This topic contains 8 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
We just have had a cache archived by WGA, We thought we had a unique idea, aparently it was to unique, check it out the waypoint is GCPW40 cache name is Is that roses I smell???
We don’t want to give away too much info on where this cache is hidden, but all that have found it have sent us side notes that this was a neat idea and they liked doing the cache. Aparently SOMEONE must have complained about this cache, sorry if we offended anyone. How does WGA find out about something like this without actually visiting the cache??? I know there were a bunch of nofinds, but most of them on there 2nd or 3rd try eventually found it. So let us know where was the strangest cache (or waypoints if a multi) was hidden that you have found. IF YOU HAVE FOUND THIS CACHE, PLEASE DONT PUT SPOILERS HERE, I would like imput from all maybe we can get the geocache police off our back and get this cache unarchived.
That’s just wrong to disable with no note as to why.
we did recieve a note at to why, but we dont agree with it, We would love to post the reply here but it contains spoilers as to where the coordinates are hidden, Lets just say it is a “grey” area in the geocache rules.
quote:
Originally posted by sweetlife:
… maybe we can get the geocache police off our back and get this cache unarchived.First of all they are not ‘geocache police’; they are some of the nicest people you’d want to meet. They do a job that I would refuse to do because I already take pills for blood pressure. They spend a lot of the time they could be caching trying to find ways to approve caches.
They do this to protect an easily misunderstood activity that we all love to do. Protect caching from a misunderstanding that turns into banishment. For example, it took a lot of work to get caches back into Madison after just a few, maybe just 1; poorly placed cache resulted in the local land managers extrapolating to all caches.
Second the WGA does not and cannot visit every cache during the approval process. It is implied in the original post and on the cache page that that is a weakness in the withdrawal of approval. They rely on cachers to help protect caching. Imagine how long it would take to get a cache out if it required a WGA visit.
Third, approval is not a WGA endorsement of the cache. It is not a seal of approval. Approval means things look good. If things aren’t good, or if things change, approval can be withdrawn. The cache owner is usually the first to recognize this and take action.
I did not hunt the cache in question, but having read the logs, I’ll shoot from the hip and put one and two together and guess where it is. If I’m right, about 3 years ago there were 1 or 2 of these.
… Let’s just say it is a “grey” area in the geocache rules.
Why do we need to put caches in ‘grey’ areas? I myself like green areas, blue areas, and when the sun is right, yellow and gold areas.
I “disabled” your cache and sent you a request for more information. It was not archived to give you the benefit of the doubt. A PRIVATE email was sent to try to work out the situation rather then automatically archiving.
Rather then a public temper tantrum, it would be nice if you simply responded to the email. I have not received any response from you.
Tie and I bust our butts all week approving caches. This takes up most of our free time, which our families would prefer we spend with them. For the most part it’s a thankless job.
If the property wasn’t defaced, then you could have explained that. Sometimes a cache sneeks through the system without us catching every potential problem. If GC.com learns of a problem, the admins are supposed to fix the situation.
Sometimes the admins get a fishy feeling and watch that particular cache after it’s approved. Sometimes the admins send out emails to cache finders to confirm/deny suspicions. Sometimes caches can be fixed after minor changes. Sometimes I wonder why the heck I bother!
For what it’s worth Brian, I am glad that you and Tie do what you do. It must get overwelming at times.
we were not trying to throw a temper tantrum here, but we have read cache pages where the cache is actually in a body of water that has raw sewage in it, that is not only a health hazzard, its outright dangerous. (I think it was in north carolina). sometimes we vent our feelings before thinking about it, sorry to you Brian for being on the recieving end, you and Tie do a ausome job with the caches, and I have even volunteered to help (must have been tie that emailed and recieved a message back from) We will be checking with the caretakers of this wayside to see if our placement is ok and will be getting back to WGA or WGA2 when I get a OK.
The most recent cache we submitted for approval did not go as smoothly as the first two. Issues were raised which we needed to address, and we needed to make some changes to our cache. Throughout it all, we were treated courteously and fairly, even when we had some minor disagreements with the decisions. The overall approval took longer than we expected, but we now understand the magnitude of caches which need to be looked at in detail to manage what we do for fun.
This process brought us a bit of insight to the workload the approvers face all year round. We very much appreciate their efforts to keep our sport high quality and well respected, and support their work. Thanks.
We have completed the cache in question in this thread. Frankly, we were surprised at the methods used, as it was something very unusual in our caching experiences. Gram & I discussed it at length. We understand where some might not appreciate the approach used, and criticism could result. Perhaps a minor remodeling of this cache should be considered.
And to Sweetlife, the owners, thank you for all the caches you have put out up north. Your caches have made a lot of fun memories for a lot of people.
Thanks for listening.
Grandma & Grandpa
Waupaca & Townsend (up north)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.