property where trees were marked/sold to Amish woodworkers, great care was taken in tree harvesting to make sure knots weren't busted or splits occurred. However their attitude towards bark penetration on the cedars was pretty ambivalent, mainly because any timber stands old enough to harvest were generally known to have everything from screws used to emplace 'No Trespassing' signs to embedded wire from fencing which used trees as living posts. That note doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire to 'leave no trace/damage' practices, of course.
|
|
|
Post by TheFirefly on Jan 21, 2014 15:06:17 GMT -9
Once again, good information. Thanks, all! I have another question - not about night caches and fire tacks, but about the nails in trees. Given the veering topic here, this seems like it might be a good place to ask it.
Recently I did some maintenance on a cache in Homer that is one of the oldest caches in the state. I rehung the container that contains the cache up on the tree it used to be on (so it was no longer resting on the ground). I used the original nails, just put all the parts together again and rehung it on the board. The board is still nailed to the tree.
Immediately after I posted the 'Maintenance Done' post on the cache page, it was pointed out to me - publicly on the cache page - that nails are not supposed to be put in trees, but that maybe this one was an exception since it was so old.
I did not put new nails in the tree. I did not put new holes in the tree. I did not even put a new board on the tree. Given the new guidelines about nails in trees, should I have avoided helping this cache because 11 years ago someone used 2 nails in a tree?
My gut tells me that any damage done by the nails was done long ago, and that this is a unique cache in a great location. It also still has the original logbook from 2002! My feeling is that this cache should still be available for finding, even with 2 nail holes in the tree....but maybe I'm wrong?
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 21, 2014 16:52:46 GMT -9
Once again, good information. Thanks, all! I have another question - not about night caches and fire tacks, but about the nails in trees. Given the veering topic here, this seems like it might be a good place to ask it. Recently I did some maintenance on a cache in Homer that is one of the oldest caches in the state. I rehung the container that contains the cache up on the tree it used to be on (so it was no longer resting on the ground). I used the original nails, just put all the parts together again and rehung it on the board. The board is still nailed to the tree. Immediately after I posted the 'Maintenance Done' post on the cache page, it was pointed out to me - publicly on the cache page - that nails are not supposed to be put in trees, but that maybe this one was an exception since it was so old. I did not put new nails in the tree. I did not put new holes in the tree. I did not even put a new board on the tree. Given the new guidelines about nails in trees, should I have avoided helping this cache because 11 years ago someone used 2 nails in a tree? My gut tells me that any damage done by the nails was done long ago, and that this is a unique cache in a great location. It also still has the original logbook from 2002! My feeling is that this cache should still be available for finding, even with 2 nail holes in the tree....but maybe I'm wrong? (shy) (shy) Sorry about that fiasco, Cathy. I had been talking to Mike about that cache for a little while, and it is good that you got to fixing it before me. The only reason I put the note on there was to call attention to the guidelines for future finders--not to call you out as a propogator of bad behavior! I'm really, really sorry that it came across that way. This will all be up to interpretation from Mike about the guidelines, and the maintenance of a cache without an owner. I'll give my 2 cents, and try to keep this focused on topic. There are 2 schools of thought here on maintaining caches. Regardless of age, this cache has an inactive owner, and has (had) fallen under disrepair. The last time I visited it, the log was wet, container a little stinky, and it wasn't where it was originally placed. It sounds like it had dried out, and that's a very good thing. Now that you've fixed it, some of what I'll say is moot, but still relevant. School 1 would say that this cache, no matter its age and "intrinsic value" needs maintenance, has an inactive owner, and should be archived if it cannot be maintained by the owner. This cache, when it was in need of maintenance, and an update to the D/T ratings, should be archived. This school of thought would also simply reason that a cache is the owner's responsibility, and should they not be able to maintain their caches, they should archive or