sidekeck

This. I may have even taken a photograph or two.

JCPenney sells sets of Lock N Locks. They are usually 16pc or 20pc sets, meaning you get 8 or 10 containers and they range from small to large size. Like someone mentioned, if you get spray paint meant for plastic you can camouflage them in whatever color you want. Just be sure to scuff them first with sandpaper (then wipe clean) so the paint will stick.

Took my bike on the ferry to Block Island today. It's the second time I've done it--both times outside of tourist season (much safer for riding!). It's the only way I've seen the island. I can't imagine driving a car over there. The island is only 3x7 miles.

Listen buddy, don't go starting a competition in my realm of endeavor. There a more threads with Snoogans as author, in the title, or subtitle, on this website than ANY other cachin' handle. Sure, you know me personally and know I'm not an ego maniac, but I play one on the interwebs. Yes, well...I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Pink Sharpie. Or pink gel pen. Generally if it's pink, it's okay by me.

Found 900 before I hid my first one.

It matches my name.

Do you own the domain, www.hotelroomcaching.com? No, But I know the person who does. I thought it was a cool idea, and no , she doesn't own a hotel either. I guess she could be Cybil from Fawlty Towers ; ) You guys could have just asked instead being super sleuths, but it was kinda fun watching. Moon. That alone is against the guideline of this forum. BYE BYE thread. Doesn't seem so much like a stumbled upon site. Looks a lot more like a section 8 violation of the forum rules. I hate when that happens.

Hmm. http://canadascapita...php?topic=950.0 The "Dudemonkey" account that posted to that forum is a sock account that was created on 21 March 2011. No finds, no hides, active for one day. I notice, though, that he also started his thread with "Hey, look what I stumbled upon". Yeah, right. Dude and Moon are both from BC. How 'bout that.

There could be two feet of snow on the ground, and I was a day out of hip replacement surgery (which I will need some day), and nope, not gonna do it. Not to mention that often the lamp skirts are buried under twenty feet of plowed, packed snow. +1 I've been part of a crew digging out a few of those. It's much more fun when you have the LPC Liberation Party rather than having to do it yourself.

I broke a rib mountain biking/geocaching. It was just an accident--didn't make it over the teeny-tiny tree across the trail. Oops. No need for anyone to get outraged, talk about changing safety requirements, slam the geocaching community for failing me or the like. I take full responsibility for my actions when I hit the trails. Besides, I was laughing hysterically when I body-slammed the ground. It was a pretty boneheaded thing to do.

Both days it was 35 and it had less to do with the numbers and more to do with the company. It wouldn't have been nearly as fun without those crazy peeps.

Did a few snowshoe treks with friends last winter. It was fun. We even dug up a few non-winter friendly caches, just for sport. Some of the swampy areas around here are more tolerable when it's below freezing with snow on the ground. Go figure.

Whoa!!! I think that was a bit over the line, sidekeck! Yes the OP did some things wrong, but you have to admit that it is extremely likely that the cache is indeed missing, when you look at the logging history, and it is at least possible that the cache owner has gone AWOL, having not logged in since June, has only found 23 caches, and hidden only 1. And their last actual find was well over a year ago. That has all the earmarks of an abandoned cache to me. Keep in mind that a NA log does NOT archive a cache. All it does it to notify the reviewer of a potential problem, and I do think that was very appropriate in this case. Sidekick KNOWS it is missing. He went out today and verified this. It still does not excuse the OP's responses to the reviewer. I've read through some of the OP's other NA logs and it looks like ALL of them are probably on the money. Those caches are probably missing. But he still needs to learn some logging etiquette and more importantly needs to learn how to communicate more effectively. And I don't necessarily agree with the earmarks of an abandoned cache remark. I've read through the logs. Several people who found the cache previously remarked that the terrain and difficulty ratings were probably set too low. There are NO NM logs on the cache. The OP is being impatient. The CO may very well be AWOL. But 2 months since the last time someone logged in is not too far out there. I didn't log into the website for about 6 months. But I was still actively caching via the Android app. Granted I had archived all my caches prior. But who's to say the CO isn't touring Europe or in the hospital, or stuck on a deserted island somewhere. 2 1/2 months is not that long of a time to not log in to the site. If it had been 6 months to a year I would agree with you. Either way, most reviewers I know of give CO's at least 30 days to respond to issues. We still haven't reached the 30 mark from the reviewer disabling the cache. 2 1/2 months to log in, over a year since last logged cache, one hide, 32 finds. I seriously doubt any of your theories. There were no theories other than to say sometimes stuff happens. Examples are just that, examples; not theories. I don't have a clue what is going on with this CO. You could be %100 on the mark. But I'm glad the reviewers tend to give us the benefit of the doubt. Boy, you sure are being generous!! Sometimes people hear about geocaching, find 32 caches, hide one, and then leave the hobby. I will say again that politeness would probably have had the OP post a NM, but frankly, I'm pretty sure that would have been ignored just as all of those DNF's were ignored. If I were the cache owner and suddenly my cache started to get so many successive DNF's, I would be on it in a heartbeat. Agreed. I had a friend email over the weekend they DNF'd one of my caches. Then someone posted a DNF log Monday. So I went out earlier in the week and sure enough it's still there. But I had to be sure.

