Is this valid? #2

[+Ibar]

Me again. It seems to be the seasons of weird caches. After having found the "unloggable" cache GC4M6WH (very quickly disabled & archived, btw) today it was the turn of GLEY641X.

I will spare you my personal story with the cache, but I wonder whether the location is "ok".

 

Now this cache is disabled, but just because somebody put a NM out of frustration of DNF's and the CO never took care (actually he hasn't logged for over a year). As it usually happens in this part of the world, if we have a NW without an OM shortly after, one of our diligent reviewers disables it.

 

About the cache: This is a puzzle cache. GZ brings you to a very nice chapel built in the shape of a cave, at the end of a small path. Though this may be a bit of a spoiler here you are the pics of the chapel:

 

http://lourdesgrotten.skynetblogs.be/archive/2009/07/23/zedelgem-loppem-emmaus.html

 

Now, the problem is that the cache is (now) INSIDE the chapel. In order to get to it you have to ensure not to drop any of the candles and right behind the icon of the Virgin Mary (40 cm maybe) you can find the cache.

 

I am definitely not a religious person, but I think every belief deserves respect and if I would be kneeling praying for whatever, the last thing I would like to see is a stupid guy with a GPS trying to find a film canister, don't you think?

[+irisisleuk]

First you ask a question if a cache is valid. You get a reply here that it isn't a valid cache, but still you decided to log it, although you could have written a not found log (and a needs archived log).

 

Now you think a certain cache is disrespectful since you "In order to get to it you have to ensure not to drop any of the candles and right behind the icon of the Virgin Mary (40 cm maybe)".

If I would arrive at a location where it would bother me (for any reason) to search and log a cache, I would simply not log the cache and maybe I would write a not found or note explaining my feelings about this cache. But you just went ahead and searched, found and logged a temporary disabled cache, both in the field and online.

Judging caches, acting like you're asking innocent questions, but in the mean time it's clear your find log is more important than the answers to the questions and what is appropriate in this hobby.

 

But to answer your question (imagining it was asked with a sincere motive): I'm not a religious person either, and every belief/person deserves our respect. In general geocachers are people with a lot of respect and interesting for nature, culture, history etc., and I'm pretty sure a real geocacher will not be "a stupid guy with a GPS trying to find a film canister while someone is kneeling praying for whatever". A real geocacher will wait or come back later, or he will note a not found.

 

Maybe there is a better place for the cache, but maybe the people who take care of the chapel have agreed to this cache because they wanted to be inviting, wanted to make sure people wouldn't stay outside the chapel just scoring their smiley, but actually take a moment to for something else, even while logging a micro. There a so many reasons that can bring people to a chapel (or a graveyard, or any location with deep emotions), the real question is with what experience will they leave?

Edited July 23, 2014 by irisisleuk

[+Ibar]

Well,I find your statement "Judging caches, acting like you're asking innocent questions" ... a bit too strong.

While accessing the cache this morning there was nobody around for miles and I didn't profane anything, so far for my log.

 

About archiving: I read somewhere in GC that you must think and think and think before placing a NA, and I don't want to be a policeman, so I thought asking the community about it would be a good idea (and yes my motive is sincere, I'm trying to learn this game and the CO is long gone, so I'm not trying to speak on anybody's back (hope you understand what I mean, cause english isn't my mothertongue)).

 

Back to the cache, there are 5 people "watching" the cache. I'd bet (just a guess, I know) that they are watching because they haven't found it, and they haven't found it because they didn't step in the chapel.

 

Now, this is a game we are all supposed to enjoy while respecting others, honestly putting that canister 5 meters further would have made IMHO it more enjoyable, for both cachers, and people coming to pray. That's all

[+Touchstone]

..I'm trying to learn this game..

 

One aspect of the game that you may want to consider is the fact you logged a Find on the cache, and then came to the Forums to discuss some concerns about it. That would understandably seem inconsistent to a number of reasonably minded people in the Forums.

