New, OLD cache

[+maldar]

I'm really getting tired of seeing this cache as a new placement almost each year.

 

Placed 4/1/2005, Published 3/17/2008

 

Placed 3/27/2007, Published 3/27/2007

 

Placed, 5/11/2005, Published 5/11/2005

 

I found the cache the first 2 times it was place as the first time it was removed because someone was harrassing the hider by using a similar user name (and added character I believe). Now the hider states that it will be placed as a new hide each year even though the cache is EXACTLY the same.

 

Sure, it is nice to have a cache placed to honor a love one that has passed on, but this cache really falls into the catagory of SEASONAL AVAILABILITY. It is no longer a UNIQUE cache at this point. Personally, it needs to be deactivated at the end of the season and reactivated at the begining of the next season.

 

What do others think about caches that are like this one?

 

If anyone want to take my number of hides into account, 8 of my hides no longer show as I adopted them to another cacher when I moved. I bring this up as others have looked at my "numbers" after my move and tried to imply that I had no right to say anything since I had so few.

 

For those that will say, "Just block it." I would have to do so each year, part of the point I'm trying to make.

 

If you know of other threads on this topic please link them, I did a few searches, but was unable to find ones I thought were related.

 

maldar

Edited June 2, 2008 by maldar

[+BadAndy]

 

 

For those that will say, "Just block it." I would have to do so each year, part of the point I'm trying to make.

 

maldar

 

It takes a few mouse clicks every 365 days.

 

Meh.

[+IBcrashen]

I would make a game out of it for a FTF.

mmm, know where it will be, know somewhat what time of year it will pop up. Keep checking the spot and see if you can nail it before it gets published.

 

Place one there while its archived.

[+Morning Dew]

What do others think about caches that are like this one?

 

I could flippin' care less! Who cares, seriously. The guy/gal has a memorial cache that has to be removed during the winter because the cemetary makes them, is this really that big of an issue?

 

I just don't get it. You say you want to ignore it but the second time it was posted you went and found it again and LOGGED the find. So which is it? Do you NOT want to find it AGAIN or DO you want to find it again? You can't have it both ways.

 

I'm really getting tired of seeing this cache as a new placement almost each year.

 

It's been relisted TWICE in THREE YEARS . You're really getting tired of this?

 

How do taxes make you feel? How about brushing your teeth? Is that starting to wear on ya?

 

I clicked on your profile and read your biography where you started telling me how you play the game. I love that, how people play the game differently is one of the aspects that fascinates me about geocaching. But then you used your biography as a pulpit to look down on me for discovering a coin at a cache I've already previously been to (which I don't normally do by the way). My geosense tells me you may have issues beyond geocaching.

 

By your own admission, people play different ways. Who cares.

 

Maybe your search for other "similar" issues came up empty becasue.......you might be alone on this one? Perhaps? Or in a very small minority.

Edited June 2, 2008 by Morning Dew

[+briansnat]

The owner really should just be disabling it. Seems silly to archive and create a new page every year for what is essentially the same cache.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

 

What do others think about caches that are like this one?

 

...

 

For those that will say, "Just block it." I would have to do so each year, part of the point I'm trying to make.

 

 

If you're going to keep logging it when it's relisted, I don't think you have any right to complain.

 

If it's that big of a problem, 'just block it' (either via your ignore list, or through GSAK). Adding one cache to your ignore list, once a year - the horror (this coming from someone who has thousands of caches on ignore, mind you). If you're too lazy to do that... wow.

 

That said, so what? The owner keeps hiding a new cache in the same location. People do that all the time. It's not much different than someone archiving their cache, and someone else putting another one in the same location. Would it be easier for you if someone else owned the cache that was put back in the same spot (other issues aside --> I understand this is a memorial cache, but it's the principal of the thing)?

 

Yes, the owner could 'temporarily disable' the cache for the season, but often times once a cache has been disabled for a certain length of time the owner starts getting those postings to the cache page: "Dear cache owner..." (Granted, I'm sure they could be made aware of the situation to avoid this, but...)

 

Eh, who cares?

 

If you don't like the cache, don't look at it, don't go find it, don't log it. Each time you find it, you are supporting the hide.

 

 

 

michelle

[+sduck]

I don't have a problem with it - seems like a fine cache. Lots of little things like this can pop up to vex you while playing this game, and the best thing to do is just remember "it's just a game, there are lots of ways of playing it."

 

Briansnat - Some local reviewers don't like caches that sit disabled for months at a time - maybe this method is what he's worked out with the local reviewer. Hey, aren't you a reviewer too? - mebbe not, don't remember - we've met a few times, don't remember that detail.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I'm really getting tired of seeing this cache as a new placement almost each year.

 

Placed 4/1/2005, Published 3/17/2008

 

Placed 3/27/2007, Published 3/27/2007

 

Placed, 5/11/2005, Published 5/11/2005

 

I found the cache the first 2 times it was place as the first time it was removed because someone was harrassing the hider by using a similar user name (and added character I believe). Now the hider states that it will be placed as a new hide each year even though the cache is EXACTLY the same.

 

Sure, it is nice to have a cache placed to honor a love one that has passed on, but this cache really falls into the catagory of SEASONAL AVAILABILITY. It is no longer a UNIQUE cache at this point. Personally, it needs to be deactivated at the end of the season and reactivated at the begining of the next season.

