thehoomer

I have disabled caches due to intemperate weather in the past but not to preserve the integrity of the boots of 'wusses'. The disable feature was used in the occurrence of a river and canal which had become ‘one’. This action was taken to acquaint fellow cachers that the cache was completely inaccessible and the towpath was in parts, officially closed. So, in order to not waste the time of cachers going out there, the affected caches were disabled. So in short, there are sometimes informed, persuasive and exacting reasons for disabling a cache due to inclement weather.

Yes OS, We had the same problem as you at GC2DQG1 recently. Its always a good idea to let folks know of this kind of barrier. This is why I dont cut and paste and why you wont ever see 'TFTC' as one of my logs but that particular topic has been thrashed to the max .

Bazzer. Please be assured that we were all simply trying to help you and make some sense out of all the covert messages you provided. Your input on the forums is as valuable as the next person and I’m not for one minute suggesting that you refrain from posting on it. However, might I suggest that in any of your future quests of this nature, you privately email a reviewer to get an answer to your question, this way; no one on the forums will have the opportunity to interfere or attack you with negativity.

What after this post As I say I got the info I needed on the 1st post That should have been the end of it!!! Ooooh, I feel like I have been chastened ! Perhaps then, you might have considered refraining from posting replies, giving examples and keeping the thread going? In any event I hope your 'championing' for these cachers eases your mind and gives you contentment .

The log in question was deleted by the cache owner and the subsequent emails that followed has caused the owner to not bother caching but as i say it is being dealt with so no need for your interference Excuse me, I had no idea I was interfering, I was under the impression I was taking part in a discussion which you yourself instigated .

I have to say, in neither example can I detect any evidence of Bullying, rudeness or cache policing. Cachers have simply logged their experiences and honestly expressed their opinions. Can you possibly explain where and how you think some injustice has taken place? Edited to add.... You anticipated me HH !!

Not trying to be funny here but why didn't you choose a better example if there are 60 to choose from? I was on my Iphone and trying to keep you all informed while on the move so different cache owner same problem http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=ec1496a0-8b8e-436d-8ac4-57b7c39469c3 From what I can gather from a very quick scan of the logs, the cache was buried and therefore in contravention of the guidelines. Cachers who found this were within their rights to make a comment/comments regarding this on the page. May be a more tactful response would've been to email the owner but aside from that, I don't see a 'problem'.

Not maintaining a cache can happen for lots of reasons, many of them can be outside the CO's control as we all know. However, surely posting a note on the page to apologise or explain the reason for the delay in maintenance is not beyond the wit of man (woman )? I have posted quite number of NA's and NM's on caches but never on any where the CO is keeping his fellow cachers informed via a note/s on the page.

Hello LJMoore98. This is a bit tricky because you haven't given us any information. I see you already have one cache out there. I'm assuming that the cache in question is one which you have in the pipeline? To be honest though, naming a Geocache is a very personal thing and can be dependent on many factors. Can you name it after the place where it is hidden? Can you think of something cryptic about where/how it is hidden? It is a brand new year, perhaps something about New Year Resolutions or the fact that the world didn't end on 21st December ? I wouldn't get too strung out about it though. If you have hidden a decent cache, folks wont really be bothered too much about what it is called . Good luck.

Oooooh, shameless plug John .

Personally, I don't think it is poor etiquette to file a NA on a cache without visiting it and HH knows this because we have discussed it before. However, HH did have a point and make me think. As a result of the last time this was thrashed out, On most occasions, once archived, I now make a trip to the cache site and remove the container...if I can find it . This is all a bit secret squirrel for me but perhaps if a little more careful detail were given, we could help the OP more?

Id like to respond but I'm not sure how ? I will attempt to elucidate..... The point I am making is this: It is unjust to call cachers 'cache police' when they replace logs or bring to light a CO who isn't looking after their caches as they should. Simples .

But isn't that why we have a needs maintenance option. People should not be frightened of using them for whatever reason be it poor maintenance or unfortunate incidences, and certainly should not be accused of being cache police. If I can I will always try and repair a cache in poor condition but if unable to I will log a needs maintenance or a needs archiving if been like this for a long time. I recently had a log on a cache ranting on about the wet log, well this was news to me as I had not had a needs maintenance log, not even from the ranter! I rectified this by raising a needs maintenance log on it myself so any visitors before I can maintain will be aware of its condition. Its that by what i mean by cache police people are always to quick to accuse people of bad maintenance oh its got a damp log but what people don't say is they got the log out in the poring rain dropped it on the floor then stuffed the soaking wet log back in the stash!!! I'm sure that this is the reason for some logs being damp but I'm reasonably confident that those which are mush (and have been reported as being so on several occasions), are due to poor or no maintenance. We are not the cache police for replacing such logs or indeed, pointing out that the CO is not doing right by his/her caches or the caching community.

If I am about to use my own resources/time to replace a mushed or missing log, I will make my own judgement and decide if it warrants my efforts. If you call this 'policing' the cache then I am pleased to be guilty. For instance, If I am completing a series of 20 caches and I get to #12 - #15 having experienced a high percentage of maintenance needed (and there is also evidence from past logs that it has been this way for a long time), I would not replace any of the logs. Selfish? Shortsighted? Selective? May be but that is my take. I don't mind helping out fellow cachers but I refuse to carry the idle ones .

