Off Your Rocker Series, New Corp Policies say NO MORE CACHES - Redux

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

BTW, just to be overly-technical-detail-oriented for a moment, there is a significant difference between the Cracker Barrel caches that I have seen and the lamp post cache hides that I have encountered at Wal-mart and Home Depot. The Cracker Barrel cache hides that I have seen have been emplaced on the front porch of Cracker Barrel, often on the front wall of the storefront, or within a few inches of it, and almost always just inches from windows, behind which were located tables filled with folks eating their dinner. So, at least if the restaurant was pretty much packed with customers, a seeker was almost bound to come face-to-face, through the window, with some poor innocent souls sitting only ten inches away, who had been peacefully eating their dinner till a face appeared in the window adjacent to their table!

 

On the other hand, all the hides that I have seen at Wal-Mart and Home Depot have been lamp post caches located in the parking lot, rather far from the front of the store. This is a significant difference in placement strategy from Cracker Barrel caches.

 

Vinny,

Have a more open mind. Not all CB caches are on the porch near a window. Mine, for example was going to be behind the CB. If the policy were to change to require local CB approval, this would become a moot point anyway.

 

EEEK! Help! The gol-darned fanatical fundamentalist Cracker Barrel Front Porch Prophets and Saviors (Third Synod, Fourth Convocation) cult is hounding me again!

 

Help, someone! Make them leave me alone!

 

I am a hapless helpless victim! They are INSANE!

 

.

[+OzGuff]

An existing OYR cache was archived by the cache owner due to life getting in the way. Less than a month later the cache owner decided that life was over-rated and requested that the OYR cache -- which was never removed -- be unarchived. The reviewer did not unarchive the cache as he said that new caches must comply with current guidelines, and since Cracker Barrel will no longer grant permission for new caches this cache can't be unarchived.

 

Regardless of your opinion of the relative worth of OYR caches does the above seem to be a reasonable interpretation of the guidelines and of Cracker Barrel's policy on new caches? If the cache were to be unarchived would it be a new cache or not?

[Keystone]

Pretend the archived listing was in a county park that has a permit system, rather than a Cracker Barrel cache. Assume the cache was hidden in the park in 2003, and the permit system was implemented in 2005. As a reviewer I face this situation regularly. I do not allow for the old cache to be unarchived unless its owner follows the permit requirements. You lose your "grandfathered" status when you archive your listing.

 

Refusing to unarchive a Cracker Barrel cache seems entirely consistent with how other landowner/land manager situations are handled. Chalk one up for consistency.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Keystone

[+flask]

Chalk one up for consistency.

 

and good taste.

[+OzGuff]

Pretend the archived listing was in a county park that has a permit system, rather than a Cracker Barrel cache. Assume the cache was hidden in the park in 2003, and the permit system was implemented in 2005. As a reviewer I face this situation regularly. I do not allow for the old cache to be unarchived unless its owner follows the permit requirements. You lose your "grandfathered" status when you archive your listing.

 

Refusing to unarchive a Cracker Barrel cache seems entirely consistent with how other landowner/land manager situations are handled. Chalk one up for consistency.

 

Your point is well made. And I tend to agree with you. But the analogy falls apart if extended to the existing caches in the county park (i.e., the existing caches on Cracker Barrel property). If the county park requested permits for only new caches then the old caches are fine. Would an archived/extant cache in that county park be considered a "new" cache?

 

I hate to use a semantic argument but pretty much every definition of "new" would exclude the archived cache and thus it should be OK to unarchive. (BTW -- TPsTB used a semantic argument when deciding that "new" caches were verboten and existing caches were OK to remain as is.)

[Keystone]

If the county park requested permits for only new caches then the old caches are fine. Would an archived/extant cache in that county park be considered a "new" cache?

Yes. The very first cache I published in 2009 was done under these exact circumstances.

[GOF and Bacall]

Pretend the archived listing was in a county park that has a permit system, rather than a Cracker Barrel cache. Assume the cache was hidden in the park in 2003, and the permit system was implemented in 2005. As a reviewer I face this situation regularly. I do not allow for the old cache to be unarchived unless its owner follows the permit requirements. You lose your "grandfathered" status when you archive your listing.

 

Refusing to unarchive a Cracker Barrel cache seems entirely consistent with how other landowner/land manager situations are handled. Chalk one up for consistency.