adopt them out. School 2 would say that, so long as an individual or community maintains the cache, it should live on, even if an owner is inactive. The schools get muddy when we start talking about valuation like "historic" or "nice area that should have a cache". It gets even more muddy when the cache uses a method of hide I've seen archived or unpublished by Reviewers according to the guidelines. First, this cache was attached via nails. Second, one part of the trail (Demonstration Loop) is on state land, and parts of the (Homestead) trail system are on private property. I'm not sure off the top of my head where this cache is on that plat map, but it would be worthwhile to consider permissions for having a cache, and having it nailed to a tree, even if it is "historic". Let me say that I'm a combination of both schools. I believe that geocaches can and should get some community help. However, when an owner is inactive and not replying to emails, the cache is in need of maintenance beyond replacing a plastic baggie or adding a temporary logsheet, it should have NM and eventual NA logs posted for it. The idea that keeping a derelict cache without an owner alive simply for the stamp on its placed date is, in my personal opinion, misguided. This cache has NM attributes, a very inaccurate D/T rating, and us hidden in a fashion that could be considered against the guidelines. Nobody but the cache's owner can edit the cache page, or remove NM attributes. Reviewers may archive caches according to the guidelines, but cannot change D/T ratings, or change the description without the request of the owner. They can change the coordinates, but only with input of the owner. To this end, even if we take care of a cache for someone, the listing will never have an active owner. A listing remains active because of the container's integrity and general maintenance by an individual or community. As the container and location are the important aspects of the hide, the cache should have an active owner. This is why adoption is the best option in a "historic" cache example. However, if a cache cannot be adopted, a listing and site cannot be maintained by the owner, yet people want the cache and site to remain, it should be archived and relisted by someone who can maintain it. I had suggested this option to Mike, and I am willing to adopt this cache and site. As formal adoption is not possible due to the inactive owner, this cache was on its way to archival. Now that it is repaired, it is active without clearing the NM attributes or other listing issues. Add in the fact that this cache is attached in a way that is, in my experience, not allowed according to the guidelines, and it is a good candidate for archival and relisting. Now, I'm fine with this being a "grandfathered" placement, if that is what Greatland Reviewer decides is the best course of action against the guidelines. I also do not see any value in rocking the boat or creating bad blood between myself and other cachers here (or visiting). To that end, I'm ok with it being around and really, really don't want this to come across the wrong way. Again, I'm very sorry that it came across as a personal attack or passive-agressive comment. That was not my intention at all. I hope you accept my apology, and I appreciate you bringing up your concern. But, I worry about setting precedent for nails/screws to some of the new cachers we are hoping to create in the area (and state). I also worry about the listing being accurate, and the listing being maintained. I had been in conversation with GR about this cache, and it was going to be archived, and I was going to relist it--not unlike that old Wynn Nature Center cache. I hoped to rehide the same cache in the same location, but using non-invasive attachment. It could even keep the "hidden on" date if that were to happen. I was hoping to be able to take this site and listing over so that it could continue to "live on" and be wholly maintained. So, to loop this apology and explaination back to the OP, what would the guidelines say about caches being nailed or screwed to a tree? If that cache is on managed land, would a land manager consider this a problem? Is the possibility that a new cacher may emulate the hide a factor?
|
|
|
Post by alaskacariboozer on Jan 21, 2014 23:29:45 GMT -9
I think it is unrealistic to archive caches because they now fall out of the guidelines for how it can be attached to a tree (or something else for that matter). I think the best thing we can do is to educate and to allow the GR do his job. Also, as many have experienced with new caches published, fellow cachers will state in their logs if the cache was inappropriately attached to a tree. (This occurred to one of my first caches placed. Realizing my mistake, I immediately remedied the cache. Call it cacher pressure.).
