Why Was This Cache Archived

January 20, 2006

GCHP5T

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...62-6a93d76a6e12

kerrysol posted a note stating "The cache is located on private property"

kerrysol did not and as of yet has not contacted WestwardHo and asked her a single question about the cache.

kerrysol did not contact either So Cal Admin or West Coast Admin to inquire about any private property issues.

The cache is located about 50' off a popular horse trail in the city of Norco. I have included pictures that I took this morning while at the site with WestwardHo.

The pictures are of the parking area, the City of Norco sign indicating that it is their trail, the trail up the hill to the cache site and looking each direction from the cache. There are more pictures on the cache page taken by individual cachers with a disposable camera in the cache.

Click on the thumnails to view a larger picture.

I am 99% sure this cache is on property owned and maintained by the City of Norco, not an individual homeowner. The City of Norco is closed on Fridays. On Monday I will call and in fact confirm that they own the horse trail.

Why would kerrysol archive a cache on a email from a homeowner claiming the cache is on private property without any investigation?

20.7k · January 20, 2006

Wow. The city is closed on Friday.

Anyway, did you email the reviewer who archived the cache?

20.7k · January 20, 2006

OK. I read the last few notes on the page. It looks like the guy who removed the cache thinks he owns the property. Check with the city, if you wish, but that guy is going to remove any replaced cache.

9.4k · January 20, 2006

We received a phone call that the cache was removed by the landowner. Instead of pitching a hissy fit maybe you should a] check to see if it is still there and B] talk to the city official that gave you permission to place it.

It isn't as though the listing has been destroyed. If you can verify it is there and that it is permissible to have on the property it can certainly be reinstated.

Kerry is a Groundspeak employee. She has been directed to archive first when she receives calls like this.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Jeremy

January 20, 2006

At least you make it quite clear that "My Dime" isn't buying any customer service.

18.9k · January 20, 2006

From Satellite pics and topo maps it looks like the cache was no more than 200 foot from a structure (possibly a home) - so it is easy for me to believe that it may well be on private property.

20.7k · January 20, 2006

At least you make it quite clear that "My Dime" isn't buying any customer service.

I think they performed a valuable service for the community. I would rather they archive it fast than for one of us to get shot, bitten, or arrested.

Also, I noticed that you posted Kerry's email after she was clearly exasperated from dealing with you. Obviously, there is more to the story. Personally, I'd rather not hear it.

24.7k · January 20, 2006

County assessor maps are where you start. It's possible that it's not on private property, it's possible that it is. However now that you know that someone says it's their land and they don't want the cache there it's your duty to follow up.

Groundspeak should be willing to give you any contact info they have since you are the one responsble for the cache. However even if they don't have it, or won't give it to you, you can still figure out who ownes it by using the maps your county assessor keeps for tax information.

After reading what you posted for Kerry's communications I'd like to see yours just to see what prompted it. Groundspeak employees are generally level headed.

The bottom line here is that Grounspeak nor any other listing site is going to have the time and manpower to track down all caches issues on all caches. They can only let the cache owner do their job and archive a cache that's in dispure. Archiving does not have to be forever.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Renegade Knight

January 20, 2006

County assessor maps are where you start. It's possible that it's not on private property, it's possible that it is. However now that you know that someone says it's their land and they don't want the cache there it's your duty to follow up.

This is the second thread in just a few days where the justification for the caches placement is "its just a litte off a publically acessible road/trail/whatever". <_<

I own a piece of property with a 'publically acessible' road on it... Even though the road shows on road maps - it's not a public road. It's on the powerline easement - it's their maintenance road. (It's an odd situation - I have an easement from the power company to hook a driveway to their road, which is on an easement a former owner granted them decades ago...) If you check the county assessor's maps (as Renegade Knight suggests), it's plain what the situation is.

Don't trust road or topo maps!

(Of course, the only reason I would refuse a cacher permission to place a cache there, is I'm going to do it myself someday.)

6.4k · January 20, 2006

Since the OP doesn't appear to even be the cache owner, I'm kinda surprised he got ANY reply from Groundspeak other then MYOB. In the past their policy has been they don't discuss problems with a third party.

9.4k · January 20, 2006

I'm trying to clarify things. Are you saying you were the person that sent the complaint message pretending to be the land owner?

From: FishPOET

Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 4:36 PM

To: kerrysol

Subject: RE: [GEO] FishPOET contacting kerrysol from Geocaching.com

It is good to know that I can send emails to Groundspeak pretending to be a land owner and you will archive any cache that I dislike without any investigation.

Kerrysol wrote:

I archived the cache due to the emails we received from the property owner. This is the message we initially received from the property owner:

"I found a can on my property on my hill and my neighbor has two

rotweillers, and I have two doberman pinchers. I have removed this can

and called the number in it. My dogs will tear up anyone who comes onto

my property so I do not want anyone to get hurt looking for this. I live

in NOrco, california 92860 and live by the arlington cemetary by arlington

and crestview drive. Thank you for taking this off of your site so nobody

gets unintentionally che wed up."