 

Your point is well made. And I tend to agree with you. But the analogy falls apart if extended to the existing caches in the county park (i.e., the existing caches on Cracker Barrel property). If the county park requested permits for only new caches then the old caches are fine. Would an archived/extant cache in that county park be considered a "new" cache?

 

I hate to use a semantic argument but pretty much every definition of "new" would exclude the archived cache and thus it should be OK to unarchive. (BTW -- TPsTB used a semantic argument when deciding that "new" caches were verboten and existing caches were OK to remain as is.)

 

Can anyone point out a case in which an archived cache was brought back using its "grandfathered" status? I would think that archiving a cache would negate its "grandfathered" status. At least that is how I look at it.

[+Colonial Cats]

BTW, just to be overly-technical-detail-oriented for a moment, there is a significant difference between the Cracker Barrel caches that I have seen and the lamp post cache hides that I have encountered at Wal-mart and Home Depot. The Cracker Barrel cache hides that I have seen have been emplaced on the front porch of Cracker Barrel, often on the front wall of the storefront, or within a few inches of it, and almost always just inches from windows, behind which were located tables filled with folks eating their dinner. So, at least if the restaurant was pretty much packed with customers, a seeker was almost bound to come face-to-face, through the window, with some poor innocent souls sitting only ten inches away, who had been peacefully eating their dinner till a face appeared in the window adjacent to their table!

 

On the other hand, all the hides that I have seen at Wal-Mart and Home Depot have been lamp post caches located in the parking lot, rather far from the front of the store. This is a significant difference in placement strategy from Cracker Barrel caches.

 

Vinny,

Have a more open mind. Not all CB caches are on the porch near a window. Mine, for example was going to be behind the CB. If the policy were to change to require local CB approval, this would become a moot point anyway.

 

EEEK! Help! The gol-darned fanatical fundamentalist Cracker Barrel Front Porch Prophets and Saviors (Third Synod, Fourth Convocation) cult is hounding me again!

 

Help, someone! Make them leave me alone!

 

I am a hapless helpless victim! They are INSANE!

 

.

 

You caught on to our evil plan.

[+undertree]

In my narrow mind I ask. Who would want to hunt a cache at a Crapper Barrel.

 

They have horrible food and their country store grew very old the second or third time I went there.

 

The Crapper Barrel is a bad restaurant with a horrible theme. The thought of having to visit one to get a smiley horrifies me and causes me to twitch, me ears peal back and a guttural groan eminates from within.

 

Thanks to the Crapper Barrel for having mercy on those of us who detest their business.

[+OzGuff]

Can anyone point out a case in which an archived cache was brought back using its "grandfathered" status? I would think that archiving a cache would negate its "grandfathered" status. At least that is how I look at it.

 

I have no problem with the current guidelines being used to determine the publish-ability of an archived cache being unarchived. My question lies with whether or not that cache should be deemed "new". The archived cache seeking to be unarchived -- if unarchived -- would have the same GC ID number and the history from the cache page would still exist as is. In many cases archived caches that have been unarchived use the same cache container because it was never removed. So if it isn't "new" how does it violate the current guidelines with regard to "new" caches on Cracker Barrel properties?

[AZcachemeister]

The policy remains in effect. Volunteer cache reviewers will not publish caches on Cracker Barrel properties.

 

Really?

 

Off Your Rocker-Buckeye

 

I haven't been there, but I can't see any reviewer note to tell me it isn't on their property.

[+Bergie Bunch]

The policy remains in effect. Volunteer cache reviewers will not publish caches on Cracker Barrel properties.

 

proof there is a just and merciful God!

 

LOL. Why doesn't God feel the same way about Wal-mart and Home Depot and...........

 

And friggin' Target. C'mon now, "right on Target"? "Target Practice"? Y'all have to do better that that.

 

Oh, I raised the question about the pre-existing ones within the last year, and Mtn-Man I believe it was, came back and said CB only stated indifference to any new ones. So the old ones get to stay. Not that we can't "dance on the grave" as Flask so eloquently put it.

 

We don't have a Target in Canada.

 

I thought it was Quebec?

[+The Blue Quasar]

Are we at the point where it should be pointed out that if you wish to enjoy a Groundspeak GPS activity at a Cracker Barrel that you simply Waymark it?

 

BQ

 

edit: insert link

Edited January 19, 2009 by The Blue Quasar

[GOF and Bacall]

Can anyone point out a case in which an archived cache was brought back using its "grandfathered" status? I would think that archiving a cache would negate its "grandfathered" status. At least that is how I look at it.

 

I have no problem with the current guidelines being used to determine the publish-ability of an archived cache being unarchived. My question lies with whether or not that cache should be deemed "new". The archived cache seeking to be unarchived -- if unarchived -- would have the same GC ID number and the history from the cache page would still exist as is. In many cases archived caches that have been unarchived use the same cache container because it was never removed. So if it isn't "new" how does it violate the current guidelines with regard to "new" caches on Cracker Barrel properties?

 

I never said it was a new cache if it was unarchived. What I said is that it has lost its grandfathered status when it was archived. Meaning that in order to be unarchived it needs to meet all current guidelines and restrictions.

 

An archived virtual can't be unarchived because it does not meet current guidelines. Same with OYR caches.

[GOF and Bacall]

The policy remains in effect. Volunteer cache reviewers will not publish caches on Cracker Barrel properties.

 

Really?

 

Off Your Rocker-Buckeye

 

I haven't been there, but I can't see any reviewer note to tell me it isn't on their property.

 

Anything to indicate it is? If you think there is a problem perhaps you should contact the reviewer who published the cache. Or go there and check it out first.

[+kayak-cowboy]

The policy remains in effect. Volunteer cache reviewers will not publish caches on Cracker Barrel properties.

 

Really?

 

Off Your Rocker-Buckeye

 

I haven't been there, but I can't see any reviewer note to tell me it isn't on their property.

 

Anything to indicate it is? If you think there is a problem perhaps you should contact the reviewer who published the cache. Or go there and check it out first.

 

Using Google Maps with street view shows a C.B. to be located there. It is possible that it is located in a street sign post along the road between the side walk and the street. That would possibly be a right of way and not necessarily be on the C.B. property.

[GOF and Bacall]

The policy remains in effect. Volunteer cache reviewers will not publish caches on Cracker Barrel properties.

 

Really?

 

Off Your Rocker-Buckeye

 

I haven't been there, but I can't see any reviewer note to tell me it isn't on their property.

 

Anything to indicate it is? If you think there is a problem perhaps you should contact the reviewer who published the cache. Or go there and check it out first.

 

Using Google Maps with street view shows a C.B. to be located there. It is possible that it is located in a street sign post along the road between the side walk and the street. That would possibly be a right of way and not necessarily be on the C.B. property.

 

I suspect that the CO was able to prove that while the cache was near it was not at the CB. At any rate it is a side issue and only confuses the subject.

[Mr.Yuck]

Are we at the point where it should be pointed out that if you wish to enjoy a Groundspeak GPS activity at a Cracker Barrel that you simply Waymark it?

 

BQ

 

edit: insert link

 

Now why didn't anyone else think of that? Never mind, I already know.

[+KBI]

In my narrow mind I ask. Who would want to hunt a cache at a Crapper Barrel.

 

They have horrible food and their country store grew very old the second or third time I went there.

I sympathize.

 

I like Cracker Barrel; the place I can’t stand is McDonald's. The food there is like grenades to my stomach. In my narrow mind I ask: Who would want to hunt a cache at a McDonald's?

 

I therefore detest those cache owners who force me to eat at McDonald's.

 

The Crapper Barrel is a bad restaurant with a horrible theme. The thought of having to visit one to get a smiley horrifies me and causes me to twitch, me ears peal back and a guttural groan eminates from within.

I’m jealous of you. Your personal curse is being phased out – why can’t mine? Why can’t all new McDonald's caches be outlawed as well? Why must I continue having those nasty Big Macs shoved down my throat, just because I’m a cacher?

 

Maybe someday each and every one of us will have our least-favorite restaurant, store, gas station, church, climatic area, trail type, natural feature, park, state, country or continent added to the list of forbidden cache locations.

 

Then none of us will be force to hunt caches we don’t like.

 

Thanks to the Crapper Barrel for having mercy on those of us who detest their business.

Thanks (in advance) to the Reviewers for eventually (hopefully) having mercy on ALL of us who detest ... pretty much anything specific.

Edited January 19, 2009 by KBI

[+OzGuff]

Can anyone point out a case in which an archived cache was brought back using its "grandfathered" status? I would think that archiving a cache would negate its "grandfathered" status. At least that is how I look at it.