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 22, 2014 8:56:02 GMT -9
I think it is unrealistic to archive caches because they now fall out of the guidelines for how it can be attached to a tree (or something else for that matter). I think the best thing we can do is to educate and to allow the GR do his job. Also, as many have experienced with new caches published, fellow cachers will state in their logs if the cache was inappropriately attached to a tree. (This occurred to one of my first caches placed. Realizing my mistake, I immediately remedied the cache. Call it cacher pressure.). I'd completely agree in the general sense. I'm a fan of "grandfathered" caches. The issue specific to this cache is that the listing itself is inaccurate (attributes, and a 1/1 rating, even as the cache is off of the already semi-rugged trail. It is not wheelchair accessible, e.g.). Combine that with an inactive owner, and ongoing maintenance needs necessary for the community and not the cacher themselves, and I think that's where the case diverges from the general. I don't like to drag out specific caches in the public, and thus why I had started to handle it with Mike over emails. However, Cathy brings up a good point in that we need to address GR's stance on new and/or existing caches that have been attached to trees with nails and/or screws.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Jan 22, 2014 11:37:48 GMT -9
Based on actions of a local Homer cacher, the cache in question has been fixed up and will be community maintained by the cacher. I request the cacher post to this effect in the Community Maintained Caches thread, which contains a partial list of caches are being looked after by other members of the caching community. With local care and feeding, the Local Reviewer has the latitude not to archive the cache following the "Needs Archived" log it received. The Local Reviewer also has the latitute to not archive it because it was affixed to the tree prior to the defacement amendment of the Guidelines. I understand the concern about copy-cat hides, but if folks really want to go down the road of archiving caches that don't comply with the current guidelines, let the "Needs Archived" logs begin as there are hundreds of caches out there that would not be published under today's guidelines. Cachers can start with caches affixed with nails, screws and screw-in hooks. Then they can move on to caches on electrical equipment placed without the utility's permission, guardrail hides placed without AKDOT permission, and hides on signs placed without permission of the local government jurisdiction or land/business owner. Cachers can then wrap up with writing "Needs Archived" logs for lamp post skirt hides and other hides placed on business property without express permission of the business owner. Reviewers have been provided with guidance by Groundspeak not to go on "search and destroy" missions, but instead to deal with cache issues as they come up. When hunting caches, the Reviewer generally leaves his Reviewer hat at home unless a Guideline violation is especially egregious, an approach also supported by Groundspeak. I would prefer to go with alaskacariboozer's approach of educating cachers who place new caches that aren't compliant with the current guidelines as cachers become aware of them. Getting back on topic of the off-topic issue raised about the cache in Homer, the cache page doesn't have attributes in part because it was published before attributes could be placed on a cache page. Lack of attributes or a "Needs Maintenance" attribute are not reason enough to archive a cache page. Even today, a cache page can be published without a single attribute. Improper difficulty/terrain ratings are also not grounds for archival. If improper ratings were grounds for archival, there are hundreds and potentially thousands of Alaskan caches that could be archived. Today, caches cannot be published with a 1-star terrain rating without the wheelchair accessible attribute and vice-versa. That was not the case in 2002 and Groundspeak has not asked the Volunteer Reviewers to check all 1-star terrain caches for compliance with the current rating guidelines. Ultimately, it is not the Local Reviewer's accountability to review caches for difficulty/terrain rating accuracy. Adoption requests fpr caches placed by now inactive Cache Owners can only be processed by by the Cache Owner as Groundspeak still considers the cache and the cache page the property of the Cache Owner, even if appearing to be or confirmed abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 22, 2014 14:12:33 GMT -9
Mike, some of this I'll have to email you again directly to discuss. Some will be clarification, other parts more questions that dont' need to be asked here. Much of it has to do with this specific cache in question, and really doesn't need to be dicussed in this thread.
So, if I'm understanding what you wrote above: -Grandfathered cache placements are allowed to remain in place unless they cause a serious guideline break. In the case of nails and screws in trees, hides placed before the guideline clarification are "grandfathered", but new placements using screws and nails in trees may not be allowed unless permission has been granted. -"Tacks" that do not penetrate deeper than outer bark are not viewed to be in the same line as nails or screws in trees, as they do not cause the same risk, damage, or defacement.