After this, I used Google Earth to locate the address in an attempt to verify the information. I'm sorry for any frustration this may have caused you.

Kerrysol

Edited January 20, 2006 by Jeremy

January 20, 2006

This gets curioser and curioser with every post... <_< <_<

January 20, 2006

the plot thickens...

20.7k · January 20, 2006

<_<

(It's too cold for ice cream)

Edited January 20, 2006 by sbell111

6.5k · January 20, 2006

Why would kerrysol archive a cache on a email from a homeowner claiming the cache is on private property without any investigation?

Because it is best to err on the side of caution. Archive it now, figure out the problem later.

It doesn't really matter which reviewer archived it, just that it got archived.

January 20, 2006

I'm trying to clarify things. Are you saying you were the person that sent the complaint message pretending to be the land owner?

From: FishPOET

It is good to know that I can send emails to Groundspeak pretending to be a land owner and you will archive any cache that I dislike without any investigation.

I think that FishPOET is expressing disagreement with the geocaching policy of automatically archiving caches when a complaint is made by the landowner

Kerry is a Groundspeak employee. She has been directed to archive first when she receives calls like this.

As an argument against this policy, FishPOET is attempting to illustrate a hypothetical situation in which a geocacher who dislikes a particular cache causes it to be archived by misrepresenting themselves as a landowner and claiming a cache is on private property.

It's a pretty weak argument, but I don't think that FishPOET is claiming to have done it.

9.4k · January 20, 2006

As an argument against this policy, FishPOET is attempting to illustrate a hypothetical situation in which a geocacher who dislikes a particular cache causes it to be archived by misrepresenting themselves as a landowner and claiming a cache is on private property.

No offense but I didn't ask you.

2.2k · January 20, 2006

Why would kerrysol archive a cache on a email from a homeowner claiming the cache is on private property without any investigation?

Because it is best to err on the side of caution. Archive it now, figure out the problem later.

It doesn't really matter which reviewer archived it, just that it got archived.

Correct.

Archiving isn't always permanent. If a landowner (especially private property) is upset over a cache on their land, it is best to archive, then do the research. If it turns out the cache was okay, it can be unarchived.

Leaving a cache live so an admin or reviewer can do further research on the placement is the wrong way to go about it. Would 10 more people going through the landowner's yard be better for geocaching or worse for geocaching?

January 20, 2006

Wait a minute....the 'landowner' removed the cache, right? So isn't archiving the cache until the issues are worked out the proper thing to do? It certainly isn't an active cache if the 'landowner' removed it.

<_<

2.1k · January 20, 2006

From FishPOET's logged note on the cache, it seems he was trying to make the point that there's no validation by the e-mails Kerry quoted that the originating author actually was the owner of the property.

In other words, what if I sent an e-mail right now saying:

"I live at 1315 Mockingbird Lane and I found a geocache on my property called 'Munster Mash!'. Take it off your site before my dogs kill someone trying to find it on my property."

When you look it up, it seems legit as the dot for the coordinates is right near a house located at 1315 and so it's archived...meanwhile, it turns out 1313 was hosting the cache on a small path between the two houses that's open to the public and not on 1315's land....AND I don't even live near Mockingbird Lane, I just didn't like the cache/hider.

So, his question is...what prevents *anyone* from e-mailing GC.com pretending to be a land owner and getting a geocache archived at will (assuming their story seems reasonable given some sort of phony ID/info they give you)?

January 20, 2006

From FishPOET's logged note on the cache, it seems he was trying to make the point that there's no validation by the e-mails Kerry quoted that the originating author actually was the owner of the property.

In other words, what if I sent an e-mail right now saying:

"I live at 1315 Mockingbird Lane and I found a geocache on my property called 'Munster Mash!'. Take it off your site before my dogs kill someone trying to find it on my property."

When you look it up, it seems legit as the dot for the coordinates is right near a house located at 1315 and so it's archived...meanwhile, it turns out 1313 was hosting the cache on a small path between the two houses that's open to the public and not on 1315's land....AND I don't even live near Mockingbird Lane, I just didn't like the cache/hider.

So, his question is...what prevents *anyone* from e-mailing GC.com pretending to be a land owner and getting a geocache archived at will (assuming their story seems reasonable given some sort of phony ID/info they give you)?

Hey, Jeremy wasn't asking you.

20.7k · January 20, 2006

...So, his question is...what prevents *anyone* from e-mailing GC.com pretending to be a land owner and getting a geocache archived at will (assuming their story seems reasonable given some sort of phony ID/info they give you)?

