Trinity's Crew

Ok. We have established that it isn't on his property. Is it a power trail? AHA! Now we are getting somewhere! Not sure how the powertrail element comes into play, though. The link the OP provided was a discussion about power trails in rural areas. These can cause undue attention because of the high traffic. If that isn't the case, then this is no different than thousands upon thousands of other caches that are hidden in areas that expose you to public scrutiny while you're searching for them.

It would be good if the CO answered you. I can't tell you why he hasn't gotten back to you yet. Perhaps he's ill. Perhaps he's dead. Perhaps he doesn't feel your emails are worthy of a response. But what will you do if he does respond and tells you he has no plan to move or remove the cache? Will you drop it? I will let the neighbour deal with it as he feels fit. When I talked to him earlier this week, his option was the trash can. You could also try to convince him that this is a harmless game that isn't the least bit malicious. Initially he seemed reluctant to remove the cache. What changed?

Absolutely! That's not what has been described here but you are absolutely correct.

It would be good if the CO answered you. I can't tell you why he hasn't gotten back to you yet. Perhaps he's ill. Perhaps he's dead. Perhaps he doesn't feel your emails are worthy of a response. But what will you do if he does respond and tells you he has no plan to move or remove the cache? Will you drop it?

Ok. We have established that it isn't on his property. Is it a power trail?

It was fairly plain in the opening post (to me) that the homeowner had already seen cachers looking for the cache when the OP was asked to explain what it was. I don't see any other side to the story unless the CO cares to chime in and state that they had explicit permission to place the cache there. I suppose it's possible the homeowner has memory issues and doesn't remember giving permission. Cache placers don't need permission to place a cache on public land from anyone who happens to live nearby. Your conflating issues. If the cache is on private property AND no permission was obtained I agree it needs to be archived. I don't believe that is the case. Not knowing any details of the situation, how could you possibly know what to believe- you are simply making assumptions. Pay particular note the the bold parts here: The Geocacher’s Creed When placing or seeking geocaches, I will: • Not endanger myself or others. • Observe all laws and rules of the area. • Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate. • Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm. • Minimize my and others’ impact on the environment. • Be considerate of others. • Protect the integrity of the game pieces. You might want to pay some attention to the parts you put in bold as well.

It was fairly plain in the opening post (to me) that the homeowner had already seen cachers looking for the cache when the OP was asked to explain what it was. I don't see any other side to the story unless the CO cares to chime in and state that they had explicit permission to place the cache there. I suppose it's possible the homeowner has memory issues and doesn't remember giving permission. Cache placers don't need permission to place a cache on public land from anyone who happens to live nearby. Your conflating issues. If the cache is on private property AND no permission was obtained I agree it needs to be archived. I don't believe that is the case. Not knowing any details of the situation, how could you possibly know what to believe- you are simply making assumptions. Pay particular note the the bold parts here: The Geocacher’s Creed When placing or seeking geocaches, I will: • Not endanger myself or others. • Observe all laws and rules of the area. • Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate. • Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm. • Minimize my and others’ impact on the environment. • Be considerate of others. • Protect the integrity of the game pieces. If it is on the elderly gentleman's private property stop wasting your time posting here. Remove the cache and log NA. If not, then my assumption is correct.

I can't speak as to whether you did it intentionally or not but you brought it up.

It was fairly plain in the opening post (to me) that the homeowner had already seen cachers looking for the cache when the OP was asked to explain what it was. I don't see any other side to the story unless the CO cares to chime in and state that they had explicit permission to place the cache there. I suppose it's possible the homeowner has memory issues and doesn't remember giving permission. Cache placers don't need permission to place a cache on public land from anyone who happens to live nearby. Your conflating issues. If the cache is on private property AND no permission was obtained I agree it needs to be archived. I don't believe that is the case.

Of course it matters. I didn't see anything resembling a power trail in your recent finds. I didn't notice anything in any of your recent "Found It" logs that indicated a run in with a disgruntled muggle who lived nearby. How old is the cache? If it's been in place for years without an issue why has it become one?

+1 And I'll add... give it a rest. your quest to rid the world of caches you don't like is becoming tiresome. Some People Just Don't Get It! Is that you? That looks dangerous! You should pull your head out before you suffocate. We don't bury caches.

With somewhere between 5 and 6 Zillion other places for a cache, does it really matter if it's actually on private property or not? The homeowner is bothered by people showing up to find the cache. In my book, that is enough to warrant removal/archival of the cache. I wasn't asking you. I am curious about the specifics of this cache. It sounded like he made his "neighbor" aware of the cache. If that is the case then it obviously wasn't a problem until he made it one. As with many threads in this forum we are only hearing one side of the story.

+1 And I'll add... give it a rest. your quest to rid the world of caches you don't like is becoming tiresome.

Why did you explain this to your neighbor? Did you go out of your way to make sure he knew about it? Is it on private property?

The title of this thread just made me laugh. "What would you suggest I do?" I would suggest you stop using synonyms for "unjust". Edit: changed emoticon from to because I wasn't laughing at the OP I was just being silly.

You posted this while I was posting my last response. It wasn't archived "wrongly". It was archived because the library re-opened in December and the owner never re-activated his cache. The reviewer took all of the proper steps and the cache was archived properly.

I think your only point is that the cache is still there and it's a shame that it's been archived. It's obvious that you understand the CO is responsible for the archival. Try to contact him a time or two and then move on from there. If the owner doesn't answer your queries, list a new cache at the library. It shouldn't be difficult. The staff is in on it and playing along so permission should be a snap. Whether you use the existing container or fashion a new one is up to you. I don't have strong feelings on it either way, but others do.

Is it this cache? God NO!!!!! Just kidding. Go for it.

To be fair, I did send a report last night to suggest they merge the threads. That'll teach me.

Okay. Now you ARE messing with me. You've merged the threads and now it DOES look like he was responding to my question. Cut that out! Now my brain hurts!

I'm thinking Briansnat was responding to the OP's question of "If you replace a log in someone else's cache can you just dispose of the old one?" edit: typo In the other thread on this subject Brian posted this: I remember that about you. You said something like this in a similar thread years ago. I was curious then and I'm curious now. Why don't you want a temporary logbook left in your caches? I asked him about it and then got confused toggling between threads and assumed I was reading his response to my question in the other thread. Either that, or it's a vast conspiracy and the threads were manipulated to make me look stupid. Well, more stupid.

I never suggested that. You didn't frame your response in a way that suggested you only opposed removal of your existing log. You only said you didn't like the idea of someone placing another log in your cache. I already acknowledged that I hadn't considered situations involving a cache too small to handle a second log book. I can assure you I'd NEVER remove or throw away a log book. Maybe I just misunderstood your posts. Do you oppose a replacement log if the original log is left in the cache in tact?

<snip> Well, Yeah! Good Lord!! Are you suggesting that I have to compete on an equal playing field and let the best person win?? (Please note that I remained politically correct and didn't say "best man".)

this same topic is being discussed in an active thread called "dumb question". there is some good advice there. I am not sure what you should do with a micro or nano that doesn't have room for a new log but I believe the general consensus is to post NM and send a message to the owner. If the cache will support a new log and you have one,just add it to the cache, leave the old one,post Needs Maintenance if you want to, and send a message to the owner. Edit: SPEELENG

I remember that about you. You said something like this in a similar thread years ago. I was curious then and I'm curious now. Why don't you want a temporary logbook left in your caches?