Castle Mischief

"Hey guys! Let's take a fun activity and make it a tremendous chore!" -Nobody Ever

Geez. I guess it's okay when it's HILARIOUS*. *Not hilarious.

A what now?

Good grief. If only there was some sort of mass email letter news system for distributing guideline changes. Assuming the intention is for us to know what they are.

The internet is fueled by the energy released from split hairs.

Not true at all. Caches must NEVER be buried. Doesn't matter if you have permission to do it. Check the guidelines again. Not true at all. The current oldest active cache is buried. I recognize that it was hidden before the prohibition against burying was written into the guidelines, and as such, gets a pass under the grandfather clause, but the fact that it is buried makes that particular guideline about as accurate as a politician at a fundraiser. Also, we've all seen instances where Reviewers have posted in these very forums that, while probably not a good idea due to the 'Monkee See / Monkee Do' axiom, if you have explicit permission, such as being the property owner, you can bury a cache and it will get published. No need to check the guidelines again. I suspect that wording was carefully chosen to mollify land managers. Guidelines exist for present and future hides. There's wording in the guidelines (last I looked) that covers old hides and precedent. I'm pretty sure that I've seen a thread or two from disgruntled hiders that were not allowed to bury a cache on their own land or drill a hole in their own tree. Not all reviewers interpret the guidelines the same ways.

Careful, you'll summon the snoogans and we'll get to see the same post he's been making about the "mainstream event horizon" for years.

This happens and has happened without government involvement for years. How many times did somebody say in defense of the ET power trail "but what about the poor businesses that will suffer without the power trail"?

There are millions of things that a terrorist could replace with a bomb. I don't think it's about possibilities so much as it's about perception and justification of budgetized items. Hundreds of thousands of cachers find hundreds of thousands of caches of the millions of caches that have been placed every day of the year and how many of those have ever been bombs?

Good grief.

Glass mason jars that I bury under cinder blocks and duct tape "envelops" on top of zip-lock baggies. Seriously, ammo cans and name brand Lock and Locks. All other things have failed me in some capacity or another and I'm slowly replacing my active caches with the two standards. I used to use screw-top disposable tupperware-type containers but those are not standing up to exposure past a couple of years very well. I've got one micro that I keep replacing because the washer always goes out and I'm considering either archiving it or up-sizing it with a Lock and Lock.

According to the article, you were quoted as having said that you had permission from the park service. I'd think the ball is in their court, but I'm not a lawyer. Do everything that hzoi said and have the number of your own lawyer close by just in case.

So take it out and move on. There's no way you're ever going to be able to control what people put in a cache.

I don't know if this is an issue in the UK, but there are some park systems and forests in the US where metal detector use is explicitly forbidden. You may possibly, unintentionally, create the perception that you're looking for "buried" treasure in some areas as well.

Oh great. Because what we need are more "kind of like Geocaching.com" websites out there.

Is completely ignoring messages from a reviewer considered being "active"?

It's not something that I would do, but it's not really up to me and if GS and the CO are okay with it then who am I to disagree? It's really a non-issue considering what's going on in that town right now.

Define "active". He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest. Define "oversaw". Were you there at the time? I have visions of him standing over the cache with his hands on his hips, nodding, giving pointers, as well as sage advice, all the while regaling a lively crowd of devoted watchers with tales of the cache's history. That's a nice vision. Hold on to that.

Define "active". He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest. Define "oversaw".

I think the Reviewers are smart enough to ferret out the bogus NA logs from the real ones.

I'm not colorblind but I do find the icons to be fuzzy and difficult to read against off-white backgrounds across the site. They appear almost to be poorly re-sized larger images and don't look to have been created in the dimensions they are being used at.

He doesn't need swag. He needs a jackhammer and a security gaurd.

Hey, god news- the VAST majority of caches can be found by everyone. You're in luck!

I think you missed something. The reviewer did not want a micro there while the cache page said it was a large and he did not want everyone that visited to simply put down their own cache and then log it. What he wanted was the cache owner to go over there and maintain his cache and his cache listing. Over time, that has been sporadic at best, and at that particular time, he was not responding to the fact that it was missing. If I'm following the chronology correctly, the last three "Mingos" were not placed by the CO, but by "helpers". Face it, the CO probably hasn't been a actual cacher for years. He wants to be a part of caching history, but he can't or won't put in the necessary effort to properly do so. This is what I was referring to in my last post. The reviewer at the time even mentioned that the CO wasn't responding to emails.

That's awesome.