J the Goat

Choose a heading Head North Brain bucket

Use your head That's using your noodle Ahead of the game I'll think of some more in a bit

Not behind but A Head.

Thanks for that. I wondered if you could add something which maps the list of locations the OP originally posted with District numbers. Here's that original list: A. Northeast Colorado B. Northeast Colorado/extremely close to Nebraska-Kansas-Colorado borders C. Nebraska-Kansas-Colorado border area D. Wyoming-Nebraska-Colorado border area E. Eastern Utah-Colorado-New Mexico-Texas F. Utah-Wyoming-Arizona G. California-Nevada-Utah-Idaho-Wyoming H. Washington-Oregon-Idaho-Montana I. Montana-North Dakota-South Dakota-Kansas J. Montana-North Dakota-Minnesota-Nebraska-Kansas-Oklahoma-Texas-New Mexico K. Kansas-Oklahoma-Texas-New Mexico-Louisianna-Arkansas-Missouri-Mississippi-Alabama-Georgia-South Carolina-Tennessee-Kentucky-Indiana-Virginia L. Kentucky-West Virginia-Virginia-Ohio-Pennsylvania-Delaware-Maryland-D.C. M. Jersey-Southern NY-Connecticut-Rhode Island-Massachusetts-Pennsylvania As far as I can tell, "M." corresponds to District 12 (Mining) since it is in Pennsylvania. G is district 6, placed in Calfornia. Transportation based themed.

Doesn't look like that's what got added. At least not with my limited ability to find new stuff on the internet

Why is too late? (I suspect some CO don't read their logs) But perhaps a short note directly to the CO explaining your concern and you might find they will fall over themselves with apologies and promises to fix the attributions. I think if I was in the OP's situation I would not be wasting my time trying to negotiate with the person that lifted my picture. I would want the pictures taken down ... now. The best way to accomplish that is talk to the frog. The pictures will come down without discussion. The other side of that might be that the CO didn't know about the copyright. I sure wouldn't know if a picture I downloaded was copyrighted. If I used one by accident and the photographer contacted me, I'd be happy to give credit where it was due. I'd be sad to take the picture down, but I'd do it. Talking to people isn't always a waste of time... In order to use Panoramino services you must sign up for an account. You agree to abide by the terms of service and there is this paragraph Clicking through is not an excuse. And your right, talking to people is not a waste of time. According to the OP if he was asked he would have granted the right to use the picture. Now he just wants it removed. This is what I was referring to. OP seems to have cooled down a touch, which I think is good.

I know, they're not that bad. I have a regular problem where once I move the map with the cursor, once I hover over a cache icon no info pops up. Sometimes I can't open the cache page. It's alright, it's just a small inconvenience. I just felt like grumbling and a cute hamster video gave me an opportunity. Maybe I should go caching...

I've never seen it before. It's kinda cute. Kinda wish the maps worked better, hopefully they'll get the time to do that soon

I've never heard of such a painting tradition in our area at all. Many of the tribute/milestone caches I have found have been nothing different than a regular cache, just a nice description on the cache page. +1

Why is too late? (I suspect some CO don't read their logs) But perhaps a short note directly to the CO explaining your concern and you might find they will fall over themselves with apologies and promises to fix the attributions. I think if I was in the OP's situation I would not be wasting my time trying to negotiate with the person that lifted my picture. I would want the pictures taken down ... now. The best way to accomplish that is talk to the frog. The pictures will come down without discussion. The other side of that might be that the CO didn't know about the copyright. I sure wouldn't know if a picture I downloaded was copyrighted. If I used one by accident and the photographer contacted me, I'd be happy to give credit where it was due. I'd be sad to take the picture down, but I'd do it. Talking to people isn't always a waste of time...

Absolutely not, assuming it's not private property or you have permission to put it there. Places like that generally hold better quality caches than your local parking lot micro Make sure you rate it appropriately and use the attributes, and good luck

List it as a mystery, I don't think any reviewer would list that as a multi cache. You just have to list the caches on the page of the multi so people know where to get the information.

Absolutely go fix it or archive it. Either way, no cache = no find.

District 6 is up and ready to go!

At least they found the actual cache. I don't know what people were finding while the cache was disabled but those people were logging something that they found something. For years I had thought that Waymarking wasn't geocaching, I guess I was wrong. :laughing: :laughing:

District 6 will be up in less than 12 hours. I'll post a link when it's approved. District 11 looks fun.

That might concern me, even if it's on your own property. Is it buried? Yes, you can give yourself permission, but it might set a bad example to other cachers. Time frames: Three weeks when the reviewer had the nerve to elope! Not being used to having a cache reviewed in less than a day (yes. That was quite a while ago) I was working on a cache page (yes. Active) and had the reviewer e-mail me while I was still working, to tell me that the coords were out in the ocean. Didja miss this part?

I can usually be found caching in hot pants and a tube top, generally hot pink in color. 6 inch stilletos and a frilly parasol round out my attire if I can pull them away from the gimp in the closet. Sorry, I couldn't resist. GPS, pen (i'm not great about this one ), water, gloves, compass, spare batteries, some spare containers (in case I find a good place to drop a new cache), a small assortment of swag, and some snacks are all pretty standard. Longer hikes mean more stuff, but that's pretty much the basics. If I'm caching in town, it's generally because I'm killing time between errands so all I have is a GPS and whatever's in my pockets or in my car.

What heavy-handed actions would those be exactly? Disabling the cache? Really? Holding this cache to the same standards as just about any other cache? Yes, heavy handed since he disabled it due to his personal opinion, as stated in this log. It's plain to see that he was definitely not holding it to the same standards as 'just about any other cache'. This is strictly my opinion, but I read that as an attempt at disabling due to it being a throwdown. Or maybe that's just how I want to read it, but the micro was a throwdown which, according to everything I understand, warrants a disable-ment ( ) And I'll go along with the thread closure. Anything else at this point is just repetition without purpose.

I dunno, there's a lot of people out there that can't get that kind of treatment... But the reason is not because they aren't old enough. That's not true. The elderly in England are routinely denied life saving procedures that are routinely given to those younger. Just one of the many benefits of the community deciding the level of your heath care for you. I can really follow how this relates to a cache in a hole in Kansas. Really I can. Yeah, I think we're overanalyzing my statement just a bit. Anybody know what blood type Mingo has? Depends on which container we're talking about

Since we can't see the deleted log I can't tell what specific cache is being talked about. If you look at his archived caches a large number of them have this note "Not interested in the upkeep of caches so will be removing them." That looks like, to me at least, this cache owner is downsizing the number of caches he has and is getting around to pickup up the containers. Last time I checked there isn't a mandatory time frame that archived caches must be removed by. My one and only point (and the only point I really care about) is that if a cache owner needs to make sure that his archived cache is no longer visited (most often due to permission/trespassing issues), the only thing the cache owner can do to make sure no one can find the cache and sign the log is to physically remove the cache and make that obvious on the cache page. As long as the cache owner hasn't fulfilled that obligation and complied with that guideline, there will continue to be an ongoing risk of further difficulty caused by that cache. If there's a strong reason to keep cachers from attempting to find the cache, there's no excuse for the cache owner not to remove the physical container as soon as possible. On the other hand, if the cache owner archived the cache simply because he's walking away from the hobby, or moved away from the area, or whatever, and the cache placement isn't otherwise problematical, I guess those who enjoy chasing archived caches can find them and log them. Happily, there are still plenty of decent active caches in my area that I haven't found yet, so It's not a specialty I'm likely to get involved with. Personally, I'm hoping every cache owner will be responsible and remove the cache container whenever he archives a cache. As others have pointed out, I can just imagine the confusion that could be caused by an active cache being hidden in the same spot (or near) an archived cache that was never properly disposed of. --Larry In my mind, this is clearly the issue here. If you don't want your archived cache found for whatever reason, pick it up. If you leave it, you have no bearing on which to complain when people log it. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

It should be, but if that is the only focus of the event be prepared if it doesn't garner much interest. It might be a better idea to talk up the booth in the local forums then on the morning of the expo have a breakfast event afterwhich those interested can go to the expo to man the booth. Hey, that was my idea

Has there been official explanation why this isn't an option? It doesn't seem very difficult to implement, and it seems that it would be tremendously helpful.

Oh good lord I imagine I'm probably on that list you're talking about, at least in the minds of some. I'm glad it's back up. I'd have been glad if it were archived. I'm of the mindset that SOMETHING needed to happen, and it needed to be done by somebody who actually had something to do with the cache. That means the CO or a reviewer. I still maintain that Mingo isn't special because of it's age, and shouldn't be treated any differently than any other cache. I get the impression that the rest of us "crestfallen" forum users probably are on the same boat.

I agree. But they don't always. So I propose we work from reality not what we want to be true. When it's your turn to be king for a day you can implement adequate legislation. Option 3. I place a cache, it gets published, I archive it a week later and place an additional cache in the same spot it gets published. I archive a week later, place a third container. Then a 4th, then a 5th. We got an awesome power trail with a stack of 30 geocaches all in one place (mind you that 29 are archived). NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!