Thanks for the input on the subject. I've now experienced 4 different viewpoints with Reviewers!
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 22, 2014 14:44:02 GMT -9
With local care and feeding, the Local Reviewer has the latitude not to archive the cache following the "Needs Archived" log it received. The Local Reviewer also has the latitute to not archive it because it was affixed to the tree prior to the defacement amendment of the Guidelines. I understand the concern about copy-cat hides, but if folks really want to go down the road of archiving caches that don't comply with the current guidelines, let the "Needs Archived" logs begin as there are hundreds of caches out there that would not be published under today's guidelines. Cachers can start with caches affixed with nails, screws and screw-in hooks. Then they can move on to caches on electrical equipment placed without the utility's permission, guardrail hides placed without AKDOT permission, and hides on signs placed without permission of the local government jurisdiction or land/business owner. Cachers can then wrap up with writing "Needs Archived" logs for lamp post skirt hides and other hides placed on business property without express permission of the business owner. Reviewers have been provided with guidance by Groundspeak not to go on "search and destroy" missions, but instead to deal with cache issues as they come up. I understand what you're getting at. However, if a cache breaks the guidelines, does it not...break the guidelines? (This may be best for another thread, so Admins, feel free to break it off and take it there.) Meaning, if we find a cache that is against the guidelines, aren't we all as members of Geocaching.com expected to follow the guidelines of the game? I know it reeks of "cache police", but we are all called to help "police" the caches in the game. The way I cache is that permission is implied. If a cache was published, I count on the Reviewer and owner to have had communication about any permissions, and the owner ultimately clicks the boxes on the submission forms that state that they read and understand the guidelines, and that they have permission to hide the cache. However, if I'm approached by police or land management about a geocache-related issue, I'll report the cache NA. If a cache is obvously in a completely off-limits area (RR tracks or Federal Wilderness, e.g.), I'll report the cache NA. If a cache blatantly breaks the guidelines, I'll report the cache with a NM instead of a NA log, and an email to the local Reviwer so it is brought to their attention (they have information that I do not when it comes to these questions). I would hold it in good faith that a Reviewer would look at the Reviewer Notes, and measure the cache, the cache listing, and the issue against the guidelines and take action as warranted. Meaning, if a cache is on a piece of electrical equipment, and I get eyeballed by a HEA employee while searching and replacing the cache, post a NM log and email the Reviewer, that Reviewer would not only be able to, but would take action to uncover if this cache has proper permissions as required by the guidelines. I'd be fully prepared to wipe the sweat from my brow and explaim "Phew! That's a relief!" when I get an email back saying that the owner has permission, and move on with a smile on my face. In general terms of caches that 1) Have an inactive owner 2) Have outstanding NM logs (causing a PQ or visual scan of cache listings to omit NM attributed cache listings) 3) Have maintenance needs 4) Have updates to the cache listing that would be more accurate and helpful to future finders (inaccurate D/T ratings or soft coordinates 5) Have possible issues against the guidelines, would that cache not be a better candidate for archival if a NA is posted? Are we to give special consideration to a cache just because it is "old"? I'm aware of the lack of attributes due to the age of the cache listing. The attribute I am talking about is the NM, which is no longer applicable. I'm also aware of the guideline changes, which is why I wanted to check in about how you handle "grandfathered" caches, and when one might be, as you've described it in your NM/Disabled sweep process outline, re-reviewed against the guidelines.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jan 22, 2014 15:33:57 GMT -9
A cache must comply with the guidelines at the time it is published. This is what is says in the guidelines.
When guidelines are changed (as they have been many, many times), from the publishing point of view the guideline is in effect from now forward. Hence, all the old caches are "grandfathered" when guidelines change.
