Taoiseach

One can hope!

I'd tend to agree with that. More proof that courts everywhere (and particularly in the States) have set far too many dangerous precedents...

It would never tie things up in court. A 'stolen' electra-sol tub would get thrown right out of court. Not to mention that under my proposal, it would be settled with the point of returning the listing without any hassle I'll agree with you on the point of Civil Trials though. A 'Find this cache at your own peril' disclaimer would clear that right up though

I somehow doubt that if Groundspeak decided to claim partial ownership of caches, that many of us would baulk at the idea... Ah... I digress As far as I'm concerned, if a player leaves the game for an extended period of time, and makes absolutely no attempt to make people aware that he is still around, then they are making it quite clear that they no longer care. If they suddenly do decide to care, We'll gladly give them back. Theft charges? C'mon - I highly doubt that that would fly on this side of the border.

Am I correct that you want to change the guidelines for 1 cache? Let us know how that works out for ya. No - There's many of them here. I also want to protect historical caches everywhere.

I too doubt that I'll actually hear from him, but it's still worth a shot Will Do! Yes, He's nowhere to be found. There are only a couple of Navicaches around here (Well, listed as being around here), and all of one terracache (it's a virtual, no less). Every last one of the Letterboxes listed as being around here is missing as well.

These particular caches have an entire local culture associated with them. These are quite possibly the reason that Ottawa has as much of a puzzle culture as it does. Yes, effectively what I'm proposing is a forced adoption, however all this will do is give us the tools to maintain these without requiring the help of a local reviewer to clear things such as 'Needs Maintenance,' when these caches get checked on within hours of a single DNF

It is the original Bridge, and the original cache - It has simply been maintained Things deteriorate over time, and will be lost for ever if we don't work to preserve them. My proposal will give us the tools to preserve these You and I will have to agree to disagree. Your definition of a historical item just doesn't fit well with mine. Maintenance is not the same thing as replacement. I have a 140 year old copy of Robinson Cursoe that I bought 34 years ago at a Garage sale. In those 34 years I have watched the edges of that acid filled paper continue to curl and brown and even crumble ever so slightly. If I tear out those pages - retype them and stick the replacent back in the book -- It just isn't the same thing my friend. I will agree to disagree. And I like your second analogy better. As for the bridge, if you were to tear it down and replace it, then it would be a new bridge, but it you're only occasionally replacing logs, then it is not. More than anything with this thread, I'd like to hear from Jeremy on the matter

It is the original Bridge, and the original cache - It has simply been maintained Things deteriorate over time, and will be lost for ever if we don't work to preserve them. My proposal will give us the tools to preserve these

Caches are individually owned. When the onwners quit, move on, and forget about caching, I don't see an issue with a cache community maintaining the cache. That said because caches are individually owned, they all have limited life spans, and for the most part should pass on as their owners interests pass on. Some landmark caches perhaps could be placed and maintained by a community caching organization. The organization itself would be the onwer and should have the resources to not need a forced adoption. Personally I think the landmark historical caches are so very rare that any organization would only have a few at best. Most should be allowed to die. If half the group of locals is ready to pull the plug, that's not really a historical cache of any significance. If most all the group is ready to spend time and money on keeping it alive then maybe it is. My thoughts. Incoherent as they may be. With our community, I would say that most want to keep these alive. The whole point of this, is that re-listing them makes it a tribute to the original cache ,not the same cache. It's like I said, if 'The Spot' was ever archived and re-listed, would it be the same thing to find it if it was GC1ZEHR, rather than GC39 - I think not.

A piece of plastic/metal does not a cache make. If the original container is all that a cache is, people would be finding The Glebe: Rest in Peace every two months, when I have to replace it, archive it, and re-list it. That would just be silly. You're right - Those covered bridges are not their original wood - Caring people take great care to maintain them, so that they can be enjoyed by all. The would be deteriorating, and generally dilapidated if they didn't replace boards and beams I understand that many people don't care about preserving history, and would prefer to simply see a picture of that old bridge on a new steel and cement one, but many of us would prefer to see our heritage preserved. That is the point of condition #4 - If the original owner cares, it will be immediately returned to them