The current policy still appears to be appropriate, in my opinion. In the case of your example, I think thew cache should be immediately archived. The cache owner can work research the issue and work with the reviewer to get it reactivated.

Edited January 20, 2006 by sbell111

9.4k · January 20, 2006

I'm trying to clarify things. Are you saying you were the person that sent the complaint message pretending to be the land owner?

From: FishPOET

It is good to know that I can send emails to Groundspeak pretending to be a land owner and you will archive any cache that I dislike without any investigation.

I think that FishPOET is expressing disagreement with the geocaching policy of automatically archiving caches when a complaint is made by the landowner

Kerry is a Groundspeak employee. She has been directed to archive first when she receives calls like this.

As an argument against this policy, FishPOET is attempting to illustrate a hypothetical situation in which a geocacher who dislikes a particular cache causes it to be archived by misrepresenting themselves as a landowner and claiming a cache is on private property.

It's a pretty weak argument, but I don't think that FishPOET is claiming to have done it.

I suppose that could happen, but once the investigation is done and the cache reinstated, that user (and likely their IP) will be watched for more bogus reports. I'm sure if someone were to abuse the system in this way, they would be banned. You might get away with it once or twice, but not forever.

I think the policy of suspending the listing pending further review is a good one. That's the way it works with new caches before they are published, the only diffrence here is that the cache has ben listed already. Not all problems with a cache submission are obvious from looking at the cache page. Sometimes the cache owner isn't truthful in the description, or is ignorant of where the property line really is.

Edited January 20, 2006 by Team GPSaxophone

20.7k · January 20, 2006

Hey, Jeremy wasn't asking you.

<_<

6.4k · January 20, 2006

I guess if the cache in question was a micro the OP would feel differently about archiving it?

Edited January 20, 2006 by Mopar

18.9k · January 20, 2006

....I think the policy of suspending the listing pending further review is a good one......

I agree with it too. Best be safe rather than sorry. Archive and THEN research. Geocachers certainly don't need more black eyes.

January 20, 2006

Hey, I hope nobody got the wrong idea. I think the policy of archiving first and asking questions later is the right thing to do. If I had placed a cache that turned out to be on private land and irritated a landowner, I would remove it immediately and apologize profusely to the owner. I don't agree with FishPOET, I was just trying to clarify what I thought was a genuine misunderstanding.

20.7k · January 20, 2006

I think everyone (including Jeremy) understood your post. Its just that he wasn't being rhetorical when he asked Fishpoet the direct question.

9.4k · January 20, 2006

BigWhiteTruck - really, no offense meant. It is a serious question for me.

The issue I have is that Kerry took the brunt of attacks from FishPOET for doing the right thing, considering the email attached above. Once she responded back to him how offended she was that he was sending her on a wild goose chase (assuming that the original complaint was made by FishPOET himself), he never responded saying otherwise. So I'm stepping in to clarify the situation.

The original email sender seems certainly valid. There is no account on the site and the email itself is similar to other types of emails we get. For obvious reasons (hello? Threatening dogs?) we take each and every one seriously.

The really awful thing about it is not that FishPOET took it to the forums, but he intentionally left out, for example, the message sent to us about the listing and the threatening tone of the message. Is there some reason why he needs to omit important information from his argument?

2.5k · January 20, 2006

"I live at 1315 Mockingbird Lane and I found a geocache on my property called 'Munster Mash!'. Take it off your site before my dogs kill someone trying to find it on my property.".

I'm just going to work off the assumption that you never met "Spot", who lives next door. <_<

January 20, 2006

it seems that someone has tired of a previous hobby.

20.7k · January 20, 2006

Can a geocacher be banned for hassling another geocacher through his logs? If not, that should be rethought.

2.2k · January 20, 2006

Can a geocacher be banned for hassling another geocacher through his logs? If not, that should be rethought.

The Terms of Use for the site address this, see section 4.

January 20, 2006

Can a geocacher be banned for hassling other geocachers through his logs? If not, that should be rethought.

20.7k · January 20, 2006

I was hoping that you would do all of the work for me. <_<

(a.) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, slanderous, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, embarrassing, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable to any other person or entity.

(b.) Impersonate any person or entity, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with any person or entity.

(j.) "Stalk," harass, or otherwise harm another Site user.

edit: Darn old <_<

Edited January 20, 2006 by sbell111

2.2k · January 20, 2006

I was hoping that you would do all of the work for me.

Somehow I knew that. <_<

edit: Section 3 states:

"Groundspeak hereby grants You a non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable license to view and use the Site in accordance with this Agreement and any guidelines or policies posted on the Site. Groundspeak reserves the right to suspend or revoke, in its sole discretion, the license hereunder and to prevent You from accessing all or any portion of the Site with or without notice or reason and without liability on the part of Groundspeak.