Geocaching is hhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrddddddddd.

(It's sidekeck with an "e", and it's "she"). See....told you it was a small, tight knit community here. So small in fact that she's actually seen me cache in the buff. And buffed a cache.

God forbid you wind up in the hospital for a month and almost die and when you finally make it home you are bed ridden for another 3 months being pumped full of intravenous antibiotics and after that you get to go through another 6 months of physical therapy to try to learn to walk and after that you still can't walk worth crap so you can no longer get to your caches. Yeah, life happens and geocaching takes the back burner sometimes. Word. I cracked a rib a month ago (geocaching!) and contracted bronchitis. So I'm moving at a granny's pace. I understand that geocaching falls to the bottom of the priority list. I also don't eat, drink, breathe and live it either. Occasionally, I go to work.

(It's sidekeck with an "e", and it's "she"). See....told you it was a small, tight knit community here.

I haven't read the entire thread, but in my eyes this is the crux of the biscuit: The reviewer says they are giving the CO of the original cache XX days to do something, or the cache will be archived. XX days pass, and the reviewer does nothing. The reviewer is a liar. (Or a paper tiger if that sounds better.) If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Perhaps I am spoiled since the reviewer in Arizona (despite any other faults) DOES make sweeps for disabled caches that have not had action in several months DOES disable caches with a sudden streak of DNFs DOES follow-up (and archives the cache) if the CO does nothing after a reasonable time period That is such a sad, sad reply from an experienced geocacher. I'm moved to respond. Here is a real simple, clear reason why a reviewer may say "you have ten days" and then not archive a listing for thirty days: Because if the cache is archived on the tenth day, the reviewer is exposed to criticism for being an unbending slave to the rules and the calendar. I know this from personal experience. BUT, if you say "ten days" and don't archive until the 21st day, or the 30th day, or whenever you have a few free moments, then the cache owner or a reader of the cache page will say "wow, the reviewer even gave them extra time - that was fair." Also, I fail to understand your summary of the Arizona reviewer's habits in regards to "sweeps" for disabled caches. While that optional voluntary effort is noble and commendable, the issue in this thread is how a reviewer reacts to a "Needs Archived" log. This is governed by a different standard. Consider yourself lucky not to receive a forum suspension. I chose instead to involve myself in the debate. If the reviewer doesn't intend to take action until the 30th day, why would they state that they will take action after 10 days? Their log clearly said that they would. If they don't plan to take action for a month, then say that. I always assumed (and I know the ramifications of that) that it was just more along the lines of courtesy. A reviewer gives a CO x-number of days to sort something out. If it turns into X+ number of days so be it. Who does it harm, really? We're not talking open heart surgery here or anything like that. I always thought that was a nicer (for lack of better term) approach than whacking a cache at day x and then finding out there are always extenuating circumstances. Seems like that would create more unnecessary work. Likelihood of that? Probably low, but it also creates an unfriendly/confrontational atmosphere I'm sure The Frog has no interest in.

