4wheelin_fool

Interesting...this cache was just archived by the local reviewer for being turned into a virtual. Nobody posted an NA log. Odd coincidence that he'd catch it right after I posted about it... Why would it be a coincidence? You posted about it in the forum and he likely found out as a result.

But somehow broken plastic kids toys, geared toward 10 year olds, have seemingly always existed as trade items.

I think it' safe to say that the statement that Jeremy made along time ago is no longer applies to what the game has become. That was only 3 years ago. Perhaps it is time to twist knickers. Where's the pitchforks at?

The more I think about it, the more interesting this question gets. On the one hand, it's even easier in this case to see the logic of an exception to the rules. On the other hand, no one can deny that they're doing Route 66 for the numbers. One of the things I object to most about power trails is that often there seems to be one set of guidelines for non-PT caches and one set of guidelines for PT caches, and that sometimes practices which have become acceptable when doing a power trail have migrated over to non-PT caches. Wholeheartedly agree! I heard that a group of 6 cachers from out-of-state flew into the Colorado Springs, CO, area, rented 6 cars, and drove off in 6 different directions. I heard that all cachers claimed finds on all caches that were found by any one of them. I heard that throw-downs were used liberally so that there were no DNFs. Worst of all, I heard that the practice of moving containers along from one location to another was employed, without regard to the type of container to the extent that ammo cans/lock&locks were replaced by film pots and vice versa, willy nilly. I heard that this trip included some very high numbers cachers. Note: This is only a rumor that I heard; I have no direct knowledge of any of any of it, in fact I saw no evidence of any of it when I was caching in the same area recently. The sacred practice of signing the log was preserved at all costs, as everything else sounds ridiculous.

Any traditional with virtual requirements was not grandfathered but changed after publication. Other types existed in strange ways. Here is a 2 stage multi originally listed as a mystery, with size noted as virtual. I don't think there was a multicache icon back then which explains the mystery icon, but it does not explain the virtual size designation. Confusing? The last log in 2011 was from someone who found the first stage 8 years later and claimed a find on it since someone else did that.

Not always. As mentioned above, there were multi stage virtuals originally listed as multis. They really meant that they've been that way for so long, that its probably not worth doing anything about it. Its pretty clear that multis can be virts, but traditionals are never virts.

You should know the routine by now. The guidelines say you do, but Toz will pop in here and say that the CO might allow exceptions to not signing the log, and he's right. You do not have to sign the log if the CO allows it, but they cannot print that on the page. That would not be an occasional exception, but a permanent one.

That one looks like it evolved early enought to be a grandfathered Virtual. But new cachers placing them may think it's okay. Hard to say. Like the buried caches they see them and think it's okay. Grandfathered virtuals are listed as virtuals. It's clearly a traditional without any container or requirements. I've ran into many grandfathered trad/virtuals and were told this by reviewers when I questioned them. edited: See Keystones post above Multis are different from traditionals, as they might be virtuals with several stages, so multi might fit. Traditionals were never grandfathered as virtuals.

That one looks like it evolved early enought to be a grandfathered Virtual. But new cachers placing them may think it's okay. Hard to say. Like the buried caches they see them and think it's okay. Grandfathered virtuals are listed as virtuals. It's clearly a traditional without any container or requirements.

You're still required to visit GZ no? I think it's OK, now if you weren't then it would be a locationless and need to be archived. Actually I think that cache is rather smart. No. There are no requirements. You probably may be expected to visit GZ, but there are no photos to take, or e-mails to be sent about finding anything there. Forget online research, as there is none needed. Abe wasn't even completely honest anyhow. Breaking his campaign promise is what was partly responsible for the civil war. Lincoln promised to preserve slavery in the Southern states, and even endorsed an amendment to accomplish just that. I got there, read the page, scratched my head and then logged it.

While we are discussing a traditional illegally converted to a virtual, how about a virtual without any requirements at all? Just log it. I suppose the point just may be to be honest. And yeah, I'm pretty sure that TPTB are aware of it. Not sure if they will honestly admit it..