Groundspeak may change, suspend, or discontinue any portion of the Site, or any service offered on the Site, at any time, including but not limited to any feature, database, application, or content. Groundspeak may also impose limits on certain features offered on the Site with or without notice."

Edited January 20, 2006 by Quiggle

January 20, 2006

niceness

Gotcha

I gotta say: I don't envy you guys the stuff you have to deal with. Stay sane.

11.3k · January 20, 2006

I was hoping that you would do all of the work for me.

(a.) Upload, post or otherwise transmit any content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, . . .

Hey, I just learned a new word . . . <_<

2.5k · January 20, 2006

As near as I can figure out, FishPoet is friends with the cache hider, and did not write the email to have it archived. It's more likely that because of his friendship with the cache hider, he had strong feelings about the cache being archived, almost as if it was his own. He probably didn't understand why it would be archived so quickly and took offense to that. He obviously felt that it wasn't on private land. I'm not saying it was right or wrong, just calling it the way I see it. And I realize I wasn't asked, look at it as a freebie. The best things in life are free. <_<

24.7k · January 20, 2006

...I suppose that could happen...

It does happen. I've had a bogus SBA log on one of my caches. Other local cachers have had to content wiht the same thing. Posing as a property owner isn't beyond the person who was doing this.

24.7k · January 20, 2006

Can a geocacher be banned for hassling another geocacher through his logs? If not, that should be rethought.

It's been done in my area. Several times. It remind me of the saying "How many times do I have to flush before you go away?"

2.7k · January 20, 2006

when it all boils down it is only a cache.

I see no point trying to keep it up if the alleged property owner even THINKS he or she owns the property in question. As long as that "property owner" knows where the cache is, it is going to keep disappearing- AT BEST.

This game is not worth the hassles of legal action and property disputes.

Put a cache somewhere else and move on.

Caches disappear, get muggled repeatedly, and cause various problems every day. We archive and go on.

January 20, 2006

The really awful thing about it is not that FishPOET took it to the forums, but he intentionally left out, for example, the message sent to us about the listing and the threatening tone of the message. Is there some reason why he needs to omit important information from his argument?

OMG.....It is amazing that you accuse me of intentionally leaving out important information on this forum. I never posted a single email onto this forum...you did. And you are the one that left out part of the email...This just goes from bad to worse.

You archived the cache without any investigation. That was and still is the point of this whole thread. If this is your policy....just say so and move on. It would be 1 more in a long line of decisions made recently that have changed the game...and not for the better.

January 20, 2006

And it's a cache that has been placed since 2/2004. That's a pretty good run. Probably previous homeowners had no issue with the cache (if they knew about it), but perhaps this is someone new, and they object. Sounds like the homeowner is just trying to keep other cache hunters safe from dangerous animals and possible lawsuits to them.

If there was a cache 200 feet from my house I's want to know what people were doing in that area (if I wasn't a cacher). My dogs would be going nuts too, but only because they weren't getting attention.

Bec

January 20, 2006

<_<

GCHP5T

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...62-6a93d76a6e12

kerrysol posted a note stating "The cache is located on private property"

<_< oh...splitting hairs on not posting email in forums...gotcha!

:wub:

Celticwulf

January 20, 2006

GCHP5T

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...62-6a93d76a6e12

kerrysol posted a note stating "The cache is located on private property"

oh...splitting hairs on not posting email in forums...gotcha!

Celticwulf

You're right: This just goes from bad to worse (for the OP!)

:wub:

January 20, 2006

It's Jeremy's Sand Box and he gets to make the rules. The sad part is just like the big bully in the 2nd grade, he has no qualms about living by a different set of rules. This will be my last post, so flame away, delete, lock, kick me out, or do whatever your heart desires. I will not respond and any more emails will be deleted. If you chose to ban my account, so be it. I have made plenty of face to face friends and they are all as disenchanted as me with the overall direction the game hs been heading recently.

9.4k · January 20, 2006

It's Jeremy's Sand Box and he gets to make the rules. The sad part is just like the big bully in the 2nd grade, he has no qualms about living by a different set of rules. This will be my last post, so flame away, delete, lock, kick me out, or do whatever your heart desires. I will not respond and any more emails will be deleted. If you chose to ban my account, so be it. I have made plenty of face to face friends and they are all as disenchanted as me with the overall direction the game hs been heading recently.

You still didn't answer a direct question I asked you at the beginning of this thread. I guess this is a good way to avoid the question.

Good day.

6.4k · January 20, 2006

GCHP5T

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...62-6a93d76a6e12

kerrysol posted a note stating "The cache is located on private property"

oh...splitting hairs on not posting email in forums...gotcha!

Celticwulf

Yup..... and posted the email here too.

2.7k · January 20, 2006

<snip> and they are all as disenchanted as me with the overall direction the game hs been heading recently.

Well, I guess there's always N***C**** :drama:

Why Was This Cache Archived

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment