J the Goat

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I recently found a cache - was even the FTF (see story at http://www.geocachin...2a-aa74954834f6) Sadly the cache never got published (presumably due to vaction guideline) - I found it, I signed the logbook - it had an offical cache label on it - tell me where I go to log my "find"?? I followed all the rules you cite. Seems under your statement that anybody could do a throw down type cache (or even 'claim' they found a cache's remains) at an archived location and start logging. When I archive a cache - it is intended to mean "stop". This cache listing is over. Its what I always have understood since you can't delete them. Maybe its just me though.......guess I was wrong. Having said that - I still strongly believe that all geotrash needs picked up promptly. The way I interpret the guidelines, and Moose Mob's statement, is that a cache owner has an obligation to retrieve whatever remains of a cache when that cache is archived. Until the cache owner fulfills that obligation, the cache is fair game for logging by cachers who find it and sign the log. In the case of a cache that was never published, it was never "officially" a cache to begin with, so I don't see how the situations are at all similar. --Larry And unless I'm mistaken, you can't log a cache that's not been published

I disagree. I want more caches hidden. What we really need is the under-represented cachers to get into geocaching. * Cachers in the "dangerous" neighborhoods that have no caches. * Cachers in the "poor" but not dangerous neighborhoods that have no caches. * Cachers in small rural towns that have no caches. * Cachers in small suburban towns that have no caches. * Millionaire cachers that will spend the $25 to hide caches in PA state parks... Which, for some reason, have not had any new caches since they charged a fee. And yes, put some $20's and $50's for the FTF's. From what i've noticed, it's basically only rich portions of highly populated areas that get high saturation. It's a shame, so many beautiful small rural/suburban towns without caches. So many poor neighborhoods with a not-so-high crime rate that could use more caches. I already hid one in a poor neighborhood that doesn't have much crime. Only been robbed of $5, once. I could use without the dangerous neighborhoods, but, however, I would like the option to go to these neighborhoods. Plus, i'd like a legitimate excuse to visit an open-air drug market. The issue is, it really is only the rich sections of highly populated cities/suburbs. We need to target the demographics least represented in geocaching. I firmly believe this. I..... Wait, maybe.... But what if.... This makes no sense to me. I'm gonna read it again in a few minutes to see if it's any more coherent...

I had originally hid it as a traditional, but the reviewer was all liek, "Zomgz, that are teh cache from teh 10 yerz ago, teh rulezz has teh changedded". So I had to hide a micro with the name of the book in it so I could satisify, "u is r teh nedz teh GPS usage adequatezlyz". If the cache was taken as a traditional it would be a 2.5. At least for me, because I can't use a library system to find a book. But, the first stage adds pretty much nothing other than satisfying the guideline. TL;DR, I wanted people to know they didn't have to drive miles to do this multi, or solve an offset. It's actually a different hallowed hollowed out book from "anne rices the mummy". I'm worried the multi status will stop people from doing it. Especially all the tourists. They're different I get the reasons, but you're still contradicting yourself. You could lower the difficulty and keep the description as it is, or keep the difficulty and change the wording in your description, either would stop the contradiction. Either way, I'm glad to see you do something about the cache instead of complain about it from the sidelines. It's garnered good logs so far, so it appears you've done a good job

Hmmm sure sounds like you are expecting a thanks to me. Unnecessary. Back on topic, I think it's impressive that you help folks out like that. While I will donate things whenever I can, it's usually to people I know, not strangers. Beings that I have recently been accepting more gifts/donations than normal, I will thank you on their behalf, what with me being in similar shoes and all

See, that's how you do it My one question is with your diff. rating. You state in the description that it's a really easy multi, but you rate it 2.5 stars. That's not what I would classify as really easy...

:laughing: :laughing:

Logging an archived cache is considered bad form. Not all archived caches are abandoned. You stumbled upon a listing with an active cache owner. I'd respect the wishes of the cache owner. If you are going to continue on your quest/challenge/whatever of finding and cleaning up archived caches I suggest that you email the cache owner before you attempt cleaning up the cache. Then only do so for caches that you get a positive response from the cache owner. When a cache owner archives a cache he is indicating that he does not want the cache looked for. Under normal circumstances looking for an archived cache is considered very bad form. I took a look at some of the archive logs from caches that the cache owner in question has archived. It is clear that he asks permission from land owners and he has archive caches at the land owner request, usually because geocachers were misbehaving in and/or abusing the area. If this cache owner allows your found after archive log to stand this will encourage other geocachers to attempt to find his other caches that he has archived. Something that I am sure he doesn't want. It takes a little time and skill to determine whether a cache is just archived or truly abandoned but one indicator of an abandoned cache is that a reviewer instead of the cache owner was the one to make the archive log, aka a forced archive. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree. The bad form is a CO who archives a cache and then leaves it there. There's no bad form, at least IMHO, with logging archived caches. If you don't want it logged, pick it up. Simple.

Elitist! (As a caveat, I should point out that I am an elitist as well)

I like the idea, however here's the big problem I see with it. You're essentially putting out regular caches (not the size, but the standard) with information inside them. How is that a different cache type? What's to keep somebody from removing said information from the container? If there's a container to find, I can't think of a way to make a completely different cache type than the ones that are already available. If there's no container and you want it to be like an Earthcache, then you'll have to get a whole network of different things put in place in order to even propose the idea. Like I said, I think it's a great idea and I love the enthusiasm. I just don't see it going through. Best of luck to you.

Unless said cacher doesn't want the help. As seems to be the case here. He doesn't want help? Where do you get that from? Someone has repeatedly vandalized the cache. Until last summer it has sat peacefully for 11 years without any problems. As geocachers, do we work together to help each other out? Or do we quibble about petty things and try to punish the owner for not maintaining it? Archiving it would make the muggle very happy. They have traveled to the spot 4 times in an obsessive quest to eliminate it. However, everyone is chastising Kansas Stasher for not cleaning up after him. I do see a problem here, and it's not with the cache owner. Maybe my phrasing wasn't correct. KS may or may not want help, but I can't see anywhere he's asked for it. He's also chosen to let the cache go. Really, it's no longer his cache. Somebody else has been putting out throwdowns after the spot was "closed" (I use that term for the lack of a better one I can think of at the moment), somebody else replaced the container for him, and it's still not active. There's no chastising coming from me, I don't see anything the CO has done wrong here. He's chosen to stop maintaining the cache, there were permission issues, and the container disappeared. Over and over again. It doesn't appear that KS wants help, as plenty has been volunteered yet the cache page remains inactive. Special exceptions bother me. It's a cache. An old cache, but it's still a cache. Throwdowns and extended disabled status would have most other caches archived. This one should be no exception. If KS wants to reactivate, then I'm all good with it. Up to this point, that's not the case.

It could go either way. You might get some more good people interested, you might get some less savory folks interested, you might get some people who try it and don't like it, and you might get no interest at all. Please though, for the love of Pete, don't use the phrase "treasure hunt".

I recently got a double tall .50 cal can for 13.99

I must be lucky, our local army surplus store selss ammo cans pretty durn cheap. No complaints here.

It sounds like the bolded portion would apply to the Youth Expo. You could still have your booth and introduce people to geocaching, but I don't think TPTB will list it as a geocaching event. This. Although I love the idea and think you should set up the booth anyway. Why not a breakfast event at the booth before the event starts? That way, it's outside the event hours, but still related and you get breakfast out of the deal

Good lord people... First, I don't see anything wrong with logging archived caches if you actually find them. I've done it a couple of times. If you find a cache, you should log it. The frog seems to think it's alright, because they allow it. Second, clean up your geo litter. If you do archive a cache, pick it up. Those who don't are contributing to a problem, and in my mind have no right to dictate anything about the trash they left behind if they choose to take down the listing but leave the container in place. You forfeited the container, it's like leaving a sofa on the curb to be taken. Can you tell those who pick it up not to clean it because it USED to be yours? Nope. On the other hand, it sounds like you're attempting an archived caches challenge. Horrible idea in my mind, and this is the reason why. If you know of an archived cache that's still there, by all means go pick it up and log it. I like the idea of contacting the CO to see if they want their container back, I've done that as well. Searching specifically for archived caches just SO you can log them is bad form IMHO. Are you finding archived caches and leaving them there for others to find or are you cleaning up each one? I'm beginning to like some of these challenge caches less and less...

I've been skipping over the puzzle ones right now, because they make me feel stupid lol. Thank you all for your input! Im starting to think 5's aren't that important lol The only things that are important (other than common sense and courtesy) are the things you feel are important. If 5 star caches are important to you, then they're important. If your find count is important to you, then it's important. Have fun the way it's fun for you, don't worry about what others think about your stats. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go make fun of people who place parking lot micros...

Unless said cacher doesn't want the help. As seems to be the case here.

You can appeal to headquarters to get the log re-instated, I don't know whether they'll do that for an archived cache or not. At least you have a container to use. Is it a decent container at least?

The really difficult ones tend to be 4 or 4.5 diff/terrain. At least that's my experience, and I'm not speaking of puzzles (I'm too dumb for puzzles).

Click on your name in the upper right hand corner of the screen, find the "Statistics" tab, and check out the information there. It gives you a few grids and averages to check out and keep track of if you so choose.

Wrong. They all raise your find count by one. Saying they all count the same is like saying kissing your Aunt Flo is the same as making out with the hot babe from the bar every guy was watching all night. They both raise your kiss count by one but their not the same. :laughing: :laughing:

Call me crazy, but it would make sense to me that the person that replaced the container and said that they replaced the container in their found it log indicates that the CO didn't replace it. Also, sounds like the mortar was chipped out with, I'm assuming, a pointy object. I neglected to read through all the logs (honestly I just scoped out the pictures out of curiousity). My assumption was correct. Archive it already.