 

I have no problem with the current guidelines being used to determine the publish-ability of an archived cache being unarchived. My question lies with whether or not that cache should be deemed "new". The archived cache seeking to be unarchived -- if unarchived -- would have the same GC ID number and the history from the cache page would still exist as is. In many cases archived caches that have been unarchived use the same cache container because it was never removed. So if it isn't "new" how does it violate the current guidelines with regard to "new" caches on Cracker Barrel properties?

 

I never said it was a new cache if it was unarchived. What I said is that it has lost its grandfathered status when it was archived. Meaning that in order to be unarchived it needs to meet all current guidelines and restrictions.

 

An archived virtual can't be unarchived because it does not meet current guidelines. Same with OYR caches.

 

OK. I had not ever been informed that archival removes any grandfathered status. Those guidelines sure are fluid... ;-) Thanks for setting me straight!

[+gof1]

Don't take my word for it, ask around. That is just my understanding of the situation.

[+Sapience Trek]

Don't take my word for it, ask around. That is just my understanding of the situation.

 

You would be correct.

[+undertree]

In my narrow mind I ask. Who would want to hunt a cache at a Crapper Barrel.

 

They have horrible food and their country store grew very old the second or third time I went there.

I sympathize.

 

I like Cracker Barrel; the place I can’t stand is McDonald's. The food there is like grenades to my stomach. In my narrow mind I ask: Who would want to hunt a cache at a McDonald's?

 

I therefore detest those cache owners who force me to eat at McDonald's.

 

The Crapper Barrel is a bad restaurant with a horrible theme. The thought of having to visit one to get a smiley horrifies me and causes me to twitch, me ears peal back and a guttural groan eminates from within.

I’m jealous of you. Your personal curse is being phased out – why can’t mine? Why can’t all new McDonald's caches be outlawed as well? Why must I continue having those nasty Big Macs shoved down my throat, just because I’m a cacher?

 

Maybe someday each and every one of us will have our least-favorite restaurant, store, gas station, church, climatic area, trail type, natural feature, park, state, country or continent added to the list of forbidden cache locations.

 

Then none of us will be force to hunt caches we don’t like.

 

Thanks to the Crapper Barrel for having mercy on those of us who detest their business.

Thanks (in advance) to the Reviewers for eventually (hopefully) having mercy on ALL of us who detest ... pretty much anything specific.

 

Thanks, You made me laugh.

[+Prime Suspect]

The policy remains in effect. Volunteer cache reviewers will not publish caches on Cracker Barrel properties.

 

Really?

 

Off Your Rocker-Buckeye

 

I haven't been there, but I can't see any reviewer note to tell me it isn't on their property.

Goggle Street View indicates that's its in the strip center common parking area.

[+Prime Suspect]

An archived virtual can't be unarchived because it does not meet current guidelines. Same with OYR caches.

 

OK. I had not ever been informed that archival removes any grandfathered status. Those guidelines sure are fluid... ;-) Thanks for setting me straight!

The "caches can't be unarchived unless they meet the current guidelines" rule has been around for at least 5 years. That's hardly "fluid".

[+gof1]

Are we at the point where it should be pointed out that if you wish to enjoy a Groundspeak GPS activity at a Cracker Barrel that you simply Waymark it?

 

BQ

 

edit: insert link

 

Now why didn't anyone else think of that? Never mind, I already know.

 

The policy remains in effect. Volunteer cache reviewers will not publish caches on Cracker Barrel properties.

 

Really?

 

Off Your Rocker-Buckeye

 

I haven't been there, but I can't see any reviewer note to tell me it isn't on their property.

Goggle Street View indicates that's its in the strip center common parking area.

 

... it is a side issue and only confuses the subject.

[Mr.Yuck]

In my narrow mind I ask. Who would want to hunt a cache at a Crapper Barrel.

 

They have horrible food and their country store grew very old the second or third time I went there.

I sympathize.

 

I like Cracker Barrel; the place I can’t stand is McDonald's. The food there is like grenades to my stomach. In my narrow mind I ask: Who would want to hunt a cache at a McDonald's?

 

I therefore detest those cache owners who force me to eat at McDonald's.

 

The Crapper Barrel is a bad restaurant with a horrible theme. The thought of having to visit one to get a smiley horrifies me and causes me to twitch, me ears peal back and a guttural groan eminates from within.

I’m jealous of you. Your personal curse is being phased out – why can’t mine? Why can’t all new McDonald's caches be outlawed as well? Why must I continue having those nasty Big Macs shoved down my throat, just because I’m a cacher?

