egami

That reasoning would never stand in a court of law if you want to get into legal analysis. If for some odd reason legal repercussion were to come due to placement of the cache it was squarely on your shoulders regardless of how you have imagined that responsibility was magically transferred to some third party. Save face and go get the dumb container...you are responsible, period. I'll agree to disagree on your perception of who is truly in the wrong about the archiving, but at the end of the day you are responsible for that container and there is no questioning that.

Not to venture too far off the subject, but what price do you guys generally pay on ammo cans for when you buy them used?

Yeah, I graduated from high school in Everwet, so I am mildly familiar with the Pacific North Wet. I agree it doesn't look necessarily like electrical equipment, but by definition a gang box extension is for electrical, so I am guessing it'd be turned down by our reviewer. And, I see the point behind the argument, so I don't question it. Not sure how he'd be with telephony or cable box types...I should find out. Those type of objects make great urban camouflage.

That's what I was afraid of...our reviewer won't publish anything that resembles electrical equipment and I comply with the suggestion. I was hoping maybe it was for something else, but had never seen one quit like that especially with the printing which is probably a state requirement in Washagain state.

What kind of container is that for normally?

Thats a bad method because it violates Groundspeak guidelines. How do you "insert" the PVC into the ground without using a shovel, trowel, or pointy tool?I assume that the PVC would be inserted in the ground the same way that many fake sprinklers are. Simply wait for a soggy day and give it a little push. This works as well...I actually tried that in my yard.

What about this log of mine where I arrived and 4 or 5 sprinklers in a row were destroyed...... Oh, well..... It's not uncommon for those particular sprinkler units to fail over time on their own (especially if the installer doesn't have the lines right for the amount of pressure which is common with cheaper installers). I wouldn't be surprised if that had nothing to do with cachers destroying them and it amazes me how many places I go by that don't take care of their sprinklers because they extremely economical to replace and extremely east to replace. That being said...if you're going to do a sprinkler cache this is a good method: Inserting a hollow PVC pipe into the ground then placing a shelled out sprinkler head will make it easy to remove and replace and if you make the PVC pipe about an inch or so deeper that the sprinkler unit it'll help it not "float" with a heavy rain. They make great caches though because they are waterproof if done correctly. Of course, you'd never REALLY do that, because it would require digging a hole in the ground. This discussion is for purely intellectual considerations and would never occur in real life. Ever. I did do that and it did not require digging a hole. The building manager and I are good friends and they were doing landscaping work. I got permission to put this in place in advance as dirt was pushed around it.

I don't know...I was trying to find a good site to fuzzy search domain names, but didn't have much luck.

Well, it's your listing, but when you fail to comply with the terms then I'd say the reviewer has that right as stated in the maintenance section. I don't think they were necessarily trying to be a jerk about...it keeps things simple for them. If most caches go to this stage and the reviewers had to accommodate everyone distinct schedule it'd be a nightmare for them. All I am saying is that it's entirely possible the reviewer is just trying to maintain consistency and being that there were no abnormal circumstances I can see where the did it out of principle. The reviewer did their due diligence in contacting you...it's not their job to keep following up and baby-sitting each situation and it's not fair to put the into a position where the have to make exceptions in circumstances that don't really qualify for that. I am not contesting your "I have a life outside of caching" stance. I own you and most everyone on this forum in that category if you look at my numbers. I am just saying that it's possible the reviewer was just trying to keep things simple and didn't mean to ruin your year. If it's such a remote location and so likely that you aren't going to be able to get to it on a moments notice and you know this up front then why not work with a more centrally located cacher to assist in maintenance? I mean...there are alternatives. I don't think it's fair to put all of this on the reviewer when I can see where the reviewer seems to be following protocol.

Yeah, it does kind of look like that, but the domain is dead...hm. studies...stories...trying to find something that hits.

Gotta agree with Jeep_Dog. I can relate to the frustration, but having been in positions like this in other realms outside of geocaching I can see where if I had been a reviewer I may of done it just out of mere consistency on an issue. If, as a reviewer, you extend the courtesy of a multi-month long maintenance schedule to once cacher on a standard cache with no real unique circumstances then you have to do it with everyone. Is it possible you're taking this a bit too personal? The initial reply seems pretty much like you're going to blow it off, but subsequent replies suggest it's really eating at you...especially the one pointed out by Jeep_Dog. I am not saying I wouldn't be disappointed in the same circumstance, but conversely it doesn't serve any justice to just allow the cache to become geo-litter on purpose.

Looks like wildlifebeast-something.