 

Simple solution to your dilemma. Looks like the Local Reviewer Disabled the Listing back in April. I'm not able to translate the Reviewer Log entry, but I'm assuming that it's in regards to to the Listing or cache placement. Looks like the Reviewer forgot to follow up. Posting a NA log will alert the Reviewer that they need to close the circle on this one, and either resolve the issue with the cache owner or Archive it.

[+Ibar]

One aspect of the game that you may want to consider is the fact you logged a Find on the cache, and then came to the Forums to discuss some concerns about it. That would understandably seem inconsistent to a number of reasonably minded people in the Forums.

 

Simple solution to your dilemma. Looks like the Local Reviewer Disabled the Listing back in April. I'm not able to translate the Reviewer Log entry, but I'm assuming that it's in regards to to the Listing or cache placement. Looks like the Reviewer forgot to follow up. Posting a NA log will alert the Reviewer that they need to close the circle on this one, and either resolve the issue with the cache owner or Archive it.

 

Got it. Thanks

[+irisisleuk]

Well,I find your statement "Judging caches, acting like you're asking innocent questions" ... a bit too strong.

While accessing the cache this morning there was nobody around for miles and I didn't profane anything, so far for my log.

So there really is no problem with this cache, even you logged it, it's simply a case of waiting for muggles to be gone (like with every cache). It doesn't explain why you went out to search for a cache that is disabled.

 

About archiving: I read somewhere in GC that you must think and think and think before placing a NA, and I don't want to be a policeman, so I thought asking the community about it would be a good idea (and yes my motive is sincere, I'm trying to learn this game and the CO is long gone, so I'm not trying to speak on anybody's back (hope you understand what I mean, cause english isn't my mothertongue)).

 

This explains why you didn't write a needs archived note, it doesn't explain why you logged that cache as a find although you knew it wasn't a cache, you just found a little bit of plastic.

 

Back to the cache, there are 5 people "watching" the cache. I'd bet (just a guess, I know) that they are watching because they haven't found it, and they haven't found it because they didn't step in the chapel.

Or they're watching it to know when it will be enabled again, or they're watching it because it was a special find for them (first cache, wedding location etc.), or they're watching it to help the owner maintain it. Lots of reasons, but I personally have never placed a cache on my watchlist because I couldn't find it.

 

Now, this is a game we are all supposed to enjoy while respecting others, honestly putting that canister 5 meters further would have made IMHO it more enjoyable, for both cachers, and people coming to pray. That's all

I understand how you feel, but I also understand how someone else might feel different, so I'll give you an example:

There is a chapel near where I live and in the past there was a micro cache on the outside of this chapel. People logged it with logs similar to what an intro app might suggest to log, logs not worthy to the location (or any cache) in my opinion. This cache was archived, but a few months later a new cache was placed by someone else at this chapel. Now the cache page really did justice to the site and the cache got a size "small". A clear explanation of the history and meaning of the chapel on the page and the cache is now inside, inviting everyone to come in. Of course a clear hint so nothing needs to be disturbed except for the exact location of the cache (that to my opinion might be the real problem with the cache you've found). But there was also something else that surprised me in the text: "if possible come when it's dark". So many caches aren't available 24/7, so people wouldn't think something fishy is going one, especially at locations like this and I assumed this one would be like that as well. But no, the people who take care of this chapel wanted others to notice how beautiful this chapel (with it's colored windows) is in the dark, with just the light of the moon and the candles.

 

So of course there are moments when it's not the right moment to search for a cache at such a location, but the opposite can be true as well. And if you feel uncomfortable doing any cache for any reason you can always choose not to do it. The first time I visited a graveyard for a cache I wasn't sure what to think of it, I had some reservations, but after finding some I discovered how interesting and beautiful such a location is and worth discovering. Of course only if placement is done in cooperation with those who maintain it and with a clear goal, not just to score another smiley (although of course every cache should be like that).

[+irisisleuk]

..I'm trying to learn this game..

 

One aspect of the game that you may want to consider is the fact you logged a Find on the cache, and then came to the Forums to discuss some concerns about it. That would understandably seem inconsistent to a number of reasonably minded people in the Forums.

