ORKY99

The reviewer did say he "suggesting". Why should the owner automatically archive just because of a suggestion? Others have said that nothing appears to meet the criteria of having to archive so it seems a valid question from the OP.

So my wife bought me a garmin etex20 for christmas. Is this an upgrade over the magellan explorist gc? Sorry if this is a dumb question, she was just trying to get us an upgrade.

Thanks for moving this to the appropriate forum. Ghost ship looks like the one I'm thinking of I just thought it been around a lot longer than this one has been. Oh well, thanks for the help. Guess ghost ship is not available. edit: OK, for whatever reason, when I clicked on the bloranges link I didn't scroll down far enough. This is indeed the exact cache I was inquiring about. We'll be there in abot 3 weeks. I really hope that the CO will have worked out the issues with this cache and it will be available. If not, there are certainly many many other great caches in KY. Thanks again for the help.

Need some help to find the name of a cache. When we first joined, we noticed a cache in kentucke that looked really fun. From what we can remember, it's pretty famous, it's a boat thats run aground and thats about all. Cam anyone help? Thanks in advance.

It's the fact that they had already logged this cache previously under the previous CO's and then logged it again when we enabled it as the cache adopters. If it's the same cache listing I can address them claiming another found it. Them taking the prize is much tougher if they aren't willing to respond. Like I said earlier, I'm not trying to call anyone out (whether it seems that way or not) I'm just trying to figure out a away for this not to happen in the future. My wife and I both agreed that we thought it strange that a previous finder logged this for a second time. The coin in actuality was meant for the next finder of the cache after enabling, thus being the FTF for us as owners after adopting.

It's the fact that they had already logged this cache previously under the previous CO's and then logged it again when we enabled it as the cache adopters.

So it wasn't a hypothetical question? Apparently not. Had I thought it not, I would've looked as Touchstone did, and would have responded differently. But... hey, learning the terminology is part of the game, isn't it? yes it is, and there's a lot of it to learn when you first start out, lol.

So it wasn't a hypothetical question? never know who reads these and I'm not trying to get anybody PO'ed at me. We have a second cache from the same couple that we've adopted and replaced and are ready to enable. Just wondering now if we should put something in the description of this stating something to discourage previous finders from logging this again? And it's not necesarily the fact someone logged this twice Ieven though I don;t think they get any credit thorugh GC'ing for it). It's more a matter as there was a pretty neat coin in there for the "new owner" FTF'ers that was put in there by the original CO as kind of a goodbye gift, hello to the new CO type thing.

Thanks for the quick answers. I was mistaken in my original post. The cache was merely disabled not archived and then adopted by us. The newbie in me, hopefully I'll get those beginner mistakes out quickly. So to answer those that asked, yes, same GC code, same virtual log, same cache.

Of course that bears the question: when is a cache the same cache as another? What if it's the same container, same contents, same log book, all in the same location, it just gets a new listing and a new GC code? Is that a new cache or still the same cache? When you adopt, I dont think the GC code changes. When you log the cache in-line under the new CO's it's the same log as the previous CO's.

If it's the same cache - yeah, that's wrong. You shouldn't "find" the same cache twice. If it's a new cache that happens to be in the same location as an archived cache then it's fair game because... it's a new cache. Same cache, same name, just new owners.

HI, first time poster but have lurked the forums for awhile. Quick question. Let's say you notice a cache that you've found has been archived due to the owners moving away from the area. You contact them about adoppting their cache and it's agreed upon that they'll turn ownership over to you and allow you to adopt their cache. OK, here's the actual part of the question. You put the cache back out and activate it with a nice military coin from the previous owners for the new owners as a FTF proze for the newly activated cache. Is it wrong for someone who has previously found the cache under the previous CO's to go out and claim a FTF on the new CO's? I hope I've explained this easy enough so you understand what I'm asking.