It shouldn't have to be considered a "big deal" to get reported. Inversely this illustrates the problem of people making a big deal out of simple NA logs. Not saying anything is only betraying future seekers who will be expecting to find something,

Being very familiar with the area in question I am confident that the officer acted in good faith and see no reason to suggest otherwise. Kudos to the VanDucks for reaching out and making contact with the concerned parties, though I wouldn't expect any less from such great COs. They are fantastic representatives of geocache ownership. The VanDucks did the right thing. The officer also may have acted in good faith, but if he really was concerned he would have removed it and either made contact with the co, posted something on the page or contacted Groundspeak. In this case he was only writing something in the logbook to pacify someone who was unduly paranoid about something they did not understand. There seemingly was no concern about the appearance of strangers in the area, only the presence of a box full of toys near the school. Someone believed the box full of toys was some form of bait, rather than something that was intended to be hidden from the rugrats. It would have been better to educate the police officer as well as the concerned citizen, who still may believe there was questionable intent involved since it was removed.

I'm curious to know what sort of drug business involves leaving packages along a highway guardrail or under a lamp post skirt. I did find a plastic bag with athletic socks and about two dozen bullets (9mm, I believe) stuffed into the knothole of a tree while searching for a cache...so I suppose odd stashes of illicit goods are common in that biz...? I didn't know that athletic socks were illicit goods! Guess they could be if they have been worn for days without washing... Dealers will often hide the bulk of their stash somewhere so they don't get caught with it all. The socks are intended to be worn as gloves to prevent fingerprints from appearing on guns, and for gunpowder residue from appearing on hands and wrists. They also may have been intended as silencers. It should have been reported, as it might have been used already, or someone was planning to use it..

You could have warned us about the nature of that picture!! Can't believe the CO didn't delete it. Its nothing too unique that nobody hasn't seen. It also appears that they did not disturb the cache anyhow.

It's probably more unfortunate that people's attitudes to geocaching and geocachers sometimes arise from exposure to this sort of attitude Some people get nervous about a box of toys near a school? Huh? Most people finding a box of toys near a school would assume that kids left it there. However some police officers always feel the need to do "something" for every call, even if it was completely unfounded.

Correct. Chaining it up may deter an impulse theif, but locking it shut will only make them curious. The OP wrote on the page that it was ammo can and left it just outside of a shopping center. Two bad ideas IMO.

I suppose this is one reason why Groundspeak did not substitute codewords for logbooks. Due to all of the people sharing TB#s without looking at them, the next step would be for the same thing to occur with caches. For some reason having the code seems to make it legit.

It doesn't help at all if the cache is left out in the open where anyone can spot it, along with a well formed geopath leading directly to it. Add in geocachers who are in a hurry and don't rehide it, followed by others who "rehid as found" and who leave it there. Some hiders are rather naive in their beliefs about traffic in an area. One cache I found was obvious to anyone and 2 feet from a path used by dozens of people on a regular basis, as well as 6 feet from a creek. After a flood it disappeared and the CO complained to me that a student they knew was taking their hides. Yeah, PMO is going to help. A chain may keep someone from taking it, but if the container is locked they likely will be curious enough to return and break in.

A few years ago I had a bear follow me near Edison's old plant. It didn't seem threatening, but it did frighten me a bit. I suppose if the victim smelled of spicy food and it was secreting out his skin, or was carrying some minty gum it may have attracted it. Running would only trigger it to chase you, as they recommend a fast walk, I believe. I also just discovered from the associated news from this incident, is that bear spray is illegal in NJ. The 2oz canister I bought in NC is too big, and I'm apparently Ive been guilty of a disorderly persons offense. Only tiny 3/4 oz canisters are allowed, and that's not even enough to annoy a bear. Perhaps I'll have to get some wasp spray.

I had a TB that someone recently discovered in Sweden "from an old list". However it disappeared in 2007 and never left the state. It seems that people are hacking the TB #s for points? I deleted it, but it seems to be part of a new obsessive insanity game.

I think that it's important to note that those two groups of people do not exist as two sides of the same coin. Presumably, the overwhelming majority of these hypothetical people who signed the throwdown log believed that they were signing the one true logbook. These people were not expressing their support for throwdowns by logging their find. They were merely geocaching. As such, they can both be dissatisfied if their log is deleted AND be of the belief that throwdowns are 'bad'. True, but if they didn't find the cache, it's simply a DNF and nothing to cry over. An online page full of false find logs is misleading, especially if the throwdown needed maintenance while the actual cache was fine.

I don't think pushing a stake into the ground, such as a tent peg, would alter it significantly enough to disturb anything. In a Native American rock shelter it might, but it's unlikely that anyone would hide something like that in that spot. Fake sprinkler heads are a little different, as they tend to encourage people to pull up actual sprinkler heads.

There were exceptions at one time, until people started to expect them all of the time. Then they weren't exceptions anymore.