 

Simple solution to your dilemma. Looks like the Local Reviewer Disabled the Listing back in April. I'm not able to translate the Reviewer Log entry, but I'm assuming that it's in regards to to the Listing or cache placement. Looks like the Reviewer forgot to follow up. Posting a NA log will alert the Reviewer that they need to close the circle on this one, and either resolve the issue with the cache owner or Archive it.

 

No the reviewer hasn't forgotten to follow up, it is standard procedure here in the Netherlands and Belgium to wait a couple of months to give the CO time to correct things, they don't want to archive it right away, so they first place a warning like this reviewer's disabled log. Especially in cases like this where a needs maintenance note should not have been written, since the cache was there, someone just couldn't find it, I think that is a good thing.

So at least there will have to be a owner maintenance note within a certain time, otherwise it will get archived eventually (the reviewers plan certain days for this every couple of months), so there is no needs to place a needs archived note in this specific situation. Of course if the cache would have been gone or someone at the site complained about it, than a needs archived note would be in place. But in this case there is no need, since the reviewers are already "watching" it by having it disabled.

Edited July 23, 2014 by irisisleuk

[4wheelin_fool]

 

That's not an ordinary church. I'd say there was nothing wrong with it.

[+NanCycle]

One aspect of the game that you may want to consider is the fact you logged a Find on the cache, and then came to the Forums to discuss some concerns about it. That would understandably seem inconsistent to a number of reasonably minded people in the Forums.

 

I am not one of those people who find this inconsistent. I find these to be two separate issues. There are several caches that I have found (and logged as Finds) that I have concerns about--such as permission, buried, screws in trees, and other guideline issues. Now, does the inconsistency crop up if I bring the concerns to the forums for discussion? Or is the inconsistency there even if I say nothing about the situation?

[+cheech gang]

The only thing truly consistent is that if you bring up ANY subject here you must be prepared to receive widely diverse and inconsistent opinions of your subject matter. Nature of the beast.

[+Ibar]

 

Well,I find your statement "Judging caches, acting like you're asking innocent questions" ... a bit too strong.

While accessing the cache this morning there was nobody around for miles and I didn't profane anything, so far for my log.

 

So there really is no problem with this cache, even you logged it, it's simply a case of waiting for muggles to be gone (like with every cache). It doesn't explain why you went out to search for a cache that is disabled.

The reason why I went to search for a cache that is disabled is simple. I solved the puzzle while it was enabled, I tried first time to find the cache while it was enabled and I searched everywhere (literally) except in the chapel. The cache has been disabled because somebody wrongly (at least that's my opinion) logged a NM just because she couldn't find it. The cache would be archived anyway because the CO is long gone, so I wanted to try to find that cache that would (somehow unfairly) be archived.

That was my reasoning why I searched the cache, obviously BEFORE I realized where it was, decided to post it in the forum and so on

 

About archiving: I read somewhere in GC that you must think and think and think before placing a NA, and I don't want to be a policeman, so I thought asking the community about it would be a good idea (and yes my motive is sincere, I'm trying to learn this game and the CO is long gone, so I'm not trying to speak on anybody's back (hope you understand what I mean, cause english isn't my mothertongue)).

This explains why you didn't write a needs archived note, it doesn't explain why you logged that cache as a find although you knew it wasn't a cache, you just found a little bit of plastic.

Strongly disagree, see my previous comment

 

Back to the cache, there are 5 people "watching" the cache. I'd bet (just a guess, I know) that they are watching because they haven't found it, and they haven't found it because they didn't step in the chapel.

Or they're watching it to know when it will be enabled again, or they're watching it because it was a special find for them (first cache, wedding location etc.), or they're watching it to help the owner maintain it. Lots of reasons, but I personally have never placed a cache on my watchlist because I couldn't find it.