Your stance is that we should assume people are not good at their word and so we should check up on everone as a result. Don't put words in my mouth. Nothing I said even came close to that. If you want to contest what I said then contest it in context. My point is simple: Checking a box that says "I agree that I have obtained permission" does not mean they actually did. True or false? True.

Actually, he suspects that they were placed without permission. He does not 'know' that. That's easy enough...walk up to the property owner and ask.

When he checked submitted the caches he also said he had adequate permission for those caches. The story ends there unless you have direct evidence that he doesn't have that permission. If you don't like that the caches are on private property and it makes you uncomfortable. Don't cache there. However that doesn't mean there is a problem with the cache. It's merely your own spin on the world. Because we all know no one checks agreement boxes on internet sites without actually violating what they just agreed to... If they have a question that's what the reviewer is for. People shouldn't be disuaded from making sure caches actually have permission if they have reason to believe that permission was maybe never granted.

Buddy of mine bought a Christmas gift for someone. TomTom 3rd Generation, I am assuming you can geocache with this? Anyone use one firsthand? Obviously it's not the ideal unit for caching, just wondering if it'll be at least functional for it.

The history the Red Cross has on their site is accurate regarding the inception of use of the symbol and even the history regarding the Geneva rulings. Where I disagree with them is on two issues: 1. I don't feel the Geneva rulings gives them inherent, exclusive rights to use of the red cross symbol except on the battle field. 2. I think it's petty to be asking anyone using any such symbol to cease and desist when other entities have been using it for well over a century and now all the sudden its viewed as a proprietary issue as if it were marketing trademark.

If the caches are truly in that condition I'd think it might be relatively easy to log maint/needs archiving on a number of them...

Well, no I am not assuming this and I've addressed it before, but I am not going to keep rehashing it. In short, all I am saying it that the introduction of a "virtual" maintainance to help verify caches are still being physically maintained isn't armageddon. I would be, in theory, all for allowing recent found logs and other events (including a reviewer override) to even keep these from meeting that criteria, but I think there is a good side to the coin if you can protect the integrity of quality caches, which I've stated numerous time is a must. Remember, I just said I can see the other side of it...I didn't say this is a MUST DO ITEM. I am just saying there is SOME merit to it. I am not saying there aren't potential issues. I didn't suggest it, so please don't accuse me of suggesting it. And pulling the "you're a newb, so shut up" card is kind of lame reasoning. If the merits of an idea can't stand on their own then they can't stand on their own and there isn't really a reason to go down that road. (garbage language edited by moderator)

Another possible option...when you log into your old PC with your new account check the "Remember Me" box and it should override your previous setting, I believe.

I can't help you with your account issue from a Groundspeak perspective, but if you go into your browser on your old computer and clear out the cache it should quit asking you for the old account every time. Something like: Tools > Internet Options > Browser History > Delete > Cookies Depending on your browser type and version.

Logging is pretty subjective as well...one thing I've noticed in this area is people will do one of two things, log notes instead of DNF's, or simply no log at all. I don't know what their reasoning is, but the most common seems to be people don't like to log DNF's probably because they relate it to failure. So, as has been mentioned, don't worry about equating DNF's as failures...it's just a good communication mechanism to owners. Multiple DNF's on an otherwise commonly found cache may indicate potential Mugglization and be helpful to an owner. Really, the only failure in this activity is not enjoying it. Also, you could be mildly disappointed if you expect others to log DNF's by your standard...this may vary by area, but I know a lot of people I've met around the Iowa area seem to try to avoid logging DNF's at all costs. So, I just view it as a subjective thing and always bear in mind when I am reading logs that there is likely some margin of error. Had this happen recently on a cache we went looking for and it turned out the thing was damaged then missing at some intervals over 4 month period...yet people were logging finds because the found a couple scraps of cache remnants that had adhered to a nearby tree. Go figure...

Maybe check through your browser history...

I don't know if you care or not, but my experience with the Z22's is that they tend to be a pain to see in the sun. Personally, no more caching that we get around to doing, we just use GSAK on a laptop and check the clues before we leave the vehicle, but that may not work as well in some more rural areas.

Me neither. Funny thing... the people promoting this as a great idea would probably change their minds once one of there caches is suddenly auto-archived. They would change their tune in a New York minute. I'll bet one of my ol' yeller eTrex units on that. I don't know...I can see both sides of this (at least elmuyloco's idea, not so much the OP's version), but frankly the main reason I'd be interested as I stated would be to just help alleviate potential geo-litter which I am surprised no one really cares if it gets left out there. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, if you've already agreed to physically maintain a cache then certainly virtually maintaining once a year wouldn't be that cumbersome.