 

Maybe someday each and every one of us will have our least-favorite restaurant, store, gas station, church, climatic area, trail type, natural feature, park, state, country or continent added to the list of forbidden cache locations.

 

Then none of us will be force to hunt caches we don’t like.

 

Thanks to the Crapper Barrel for having mercy on those of us who detest their business.

Thanks (in advance) to the Reviewers for eventually (hopefully) having mercy on ALL of us who detest ... pretty much anything specific.

 

Thanks, You made me laugh.

 

Me too. C'mon KBI, that was a funny post. It should win an award or something. I'd think it was funny even if it were about one of my favorite chains to eat at like Subway.

[BlueDamsel]

 

You see, the file revealed that there exists within the USA and Canada an extremely secretive religious sect, commonly known as the Cracker Barrel Front Porch Prophets and Saviors, Third Synod, Fourth Convocation aka CBFPPAS, and a key part of their theology is the teaching that cult members cannot reach Salvation (please note the caps) and cannot Ascend to Heaven (again, please note the caps) unless they find at least thirty Groundspeak-listed geocaches at Cracker Barrel locations in the USA, and unless one logs each of the thirty finds online. So, the upper-level hierarchy of this religion is very invested in the notion that Cracker Barrel caches be allowed to proliferate, and the rank-and-file members of the cult are downright rabid about trying to make sure that Cracker Barrel cache placements are "legalized" once again, for their salvation depends upon it. What is really scary, and this also explains why the CIA is/was so interested in this cult, is the fact that the upper-level hierarchy which controls the cult has decided that if Cracker Barrel does not reverse their no-new-geocaches policy by mid-2009, the cult plans to take control of the US government via a violent revolution and then use the combined legislative and military might of the US government to force Cracker Barrel to once again allow placement of Groundspeak-listed geocaches on the porches of their restaurants.

 

Stop watching the X-Files DVDs right now, and no one will get hurt.

[+Tahoein' Bunch]

Hey I like the X-files.......Thank you verry much.

 

Let the CB hides Die off in peace, Man could you imagine if Wallyworld had the same Policy, Over 1/2 the hides in the U.S would Disappear. We have no CB's here in Cali but thats a policy they want and just let it go.

Edited January 19, 2009 by Tahoein' Bunch

[+flask]

Man could you imagine if Wallyworld had the same Policy, Over 1/2 the hides in the U.S would Disappear.

 

and my, wouldn't THAT be a tragedy?

[+Too Tall John]

In many cases archived caches that have been unarchived use the same cache container because it was never removed. So if it isn't "new" how does it violate the current guidelines with regard to "new" caches on Cracker Barrel properties?

It has absolutely nothing to do with being new, it has to do with the guidelines. A direct quote from the guidelines:

Grandfathered caches may not be unarchived.

It's there in black and white, not very fluid, eh?

[+Dgwphotos]

"When you go to hide a cache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the cache, then find a better spot." - briansnat

[+Too Tall John]

Man could you imagine if Wallyworld had the same Policy...

Policy? The only company who has ever had a stated policy on geocaching is CB. They allowed it! Vinny had it half right earlier when he said:

...there is a significant difference between the Cracker Barrel caches that I have seen and the lamp post cache hides that I have encountered at Wal-mart and Home Depot.

Those CB caches had permission. As a company, Wal-Mart and Home Depot have never had a corporate policy that allows caching, in fact, with my 10 years as a manager for Wal-Mart, I can think of a handful of specific policies that would disallow such activities on the property.

 

There have been a couple examples given of caches in a Wal-Mart parking lot that were placed with permission. I contend that, due to corporate policy and the fact that store managers occasionally move from store to store, the only entity eligible to extend permission, is in Bentonville, Arkansas. They haven't spoken, and apparently nobody's asking.

[+Team CeDo]

I for one WILL NOT miss these things at all!!!!!! We have done a few and more times than not you end up staring in the face of some clueless people tring to eat their meal in peace. If people love placing caches near C.B. so much put them out in the parking lot.

 

Where I was planning to place the cache would not have upset the delicate nature of the feeding of muggles. In fact it would have been very discreet. This was one reason why I had the local store support. I don't think I would have had it otherwise.

 

I don't know what the parking lot status for other Cracker Barrels is, but this location's parking lot is on Cracker Barrel property. Therefore their corporate policy applies.