We have replaced log books if we have had a spare and the old one was mush/missing and have done so dozens of times. We have never sought the owner’s permission for this act and importantly, have never received any negative responses after doing so. Nowadays though, with so much cache saturation, we are a little more selective on replacing logs and usually only do so for caches which we have thought worthy for whatever reason. Many times over the years, strips of torn, tatty and smudged log book could be found drying out on my radiator. Ever since we started caching, we have always offered to send the CO the old log book (once dry) but have only ever been taken up on this once. I agree with Lorri-Ann & Kev, it seems that the order of the day, is to set a cache or a series of caches and rather than maintain them, just archive them. This is almost always done without even paying a visit to the site to establish the status of the cache. Quite a good idea really, so much easier than spending a fortune on fuel and time. Just archive anything which needs maint or has had several DNF's. Sorry a bit off topic but as a conscientious maintainer but this does irk me some.

Apologies if I've missed the irony in your post - but no, it's not legal. When is it ever going to sink in - rights of way do NOT give anyone the right to play, picnic, sing songs or hide tupperware. You have the right to "pass and repass", nothing more. As this central reservation only exists as a bridging point on a right of way, the only activity permitted without specific permission of the landowner is to pass and repass! Yes, you did miss the irony. Legal - No Sane - No Fun - No The whole post was 'tongue in cheek' keehotee.

As we already know, the central reservation was specifically designed to protect the public. It is legal, sane and fun to loiter twixt 4 lanes of fast moving traffic and 'play a game'. It’s imperative that we throw caution to the wind and keep caches of this nature alive for future generations of Geocachers to enjoy. To heck with the consequences, we should all be allowed to decide for ourselves eh? We will be invisible to all traffic and no one will be ‘interested’ in us as we search for this cache. I’m planning an event cache here just after Christmas if anyone is up for it. For me, this thread has run its course and is now going round in circles. I am hugely content with my contribution and despite several eloquent and well expressed arguments, my feelings on this placement remain unchanged. The community is clearly divided on the correct course for this cache and I guess only time will tell now. Happy Christmas everyone .

But you could make that same argument about any cache beside any road too, so how far must caches be from the side of a road in your world? and the honest answer is "No", they're behind a barrier so not a danger so of no interest to me, as opposed to driving through an urban area where any pedestrian on a footpath could potentially step out into the road. This cache isn't 'beside' a road. It is in the middle of 4 lanes of fast moving traffic. Just because the pedestrians are behind a barrier, doesn't automatically mean they are of no danger to you and I think it would be unwise to assume so. I have to accept your point that you think this behavior would not lead you to taking a longer look than you perhaps should however.

I’m sorry but I remain completely unmoved by any of the Pro-placement posts I have read. Imagine if you will - You haven't heard of Geocaching and have no idea that such a hobby exists. You are driving down this road minding your own business. Please be completely honest here.... would you or would you not engage in a certain amount of 'rubber-necking' from your car window if you saw a person/persons bending/stooping/feeling/crouching around the central barrier of this road? I’m reasonably confident that the honest answer for most people would be ‘yes’. The possible fallout from this action has already been mentioned countless times so I won’t sport with your patience.

I guess then that would rule out the one in this thread above the pond, danger of falling in and drowning, as it's a "risk that doesn't need to be taken just for the fun of it" http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=304763 Note I'm not suggesting it should be, but it just illustrates that there is confusion over what is and, apparently, is not allowed. The point is, the cacher who is teetering above the pond is only putting himself/herself at risk.

Well, it may be a slippery slope to disallowing this kind of cache in the future but personally, if its a toss up between losing a cache of this nature as a hide option, versus potentially bringing Geocaching into disrepute or worse still, loss of life, surely there is no question? Perspective. In situations such as this, I prefer to weigh up the worse possible outcome of each scenario - Absolutely no contest. Geocaching was destined to morph with the passage of time and as with most activities/organisations, the safety of those involved can not be overlooked. Sometimes we have to be told ‘we can’t’, to protect us from ourselves. I know Im possibly in the minority but I’m ok with that. Plenty more caches out there.

I agree. The OP has provoked this discussion with the posting of the thread though and whilst he/she does not 'have' to answer the question of why they think the cache is in a good location, short of visiting and in the light of what has been said, it leaves me to only speculate. This speculation, coupled with the cache title/text, brings me to one reason for the caches placement - the danger aspect. This being the case, I feel it is an irresponsible and foolhardy reason to place a cache and not in the true spirit of what Geocaching is about as I understand it. I could go and complete the cache to formulate a true opinion for myself but I feel I have heard and read enough to place it firmly on my ignore list and head for caches which don’t (potentially) set my heart racing for all the wrong reasons. Blinkered? May be but there it is. All this said, I appreciate that there are some on here who have visited and thought the cache was good. Its just not one for me I’m afraid. Horses for courses and all that.

Bozoid, you have had quite a response to your thread and I think its fair to say that the majority of people (on here at least), think that your cache placement has room for improvement but that's not to say we are all right. I am interested to hear your thoughts on our comments and would still really like to understand why you think that this is a good place for a cache? I'm not keen into going into battle over your reasons, I'm just genuinely curious .

I have a feeling that the cache will be either archived or in a slightly different place away from the carriageway by Christmas Day. I assume you will still walk out to the central reservation anyway because it is interesting. I hope your experience lives up to expectations. We are going too. Mr Hoomer has designed a bespoke plate which fits snugly on the Armco so your Turkey doesn't slide off and you don't have to chase your stuffing balls down the road.

When the road is quite what? I could never wiegh in on this dangous cache, its not recemended and permission would be denined by Mr Hoomer, espaecially on Chrestmaz Day. Tut tut, at both of you. I will leave it at that as my metal knickers are in the wash You wanna watch you don't break your machine again Mandy .