 

What do others think about caches that are like this one?

 

If anyone want to take my number of hides into account, 8 of my hides no longer show as I adopted them to another cacher when I moved. I bring this up as others have looked at my "numbers" after my move and tried to imply that I had no right to say anything since I had so few.

 

For those that will say, "Just block it." I would have to do so each year, part of the point I'm trying to make.

 

If you know of other threads on this topic please link them, I did a few searches, but was unable to find ones I thought were related.

 

maldar

Well, to answer you question, no, the concept of this particular cache/caches phenomenon does not bother me at all, and, so long as it is okay with the hider and her/his local reviewer, and with Groundspeak, who cares? This is an EXTREMELY minor matter -- no, beyond minor, it is inanely trivial matter -- and you may wish to let to of it and move on with the things that you enjoy in your life, rather than obsessing with and about incredibly trivial matters which you have chosen to turn into a drama and a source of irritation for you.

[+nikcap]

It looks like that cache is physically removed every fall anyway.

I think the real issue is that the cache should be archived or temp disabled when it's pulled from the field.

Replacing it as a new cache and listing in the spring doesn't seem like a big deal.

[+sbell111]

<shrug>

[+uxorious]

If it were my cache, I would not do it the way he is. And I would not find and log this one a second time. It really should be disabled for the season, then reactivated I've seen other caches that are.

 

All that being said, if this cache was in my area and came up on my radar? It's not mine and the cache owner can work it whatever way seems right to him. (as long as it is within the rules.) Those logging it can log it as often as the cache owner allows them to, and it doesn't effect my game.

[Clan Riffster]

That does seem a bit odd. If it were mine, I'd fire off a note to the reviewer explaining the circumstances requiring an extended, annual disabling, rather than submit it as a shiny new cache every year. If it were local, it wouldn't bother me a bit. If it was a quality cache, in a pleasant location, I'd "Find" it again the next year, and every following year. If it was a ho-hum cache, I'd find it once and add it to my ignore list. You are ultimately responsible for the level of enjoyment you derive from this game. If you let something as minor as this get you cheesed off, you've got no one to blame but yourself.

[+maldar]

Yes I logged it the second time. Since the first time the cache was removed by him when he removed all his caches due to someone tampering with his caches, I didn't think much of logging it again. I thought he resolved the issue with that person and that was why the cache was back.

 

I thought that since GC.c has guidelines about seasonal caches that it falls under that criteria and it sould remain the same cache. If the theme of the cache page changed alittle nor it a park and grab in a cemetry I would be more tolorent.

 

At least the guy that changes his cache every 3-6 months in a local 1 cache park makes me walk more that 5 feet from my car.

 

Yes, as someone pointed out I do have a certain way I play the game. Coming from the era of having to drive hundreds of miles just to find enough caches to break into the teens makes one view caching differently. Maybe that is why I perfer Terra Caching. There is not a need for a cache every 501 ft or whatever it maybe. Back then I was discovering new locations and not the dead animal behind McDonald's Dumpster. Back then my only complaint was people not informing us about entry fees as I rarely carry cash on me.

 

maldar

[+DaFunkyFrogs]

Ahh, the good old days.......everything always looks better in hindsight..........

 

But this is 6 years later and I see nothing wrong with this cache, it doesn't seem to be breaking any rules, people are seeming to enjoy it.

Until you can figure out how to go back to 2002, you might want to ignore the caches you don't like. But then, you can still drive hundreds of miles looking for the 'perfect' cache........oh, I forgot, gas costs too much to do that anymore. I bet THAT really irritates you too............

 

[+sbell111]

... Yes, as someone pointed out I do have a certain way I play the game. Coming from the era of having to drive hundreds of miles just to find enough caches to break into the teens makes one view caching differently.

I came from 'that era' and I don't agree with your take, so I assume that when you started playing the game isn't the determining factor.

Maybe that is why I perfer Terra Caching. There is not a need for a cache every 501 ft or whatever it maybe.

Well, let's pretend for a moment that there were enough caches listed at TC.com for that to be an issue. Wouldn't you still have the ability to NOT look for any of them that you choose?

 

This kind of reminds me of a 'power trail' thread from a few months ago. Some complained that they didn't want to have to stop every 500(ish) feet to log a cache. Others understood that they could walk right on by some of the caches and log them on the walk back to the car, on some other day, or not at all.

Back then I was discovering new locations and not the dead animal behind McDonald's Dumpster. Back then my only complaint was people not informing us about entry fees as I rarely carry cash on me.

Back then, we had to walk uphill to the caches in waist deep snow without shoes.

 

The past was not how we tend to remember it.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

Ahh, the good old days.......everything always looks better in hindsight..........

 

But this is 6 years later and I see nothing wrong with this cache, it doesn't seem to be breaking any rules, people are seeming to enjoy it.

Until you can figure out how to go back to 2002, you might want to ignore the caches you don't like. But then, you can still drive hundreds of miles looking for the 'perfect' cache........oh, I forgot, gas costs too much to do that anymore. I bet THAT really irritates you too............

 

 

6 years later... you can IGNORE (electronically) the caches you don't agree with/want to see.

 

The horror.

 

 

michelle