Don't try to make it too complicated. The key piece of the equation being missed is local flexibility by reviewers. Just because the reviewer in one region is being a cache nazi about their interpretation of a "guideline", doesn't mean that all reviewers take that stance. Just do what the local reviewer wants and forget about attempts by a very, very small segment of the caching community to control everyone else with an Orwellian fist.
In regards to the few remaining old caches that might have used a nail or a screw or has a placement that used the "frisbee rule" rather than explicit permission, the best way to deal with those is to sign your name in the logbook and then enter a Found It log online. This will ensure that the cache no longer shows up on your unfound list and you need not spend another moment of thought about that cache. Another alternative exists and has been built into GC.com for quite some time... the ignore list.
In short, yes. I think we do give special consideration to a cache because it is old. And the test for that is pretty simple... As you're looking at the cache you think needs to be archived, are you saying, "once this is out of the way, I can put a new cache here". If so, then the answer is to fix the old cache and leave it be. There is no point in trying to archive an old cache just to put a new cache in the same general spot under your own name.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 22, 2014 16:14:56 GMT -9
A cache must comply with the guidelines at the time it is published. This is what is says in the guidelines. When guidelines are changed (as they have been many, many times), from the publishing point of view the guideline is in effect from now forward. Hence, all the old caches are "grandfathered" when guidelines change. Don't try to make it too complicated. The key piece of the equation being missed is local flexibility by reviewers. Just because the reviewer in one region is being a cache nazi about their interpretation of a "guideline", doesn't mean that all reviewers take that stance. Just do what the local reviewer wants and forget about attempts by a very, very small segment of the caching community to control everyone else with an Orwellian fist. In regards to the few remaining old caches that might have used a nail or a screw or has a placement that used the "frisbee rule" rather than explicit permission, the best way to deal with those is to sign your name in the logbook and then enter a Found It log online. This will ensure that the cache no longer shows up on your unfound list and you need not spend another moment of thought about that cache. Another alternative exists and has been built into GC.com for quite some time... the ignore list. In short, yes. I think we do give special consideration to a cache because it is old. And the test for that is pretty simple... As you're looking at the cache you think needs to be archived, are you saying, "once this is out of the way, I can put a new cache here". If so, then the answer is to fix the old cache and leave it be. There is no point in trying to archive an old cache just to put a new cache in the same general spot under your own name. I agree with you, Scott. Where I disagree, however, is in the use of "nazi" or "Orwellian" when talking about users following the guidelines and expecting some semblance of consistency. I also disagree that there is no point in trying to archive an old cache just to put a new cache in the same general spot under one's own name. The major difference here is that the new cache in the old spot would be maintained by an active member of the community, and would be accurate in its description and meet the current guidelines. I'm a user of ignore lists, and I also hold myself to the mantra that I don't have to find every cache. To me, when a cache needs attention, and the listing is inaccurate, I try to adopt the cache from that person if folks find some intrinsic value in that very cache. Old cache? Nice spot? Then adoption is the way to go. But, when an owner leaves the game, they also leave the listing. When a listing is inaccurate, it affects Pocket Queries and how people choose caches in general. If I see a cache with a 1/1, I would guess that it is on an established trail and is very easy to find. When I see coordinates, I expect them to be within a reasonable margin of error. When I see the "Needs Maintenance" attribute, and that it has been on the cache for a while, I tend to push it to the back of my priority list. Comparing apples to apples, an old cache is no differnt than a new cache if it has no owner and is in need of maintenance to the listing and cache itself. We can maintain that cache as a community, yes. But what about when I or others stop playing the game or move from the area? Won't that cache become neglected again? Won't the Reviewer continue to see it in their sweeps for NM caches? That very cache would continue to have maintenance issues, receive NM and NA logs from time to time, and likely be skipped because of the lingering NM attribute. And yes, I'd like to think that the cache in question should stick around. It's in a nice location, and the "old cache" status makes it more desireable. But, when the cache can't be adopted to a willing owner, I'd rather see it archived and someone relist a cache with an accurate listing, rating, and coordinates. The cache and listing belong to the user who created it. If we maintain it for them after they are gone, does this mean that the unofficial adopters have jurisdiction over the 264-foot radius if someone wants to publish a new, accurate, actively maintained cache? Now, I want to try to be clear as to not ruffle the wrong feathers. I'm not talking about a cache that gets community support and has an accurate listing, hidden by someone who still has a connection to the area and users might still have contact with in one way or anther. We're talking about a cache where the owner has completely moved on, isn't reachable at all, and the listing has gone stale. In addition to that, the listing is inaccurate, and the cache is/was in continual disrepair.