As Groundspeak no longer allows the forced adoption of caches, perhaps the time has come to discuss a method to avoid the death of landmark caches. Every year at about this time, a group of caches that we, as a community, maintain starts to need maintenance. As a direct result of this, a number of people start to argue that we should simply archive them all. Doing so would serve our community absolutely no benefit, and would be considered a great loss by many. I'm quite sure that we are not the only community in this situation. What I am proposing here, is a clause that would permit a region's historical caches to be adopted out to a community account, provided that they meet certain requirements. Those requirements could include, but are of course not limited to; 1) The cache must have been placed prior to 1 January, 2006 2) The original owner must have been dormant for a period of more than 1 year, prior to the cache(s) being adopted 3) The cache(s) must be in some way significant to the local community (e.g. a Local 'Challenge' or the first cache in a region) 4) The Operator(s) of the Community Account which adopts the cache(s) must swear that they will return ownership of the cache(s) should the original owner ever return to the game 5) The Community Account that adopts the cache(s) must do everything in their power to maintain the caches, and only archive them in the event that something major occurs (e.g. Change in the Ownership of the Land, or a public safety concern) Of course these caches should be allowed to remain unchanged, even if that means taking into account rule changes that have occurred over the years. They are grandfathered now, and should continue to be. Archiving historical caches does nothing to benefit the game, and really only hurts the local community. Before some of the 'Just archive them and replace them' people come out, think of it this way - Would the pilgrimage to 'The Spot' be made by as many people if it were GC1FEHR, rather than GC39? No, And it certainly wouldn't have the same meaning. Like an historic building that the community protects from demolition, a caching community should have the power to protect their historic caches from archival I ask Groundspeak now, to create a special clause in the rules that would allow us to preserve our history, before it is all lost to the archives. If the need be, I will even volunteer my services to help this programme move forward.

What I find hilarious, is that we were able to figure out where the final to a very difficult puzzle was, but looking at the owner's GPS, in the video that HE posted on youtube! We saw where the cache was hidden and everything! Unfortunately, it was either muggled, or else fell and was covered in snow, so we were never able to find it. Would have made for a great story though

^^ That's been exactly what my experience has been... ^^ They work for a little while, but the tabs eventually start coming off, one by one - Even with not that many finders

Stop the car. I hope you've contacted your reviewer about this. There is no need for anybody to ever escalate cache issues of any sort to this level. At the very least, place all the cache owner's hides on your ignore list and never seek them out again. Already done, believe me! But he also told us to stay "up north where you belong." This type of situation is not really the reviewer's domain, so we referred it directly to GC. The threats of physical violence stopped, presumably because GC told him to lay off. They advised us to avoid his caches, which we have done, but his demand for us to stay out of the much larger general area is absurd. That to me is cause for banning from gc.com at the very least

How odd... I bet if you were to change your GPSr back to ddd mm.mmm now, it would probably work. Either way, I'm glad you got it working!

I can't image 'banjo' caches being extremely common, so I would probably call it a difficulty 3 and then just rate the terrain to reflect the actual cache location Now, just make sure that you get the D/T right - If you get it wrong, you'll for ever have to live with the guilt of your epic 'frail-ing'

That's the way you want it to look If you entered your Waypoint before you changed your datum from NAD27 (I'm guessing) to WGS84, what you did was convert your incorrect waypoint, into the right datum... It's still wrong though If N43 04.198 W088 05.886 is what you want, try re-entering that, now that your GPSr is set to WGS84

Really? You can't climb trees in Toronto parks? I wonder if we have a similar by-law here... I somehow doubt it, but it could be one of those 'It's on the books and nothing more' deals. But then again, all of the tree caches that we have around here are in fairly secluded areas that probably wouldn't be patrolled for that sort of thing Hmm... That will be interesting to look into...

Not that there are higher levels of Membership, but there might just come a point when those 'Occult Hands' we keep hearing about, become ever so slightly less mysterious Not that there are upper levels...

LOL - have one skirt lifter, and I actually get compliments on the lamp post skirt! (Forgive me - I hid it with ~60 finds, and there aren't a lot right downtown in Ottawa, so I hadn't yet been over exposed to them..) It's not the typical kind of skirt, it's a plate that fits loosely on top of a little box that houses the bolts, and a film canister - don't think it's that great, but it is good in that you can lift it in absolute silence, without being that careful Anyway, As for your cache - Yes, definitely a new listing as a Mystery/Unknown. The last cache I found with a lock on it, had the combination right on the outer box - I wasn't observant enough, and had to brute force the combination

GCG822 Yep - It's still active, but ti's never been found. Whether it's still there or not, We may never know...

How do you think GPS receivers work?

I've found GC39, which I'm aware of as being the fifth oldest active cache. I think I read something about it having been the first cache placed east of the Mississippi

I've found one, but I'd prefer not to give it away... Anyway, just to make sure you're completely clear on the matter, Liar's caches are deliberately misrated (Often 5/5 5/4.5 4.5/5 or 4.5/4.5, but occasionally others), and all of the logs are creatively written in order to make the next finders think that the lie is truthful. For example a cache might say that it's a 15 stage multi, whereas it's really a simple traditional. In this case, the finders might write about or even post pictures of their misadventures at each of the 15 stages The longer that you can avoid it being exposed the better (read - funnier) it is