 

Please do not get me wrong; I am not gripping. I just wanted to know the status of the policy and if there was any action going on to try to change it.

 

Thank you to every one for their opinions. I found Vinny's very enlightening.

 

Edited to make sense.

 

 

If there were more people like youself that hid these caches in a more descreet spot that didn't bother paying patrons we probably would still be able to hide them on C.B.'s property. I certainly can't say I hated doing them I just put myself in other peoples shoes and respect a family wanting to have a semi-nice dinner. Hopefully C.B. will one day allow Geocachers to hide them on their property, just not right in front of the window in or on or under an appliance.

[+flask]

I just put myself in other peoples shoes and respect a family wanting to have a semi-nice dinner.

 

well, there's the problem. people wanting a semi-nice dinner should go to a semi-nice restaurant instead of a cracker barrel.

 

chumps deserve what they get.

[+Too Tall John]

I just put myself in other peoples shoes and respect a family wanting to have a semi-nice dinner.

well, there's the problem. people wanting a semi-nice dinner should go to a semi-nice restaurant instead of a cracker barrel.

Frankly, I'd feel like I was intruding if I was retrieving a similarly hidden cache outside a window at a McDonald's.

 

And IMHO, that's about the bottom of the restaurant barrel. Nothing to do with expecting "semi-nice," just a general social norm.

[+WRASTRO]

I just put myself in other peoples shoes and respect a family wanting to have a semi-nice dinner.

 

well, there's the problem. people wanting a semi-nice dinner should go to a semi-nice restaurant instead of a cracker barrel.

 

chumps deserve what they get.

Have never eaten at a CB so can't judge but this comment is purely personal and has nothing to do with the topic. Oops, sorry. Forgot who I was replying to.

[Mr.Yuck]

I for one WILL NOT miss these things at all!!!!!! We have done a few and more times than not you end up staring in the face of some clueless people tring to eat their meal in peace. If people love placing caches near C.B. so much put them out in the parking lot.

 

Where I was planning to place the cache would not have upset the delicate nature of the feeding of muggles. In fact it would have been very discreet. This was one reason why I had the local store support. I don't think I would have had it otherwise.

 

I don't know what the parking lot status for other Cracker Barrels is, but this location's parking lot is on Cracker Barrel property. Therefore their corporate policy applies.

 

Please do not get me wrong; I am not gripping. I just wanted to know the status of the policy and if there was any action going on to try to change it.

 

Thank you to every one for their opinions. I found Vinny's very enlightening.

 

Edited to make sense.

 

 

If there were more people like youself that hid these caches in a more descreet spot that didn't bother paying patrons we probably would still be able to hide them on C.B.'s property. I certainly can't say I hated doing them I just put myself in other peoples shoes and respect a family wanting to have a semi-nice dinner. Hopefully C.B. will one day allow Geocachers to hide them on their property, just not right in front of the window in or on or under an appliance.

 

The key words regarding the CB dinner being "semi-nice".

 

I don't think there was any backlash about cachers getting all up in people's faces outside the window though. I'm of the opinion the policy change had to do with Lawyers and liability. I still remember the thread were the policy change was "announced", and there was no indication of that being the reason.

 

Blanket permission for these caches came after dozens or even hundreds were in place, and was revoked after 2 years at the most. I think someone mentioned something about that.

[+OzGuff]

In many cases archived caches that have been unarchived use the same cache container because it was never removed. So if it isn't "new" how does it violate the current guidelines with regard to "new" caches on Cracker Barrel properties?

It has absolutely nothing to do with being new, it has to do with the guidelines. A direct quote from the guidelines:

Grandfathered caches may not be unarchived.

It's there in black and white, not very fluid, eh?

You reference a section of the guidelines which applies to grandfathered cache TYPES -- specifically webcam and virtual caches. It does NOT seem to apply to this cache.

 

The current guidelines are silent on this situation. However, the guidelines do say, "However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is." There is no language in the current guidelines that mentions grandfathered caches losing their grandfathered status upon archival.

 

The cache in question is not even mine so any vested interest is slight at best. I'm trying to get an answer from someone in the know based on the current guidelines. I know that at least one reviewer has mentioned that the guidelines seem to preclude this cache from being unarchived, but I see no language in the current guidelines that supports that.

 

And the quality of the cache is irrelevant.

 

Thanks to all for their input!

[GOF and Bacall]

"However, if the cache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated the cache is likely to be "grandfathered" and allowed to stand as is."