Yeah and you missed my humor. Not a problem. I do take issue with people jumping on someone for asking a question. Tell me how many times I had to ask before I got a response. I was sleeping. Then working. I promise to do better next time.

Whoa!!! I think that was a bit over the line, sidekeck! Yes the OP did some things wrong, but you have to admit that it is extremely likely that the cache is indeed missing, when you look at the logging history, and it is at least possible that the cache owner has gone AWOL, having not logged in since June, has only found 23 caches, and hidden only 1. And their last actual find was well over a year ago. That has all the earmarks of an abandoned cache to me. Keep in mind that a NA log does NOT archive a cache. All it does it to notify the reviewer of a potential problem, and I do think that was very appropriate in this case. I do not make assumptions about cache owners. Not logging in since June 8 doesn't raise any red flags for me. We have a local cacher here that has Stage IV cancer. He hasn't logged in for quite some time but we, as a caching community, know of his situation and we collectively keep his caches going. We do maintenance on them when they need it, despite the fact we don't own them. So no, log in dates don't automatically raise flags. Not here. RI is a small state with a tight knit community of people. We pretty much know everyone here. And if we don't, we will soon enough. Well, apparently there is no community assistance going on for this cache owner. Community assistance is a nice thing, but at the end of the day... the responsibility is up to the cache owner, no matter what their circumstances may be. I had a good friend contract leukemia last year. They archived their caches, and I picked them up for them. It isn't just the login date in this case... also the date of the last find, the number of finds, and the number of hides. Plus the fact that nobody was DNF'ing it (an easy find, according to you) and then suddenly nobody is finding it. Its either gone, or somebody rehid it much better than it was originally hidden, and probably off-coords, which means... owner maintenance needed. But there is no owner, apparently. So guess what...? Not my words. Please re-read my log. That was my mistake. I glanced over your post where you said, "That wasn't difficult to find.", but you were referring to the KB articles, not the cache. I'd say "My bad", but I detest that phrase. I agree with you there.

Great points on both of those KB links, and I do appreciate you pointing them out. But I think that you are needlessly defending a bad cache and absentee cache owner in this case. Not so much. Just helping BD in the endless quest for knowledge. Whoa, was that a light down that particular tunnel? Train! You asked... So I just provided the links to the KB. It's just that simple.

Whoa!!! I think that was a bit over the line, sidekeck! Yes the OP did some things wrong, but you have to admit that it is extremely likely that the cache is indeed missing, when you look at the logging history, and it is at least possible that the cache owner has gone AWOL, having not logged in since June, has only found 23 caches, and hidden only 1. And their last actual find was well over a year ago. That has all the earmarks of an abandoned cache to me. Keep in mind that a NA log does NOT archive a cache. All it does it to notify the reviewer of a potential problem, and I do think that was very appropriate in this case. I do not make assumptions about cache owners. Not logging in since June 8 doesn't raise any red flags for me. We have a local cacher here that has Stage IV cancer. He hasn't logged in for quite some time but we, as a caching community, know of his situation and we collectively keep his caches going. We do maintenance on them when they need it, despite the fact we don't own them. So no, log in dates don't automatically raise flags. Not here. RI is a small state with a tight knit community of people. We pretty much know everyone here. And if we don't, we will soon enough. Well, apparently there is no community assistance going on for this cache owner. Community assistance is a nice thing, but at the end of the day... the responsibility is up to the cache owner, no matter what their circumstances may be. I had a good friend contract leukemia last year. They archived their caches, and I picked them up for them. It isn't just the login date in this case... also the date of the last find, the number of finds, and the number of hides. Plus the fact that nobody was DNF'ing it (an easy find, according to you) and then suddenly nobody is finding it. Its either gone, or somebody rehid it much better than it was originally hidden, and probably off-coords, which means... owner maintenance needed. But there is no owner, apparently. So guess what...? Not my words. Please re-read my log.

Great points on both of those KB links, and I do appreciate you pointing them out. But I think that you are needlessly defending a bad cache and absentee cache owner in this case. Not so much. Just helping BD in the endless quest for knowledge.

This states the reviewer was required to do nothing with the OP's first NA log.