I do, at least till a couple people logged a found, there's a chance that the cache is gone for good, so it's good to know that I didn't find it ... because I didn't find it, and no because it's gone

 

Now, this is a game we are all supposed to enjoy while respecting others, honestly putting that canister 5 meters further would have made IMHO it more enjoyable, for both cachers, and people coming to pray. That's all

 

I understand how you feel, but I also understand how someone else might feel different, so I'll give you an example:

There is a chapel near where I live and in the past there was a micro cache on the outside of this chapel. People logged it with logs similar to what an intro app might suggest to log, logs not worthy to the location (or any cache) in my opinion. This cache was archived, but a few months later a new cache was placed by someone else at this chapel. Now the cache page really did justice to the site and the cache got a size "small". A clear explanation of the history and meaning of the chapel on the page and the cache is now inside, inviting everyone to come in. Of course a clear hint so nothing needs to be disturbed except for the exact location of the cache (that to my opinion might be the real problem with the cache you've found). But there was also something else that surprised me in the text: "if possible come when it's dark". So many caches aren't available 24/7, so people wouldn't think something fishy is going one, especially at locations like this and I assumed this one would be like that as well. But no, the people who take care of this chapel wanted others to notice how beautiful this chapel (with it's colored windows) is in the dark, with just the light of the moon and the candles.

 

So of course there are moments when it's not the right moment to search for a cache at such a location, but the opposite can be true as well. And if you feel uncomfortable doing any cache for any reason you can always choose not to do it. The first time I visited a graveyard for a cache I wasn't sure what to think of it, I had some reservations, but after finding some I discovered how interesting and beautiful such a location is and worth discovering. Of course only if placement is done in cooperation with those who maintain it and with a clear goal, not just to score another smiley (although of course every cache should be like that).

Yes understood. Unfortunately in this case it's a puzzle so there was no comment at all about the chapel.

To be honest we do have quite a few "chapel caches" around here (including one I've placed). In almost all cases there's an interesting description of the chapel and something like "the cache is NOT in, on or attached to the chapel, so please respect it". In one of them there wasn't such a comment, and when I got there it looked as if a whirlwind had passed around, tiles upside down, statues moved, flowers misplaced .. I felt quite bad about it.

[+Bear and Ragged]

If the owner isn't doing 'timely' maintenance, maybe it's time the cache was archived?

 

Maybe a previous finder moved it inside?

 

Maybe the cache did get lost -hence the DNF's.

Maybe someone left a 'Throwdown' and claimed the find.

Maybe the cache wasn't IN the chapel to start with, but that's where the cacher that left the 'Throwdown' hid it?

 

Really does need the cache owner to carry out the required maintenance.

[+Team Microdot]

One aspect of the game that you may want to consider is the fact you logged a Find on the cache, and then came to the Forums to discuss some concerns about it. That would understandably seem inconsistent to a number of reasonably minded people in the Forums.

 

I am not one of those people who find this inconsistent. I find these to be two separate issues. There are several caches that I have found (and logged as Finds) that I have concerns about--such as permission, buried, screws in trees, and other guideline issues. Now, does the inconsistency crop up if I bring the concerns to the forums for discussion? Or is the inconsistency there even if I say nothing about the situation?

 

I think the point Touchstone is making is that the OP came here for advice with this thread - and then seemingly ignored it - which was a bit of a waste of time for everyone concerned.

[+Panther&Pine]

 

That's not an ordinary church. I'd say there was nothing wrong with it.

I'm not Catholic so this is a guess, but would this be better called a shrine? That term seems more accurate since it isn't a formal church.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I'm not Catholic so this is a guess, but would this be better called a shrine? That term seems more accurate since it isn't a formal church.

 

I would describe it as a Grotto. And I have found caches at two of them, that I can remember. One was actually on the grotto, the other was near it in a tree.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm not Catholic so this is a guess, but would this be better called a shrine? That term seems more accurate since it isn't a formal church.

 

I would describe it as a Grotto. And I have found caches at two of them, that I can remember. One was actually on the grotto, the other was near it in a tree.

 

It could be both. A grotto is a natural or artificial cave. A grotto, as it is in this case, could be used as a shrine. Shrines (not to be confused with Shriners, which are large men wearing funny hats and riding in very small cars at parades) could be found in most religions.