 

The guidelines do not say that any cache will be grandfathered, only likely to be.

 

I thought the question was answered when a reviewer confirmed my belief that a cache lost its grandfathered status when it was archived and needed to meet any current guidelines or restrictions.

 

Don't take my word for it, ask around. That is just my understanding of the situation.

 

You would be correct.

[+WRASTRO]

It seems to me that the guideline quoted makes perfect sense when considering unarchiving a cache. If it doesn't meet the current guidelines then it won't be unarchived. Kind of like meeting current building codes when trying to reopen a business. Hey, when I opened this busines 20 years ago all was good, but things have changed. I closed the business down a couple of months ago and I want to open it up again but I don't see why I should need to meet current building code, permit and licensing requirements. After all, I had the business open for many years in this same location.

[+flask]

 

Have never eaten at a CB so can't judge but this comment is purely personal and has nothing to do with the topic. Oops, sorry. Forgot who I was replying to.

 

before you get snippy and personal about it, it may help you to realize that i am not a liner thinker, but an associative thinker. the world in general and internet forums in particular are mostly skewed toward the linear thinkers.

 

we associative, or "globular" thinkers are used to it. to us, wherever a conversation goes is where it goes, and is therefore on-topic allll the time.

 

you linear thinkers need us.

 

it has been speculated by people much brighter than me (among them oliver sacks and kay redfield jamison) that every giant leap of invention is a result of some associative thinker making an unexpected connection.

 

we're all over the place; that's our job. my persona here is puckish, provocative, and capricious.

 

i once had the perfect job: to think up wacky stuff. enter the eleven-legged race and the potato-peeling biathlon. ask me to give the committee report, and expect interpretive dance. want to have some real fun? get several hundred people to take an entire afternoon off in order to celebrate a holiday that doesn't exist.

 

in the case of the flogged-to-death cracker barrel flap, did i miss anything important? does this topic somehow require anybody's full attention or even merit a serious response at this point?

 

i'm probably the reason corporate withdrew permission: the last time i attempted an OYR cache, i arrived at the cracker barrel in question at four-thirty AM on a rainy sunday morning. i crawled into the back of my car and slept until later in the day when i emerged bedraggled, dirty, sleep deprived, under-medicated and without benefit of a shower since thursday to search fruitlessly for the better part of an hour before giving up only to return at semi-regular intervals during the day for subsequent attempts and use of the restroom.

 

you're welcome.

[+undertree]

I just put myself in other peoples shoes and respect a family wanting to have a semi-nice dinner.

 

well, there's the problem. people wanting a semi-nice dinner should go to a semi-nice restaurant instead of a cracker barrel.

 

chumps deserve what they get.

 

HA.

 

I posted my roast of CB to be a bit funny and stir the pot.

 

My actual least favorite chain is Olive Garden. Where else can I get crappy service and Chef Boyardee meals at those prices.

 

On topic. I am just completely crushed by the fact that I won't have a legitimate reason to visit another Crapper Barrel with the possibility of purchasing some real country hand made soap from China.

 

If you want to hack on me for one of my favorite chains. I do enjoy the Applebees. There you folks go. That should be enough fodder for the cannons.

Edited January 20, 2009 by undertree

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

 

You are not alone. I have two devotional altars in my home; one devoted to worship of Auntie Weasel, and one devoted to worship of flask.

 

it is not possible to be in better company.

Agreed. The evil Sioneva keeps trying to get me to create an altar worshipping her as well, but I know better than to do so!

 

.

 

Oh, just admit it. You dream of the day you'll be ordained a priest of Sioneva and can go out and CONVERT THE WORLD.

 

From the porches of Cracker Barrels across the country, of course.

Sioneva, I seem to have lost the URL to the website for your First International Discount Church of Sioneva; would you please send it to me again via private email or via PM?

 

Thank you for doing the needful!

 

.

[+palmetto]

I'm trying to get an answer from someone in the know based on the current guidelines. I know that at least one reviewer has mentioned that the guidelines seem to preclude this cache from being unarchived,

 

Another reviewer responding here: in order to unarchive a cache, it must be reviewed. At the time of the

review/unarchive it must meet the current guidelines. Hence, an archived cache on the front porch of a Cracker Barrel Restaurant won't be unarchived. It does not currently meet the listing guidelines. This applies broadly to any cache. If you used to own a cache in an area now off-limits to geocaching, it isn't going to be unarchived.