|
|
|
Post by SSO JOAT on Jan 22, 2014 17:03:43 GMT -9
You've solved the debate... the issue must be decided on a cache by cache basis. There can be no single standard applied to how the reviewer, or the caching community as a whole, should deal with an old cache.
A nail, in and of itself, does not decide if the old cache should stay or if it should go.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Jan 22, 2014 19:23:27 GMT -9
Thanks for the input on the subject. I've now experienced 4 different viewpoints with Reviewers! I'm not too surprised. Each Reviewer reviews caches using the guidelines, their understanding of the local caching "scene," consultation with other Reviewers (where a variety of opinions csn be shared) and sometimes Groundspeak represenatives, and references available to Reviewers. Once those resources have been tapped, Reviewers then make what are oftentimes subjective decisions with encouragement to "show some latitude" where latitude can be shown. I can't answer many of your questions definitively because as SSO JOAT stated, The issue must be decided on a cache by cache basis. There can be no single standard applied to how the reviewer, or the caching community as a whole, should deal with an old cache. Cache reviewing isn't a black and white exercise in all instances, but rather one of many shades of grey. Some people are uncomfortable with that and want more absolutes. Others are fine with the abiguity and the latitude the Local Reviewer is allowed by Groundspeak. If there is a shift to black and white, the vast majority of caches in Alaska would be archived because fewer than 25% of caches placed in Alaska have explicit, verifiable permission from the Land Manager or Land Owner. Groundspeak does not require explicit permission for all cache placements and the Local Reviewers don't require it unless they are aware of a Land Manager policy that requires a permit or other form of permission. A more explicit example of Reviewer latitude is that there is a guideline about cache placement on or near school grounds. In some parts of the country and for most Fairbanks and Anchorage schools, that guideline is pretty black and white. However, if a school is also a central meeting place for members of the general public to be present at all hours of the day for frisbee golf, Nordic skiing, trail running , snow and mountain biking, etc., I as the local Reviewer will show some latitude on a limited basis using local knowledge of who is in the school parking lot and when. If one feels latitude has been inappropriately been shown in any instance, one can contact Groundspeak using the Groundspeak Help Center and a paid Lackey will get involved. Volunteer Reviewers serve at the pleasure of The Frog and it's really no skin off the typical Reviewer's nose if Groundspeak overrules the Reviewer on a decision.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Jan 22, 2014 19:40:40 GMT -9
Won't the Reviewer continue to see it in their sweeps for NM caches? As reported in these forums and past issues of the newsletter, I no longer check cache pages with the "Needs Maintenance" attribute set unless there are other reasons to look at the page. With more than 350 caches sporting that attribute in Alaska tonight and less than a ten percent response rate from cachers who are asked to clear the attribute, I don't do anything more than drop a Reviewer Note on the cache page to encourage Cache Owner action. The Needs Maintenance attribute is meant to be a means of communication from cacher to cacher about caches needing attention without Reviewer intervention. My Reviewer Note on these caches is simply an extra volunteer service I and very few other Reviewers provide. Not based on actions taken by a local cacher. I suspect very few cachers other than LBK filter out caches with this attribute, and as I understand it, he does it only when he's traveling, there are more caches in an area than he can possibly find and he doesn't want to disappoint his daughters with finding a cache that needs help. Not all cachers share this opinion. There are several caches in Anchorage and the Interior that local cachers have "community adopted." Community adoption is a subjective process where one or more local cachers rally behind a cache in need of help and keep it going. Cachers tend to let most abandoned caches get archived, but there are those select few that resonate for some folks. A viable cache, whether its original Owner is active or not, has a 528'/0.1 mile "exclusion zone" around it. Who is maintaining the cache is irrelevant to the proximity guideline. As stated above and in previous posts, it's my understanding based on the actions of another local cacher that the cache in question has been and will continue to be maintained. Inaccurate attributes and D/T ratings are not bases for archival. It they were, I'd be up late nights for the next two weeks archiving hundreds, perhaps thousands of caches all over Alaska. I don't know anyone who really wants that.