[+St.Matthew]

Yes, it is a Marian Grotto. I have found one at a similar location before. However, it was archived by the CO after the majority of found logs complained that they felt uncomfortable with the location.

[+colleda]

A chapel is not a church.

chapel. "Place of Christian worship other than a parish church or cathedral" - The Concise Oxford Dictionary.

[+The_Incredibles_]

It remind me of a bench hide. Not the best idea, mainly because there might be someone sitting on the bench.

What are you supposed to do if you get there and someone's praying?

I agree that it would be better placed closeby, but not right on the shrine.

 

Another thing that concerns me is whether people have to climb to retrieve the cache? The last thing you'd want is people climbing and damaging the structure.

 

As for whether it's respectful or not to hide a cache, I don't really know. I suppose it might be OK if no one was around to see you retrieving and hiding the cache, but if someone caught you, yeah, I think that would be lame.

Edited July 24, 2014 by The_Incredibles_

[+Ibar]

There was no climbing needed to retrieve the cache. Eventually uncareful cachers could damage the structure by trying to look behind stones that couldn't actually be removed, but that risk is everywhere.

I'm quite convinced, though, that several if not most of the DNF's where due to people that didn't "dare" to look behind the altar.

I fully agree with your last sentence.

 

I have a final question on this story. How "correct" (not so sure if this is the right word, but anyway) is to log disabled caches?

I've seen a few disabled caches in my area and unless the cache is gone, I get the feeling that people continue logging Finds without real concerns. I get the impression that in some cases the disabled is considered by the community as a warning prior to archiving so some people may get the "let's log before it's gone for good" approach

[+wmpastor]

If the owner isn't doing 'timely' maintenance, maybe it's time the cache was archived?

 

Maybe a previous finder moved it inside?

 

Maybe the cache did get lost -hence the DNF's.

Maybe someone left a 'Throwdown' and claimed the find.

Maybe the cache wasn't IN the chapel to start with, but that's where the cacher that left the 'Throwdown' hid it?

 

Really does need the cache owner to carry out the required maintenance.

Maybe the OP could adopt the cache and get things set up right.

[+Touchstone]

There was no climbing needed to retrieve the cache. Eventually uncareful cachers could damage the structure by trying to look behind stones that couldn't actually be removed, but that risk is everywhere.

I'm quite convinced, though, that several if not most of the DNF's where due to people that didn't "dare" to look behind the altar.

I fully agree with your last sentence.

 

I have a final question on this story. How "correct" (not so sure if this is the right word, but anyway) is to log disabled caches?

I've seen a few disabled caches in my area and unless the cache is gone, I get the feeling that people continue logging Finds without real concerns. I get the impression that in some cases the disabled is considered by the community as a warning prior to archiving so some people may get the "let's log before it's gone for good" approach

 

Depends on the circumstances that led to the Disabling. If it was something simple like a cracked and leaky container or a cache in need of a logbook replacement, I don't see a problem with that.

 

If it was something that involved breaking the law to accomplish, for instance a fence was erected around the cache location, and/or No Trespassing signs installed, or something of that nature, and the cache needs to be relocated in a legally accessible location, then no. People shouldn't have to break the law or the Land Owners/Managers wishes in order to log a Find.

[+Ibar]

If the owner isn't doing 'timely' maintenance, maybe it's time the cache was archived?

 

Maybe a previous finder moved it inside?

 

Maybe the cache did get lost -hence the DNF's.

Maybe someone left a 'Throwdown' and claimed the find.

Maybe the cache wasn't IN the chapel to start with, but that's where the cacher that left the 'Throwdown' hid it?

 

Really does need the cache owner to carry out the required maintenance.

Maybe the OP could adopt the cache and get things set up right.

 

I thought about it when it got disabled, but it possible to do that if the CO is Missing in Action? And if yes, how?

[+TriciaG]

No, it's not possible to adopt a cache when the CO is missing. The CO has to initiate the adoption, and that's not possible if the CO is gone.

 

You could wait until the cache is archived, then place one of your own in the area.