[+gof1]

 

Have never eaten at a CB so can't judge but this comment is purely personal and has nothing to do with the topic. Oops, sorry. Forgot who I was replying to.

 

before you get snippy and personal about it, it may help you to realize that i am not a liner thinker, but an associative thinker. the world in general and internet forums in particular are mostly skewed toward the linear thinkers.

 

we associative, or "globular" thinkers are used to it. to us, wherever a conversation goes is where it goes, and is therefore on-topic allll the time.

 

you linear thinkers need us.

 

it has been speculated by people much brighter than me (among them oliver sacks and kay redfield jamison) that every giant leap of invention is a result of some associative thinker making an unexpected connection.

 

we're all over the place; that's our job. my persona here is puckish, provocative, and capricious.

 

i once had the perfect job: to think up wacky stuff. enter the eleven-legged race and the potato-peeling biathlon. ask me to give the committee report, and expect interpretive dance. want to have some real fun? get several hundred people to take an entire afternoon off in order to celebrate a holiday that doesn't exist.

 

in the case of the flogged-to-death cracker barrel flap, did i miss anything important? does this topic somehow require anybody's full attention or even merit a serious response at this point?

 

i'm probably the reason corporate withdrew permission: the last time i attempted an OYR cache, i arrived at the cracker barrel in question at four-thirty AM on a rainy sunday morning. i crawled into the back of my car and slept until later in the day when i emerged bedraggled, dirty, sleep deprived, under-medicated and without benefit of a shower since thursday to search fruitlessly for the better part of an hour before giving up only to return at semi-regular intervals during the day for subsequent attempts and use of the restroom.

 

you're welcome.

 

And you are the same bunch that walk off the cliff because a butterfly distracted you at the same instant that the solutions to world peace and world hunger popped into your head there by dooming the rest of us lesser beings to a life of strife and starvation. Thanks for nothing!

[+Prime Suspect]

 

You reference a section of the guidelines which applies to grandfathered cache TYPES -- specifically webcam and virtual caches. It does NOT seem to apply to this cache.

That's a small "t" type, which can include things that aren't "Types". The Moving Cache is an example. There was never a "Type" for moving caches. But they are a type of cache. And they have been grandfathered, and archived ones cannot be unarchived.

 

The phrasing that one person used, that caches "lose" their grandfather status when archived, is a poor and convoluted way of looking at it. A grandfathered cache remains a grandfathered cache, even if it's archived. But ALL caches are re-reviewed prior to being unarchived, and have to conform to the current Guidelines, not the Guidelines in place when it was first published. Obviously, grandfathered caches, by their very definition, don't cut it, and won't be unarchived.

 

Why isn't this explained in the Guidelines? Because the Guidelines are about how to get a cache published, and what a cache owner's responsibilities are. There is a lot of other cache administration info that is not included, because that's not the intent of the document.

[+gof1]

Splitting hares. (hehe) The point is the same. How many times and ways the question is asked and answered won't change the fact that the cache is not gonna be revived.

[+Sioneva]

 

You are not alone. I have two devotional altars in my home; one devoted to worship of Auntie Weasel, and one devoted to worship of flask.

 

it is not possible to be in better company.

Agreed. The evil Sioneva keeps trying to get me to create an altar worshipping her as well, but I know better than to do so!

 

.

 

Oh, just admit it. You dream of the day you'll be ordained a priest of Sioneva and can go out and CONVERT THE WORLD.

 

From the porches of Cracker Barrels across the country, of course.

Sioneva, I seem to have lost the URL to the website for your First International Discount Church of Sioneva; would you please send it to me again via private email or via PM?

 

Thank you for doing the needful!

 

.

 

Would love to, Vinny, but I'm currently out being a chump. Catch me at the next Cracker Barrel... I'll be the one wearing a black TB shirt and buying maple sugar candy!

 

(See, I happen to like Cracker Barrel. They have good coffee, cheap breakfasts, and some of them still have caches, too!)

[+TrailGators]

we associative, or "globular" thinkers are used to it. to us, wherever a conversation goes is where it goes, and is therefore on-topic allll the time.

 

you linear thinkers need us.

It seems like when the answer to the OP's question is given in post#2, then the thread should be given some latitude. Was that a linear thought? I'm not sure....

 

I enjoy hearing thoughts from everyone. By the way, nice avatar quote Flask. 'Hey Mikey he likes it!'