|
|
|
Post by GreatlandReviewer on Jan 22, 2014 19:59:44 GMT -9
However, if I'm approached by police or land management about a geocache-related issue, I'll report the cache NA. If a cache is obvously in a completely off-limits area (RR tracks or Federal Wilderness, e.g.), I'll report the cache NA. If a cache blatantly breaks the guidelines, I'll report the cache with a NM instead of a NA log, and an email to the local Reviwer so it is brought to their attention (they have information that I do not when it comes to these questions). I would hold it in good faith that a Reviewer would look at the Reviewer Notes, and measure the cache, the cache listing, and the issue against the guidelines and take action as warranted. Meaning, if a cache is on a piece of electrical equipment, and I get eyeballed by a HEA employee while searching and replacing the cache, post a NM log and email the Reviewer, that Reviewer would not only be able to, but would take action to uncover if this cache has proper permissions as required by the guidelines. I'd be fully prepared to wipe the sweat from my brow and explaim "Phew! That's a relief!" when I get an email back saying that the owner has permission, and move on with a smile on my face. "Needs Maintenance" logs do not get sent to the Local Reviewer. They are meant to be a cacher to cacher communication tool. "Needs Archived" logs go to a special Reviewer queue for Reviewer action. Unless there is an especially egregrious guideline violation or a direct request from a Land Manager or Property Owner for archival and removal, I'll give the Cache Owner time to respond to the log on their own before intervening. If Reviewer intervention is required, it sometimes still takes time for the Reviewer to send an e-mail to the Cache Owner and for the Cache Owner to reply. Not all Cache Owners are immediately responsive to a Reviewer e-mail, but the benefit of the doubt is given that the Cache Owner may be offline for a period of time for any number of reasons. That is why it may seem that a Needs Archived log sits unresolved on a cache page for an extended period of time, sometimes for a month or more.
|
|
|
Post by NeverSummer on Jan 22, 2014 20:29:32 GMT -9
As stated above and in previous posts, it's my understanding based on the actions of another local cacher that the cache in question has been and will continue to be maintained. Inaccurate attributes and D/T ratings are not bases for archival. It they were, I'd be up late nights for the next two weeks archiving hundreds, perhaps thousands of caches all over Alaska. I don't know anyone who really wants that. This is really better for another thread, but we're discussing it here, so... But this situation isn't just about D/T ratings. It is about all of the factors I've mentioned above. I'm not asking that this one cache dictates a blanket application across other caches. The fact remains that this cache has an inactive owner, and that is what sets it apart in relation to the other factors I've mentioned. It is an improper assumption to think that anyone is suggesting all caches affixed with nails, screws and screw-in hooks are unceremoniously searched for with the sole purpose of posting a NA log. Or that we can move on to caches on electrical equipment placed without the utility's permission, guardrail hides placed without AKDOT permission, and hides on signs placed without permission of the local government jurisdiction or land/business owner. Or that cachers can then wrap up with writing "Needs Archived" logs for lamp post skirt hides and other hides placed on business property without express permission of the business owner. I'm not suggesting anyone use this cache as an example for generalized "cache gentrification". Edit by ladybugkids: Hit "edit" button in wrong post from wrong account...my apologies to the poster.
|
|