Ontario GPS Treasure Hunting Caches Archived

[+Tequila]

It appears that all of the caches associated with Ontario GPS Treasure Hunting have been archived. Some were found as recent as 48 hours ago.

 

There were 298 of these often placed with little care at quasi tourist attractions all over Ontario. Typically they were a large lock n lock (for spagetti), bungee corded to a tree.

 

The CO profile shows no activity since last summer.

 

Can't say I am sorry to see them go. They were not the best caches ever placed.

[+bwmick]

some indeed seemed no better placed than a trow away micro, others in my area however, where placed in spots that were inspired. now, whos up to help cito 298 cache boxes?

[+Tequila]

some indeed seemed no better placed than a trow away micro, others in my area however, where placed in spots that were inspired. now, whos up to help cito 298 cache boxes?

 

I have actually seen a couple of the old containers show up as new caches elsewhere. Not saying where or by who.

 

We should keep the waypoints in our GPS and pick them up when we are close by. Safe to assume the CO won't be doing it.

[+northernpenguin]

some indeed seemed no better placed than a trow away micro, others in my area however, where placed in spots that were inspired. now, whos up to help cito 298 cache boxes?

 

I have actually seen a couple of the old containers show up as new caches elsewhere. Not saying where or by who.

 

We should keep the waypoints in our GPS and pick them up when we are close by. Safe to assume the CO won't be doing it.

 

Just a reminder that if someone does decide to run out and CITO these caches - post a note on the cache before you head out to warn other cachers not to attempt a find, and alert others that the cache has been CITO'd (so go visit one of the other 297).

 

I for one have the opinion the geocache(/trash) should be returned to the owner if at all possible.

[+Cache-tech]

As some have noted, the OGPSTH caches were archived yesterday. The cache owner has indicated they would like help in picking up the remaining caches left out, the following bookmark is a list of the caches under the OGPSTH account suspected to be still out.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...20-9fd0255fb282

 

If the cache is removed, please log the cache as removed on the listing page so I can remove the cache from the bookmark list. As discussed with the cache owner, caches in place are their responsibility, any CITOed caches will not be returned. Futher, this only includes the caches under the OGPSTH account, some of the caches were submitted or adopted over to other accounts, these caches are not to be removed.

[+Juicepig]

their website is now an advertising portal, that you reviewers for finally banning them

 

.. well their caches at least

Edited April 2, 2009 by Juicepig

[Mr.Yuck]

their website is now an advertising portal, that you reviewers for finally banning them

 

.. well their caches at least

 

Oh no. Many ISP's will put up that same "advertising" page in place of dead websites or websites that aren't created yet, but have a domain name. Their domain name doesn't expire until 2010, they must have killed the website themselves.

[+RCA777]

Well, I had sent a note to Cache-Tech to ask "what gives"... and then it occurred to me to check the forums.

 

GSAK update time!

 

(Nice to know Cache-Tech is still out there, though!)

[+hamgran]

I seem to remember a thread about these when they first came out... although largely derided for the types of hides (they were originally huge white plastic pails tied to trees, and afterwards went to the spaghetti containers), they did have some merit. At the time there were few northern cachers and the caches gave them a bit more opportunity.

Some have taken me to neat places I wouldn't have otherwise seen. Some of the more memorable ones for me were an old native burial place, a deserted mining camp, and a ghost town. And although the cache pages really sucked, the owners had put plenty of interesting information inside the caches, in the form of information sheets.

They were never properly maintained, though. After a while it became inevitable that one would find a half-filled pail of water sliding down a tree.

Oh yes - and I won the contest three times. Twice I couldn't use the winnings - they were boat trips during a time I wouldn't be in the area - but once I was able to use a free night's stay at a fairly nice resort near Parry Sound. Which gave me a chance for more geocaching.

[+Couparangus]

Let's see, can I put out over a hundred caches and when I lose interest just leave it to others to go and clean up the messes? Doesn't sound like its within the spirit of Geocaching to me. Its caches like these that kill the hobby. If people put the same thought into their stashes as I and many others, we'd not see as many of them but conversely the hobby would be much stronger.

 

I mentioned this many years ago but I guess nobody was listening. <sigh>

[+Tequila]

Let's see, can I put out over a hundred caches and when I lose interest just leave it to others to go and clean up the messes? Doesn't sound like its within the spirit of Geocaching to me. Its caches like these that kill the hobby. If people put the same thought into their stashes as I and many others, we'd not see as many of them but conversely the hobby would be much stronger.

 

I mentioned this many years ago but I guess nobody was listening. <sigh>

 

The first cache I ever found, in 2001, was Shortcut to the Old Cabin, by Couparangus. It is still one of my all time favourites.

 

Nice hike. Neat Location. Regular size container.

[Mag Magician]

As stated by CT, the lister has requested help in performing CITO on these caches. OK, I am game. I've already done one, but what about the ones on private property? I know of at least three in CT's bookmark list that are near to here, and are on private property. In my case, I can phone up the property owner, and get permission to trespass for this purpose.

 

When these caches were listed, I assumed permission to trespass because of the listing. Now, has permission been denied due to time factor, or archiving?

[+murfster]

I seem to remember a thread about these when they first came out... although largely derided for the types of hides (they were originally huge white plastic pails tied to trees, and afterwards went to the spaghetti containers), they did have some merit. At the time there were few northern cachers and the caches gave them a bit more opportunity.

Some have taken me to neat places I wouldn't have otherwise seen. Some of the more memorable ones for me were an old native burial place, a deserted mining camp, and a ghost town. And although the cache pages really sucked, the owners had put plenty of interesting information inside the caches, in the form of information sheets.

They were never properly maintained, though. After a while it became inevitable that one would find a half-filled pail of water sliding down a tree.

Oh yes - and I won the contest three times. Twice I couldn't use the winnings - they were boat trips during a time I wouldn't be in the area - but once I was able to use a free night's stay at a fairly nice resort near Parry Sound. Which gave me a chance for more geocaching.

 

I have to agree, back when they were put out there were very few caches or cachers in Northern Ontario. The goal was admirable. I had a lot of fun with them over the years. Sorry to see them go but it is time to move on. Thanks

 

I'll pick up what I can when in the area.

 

I believe if you want them, take them over and resubmit them. I know some have been taken over by local organizations.

 

Murfster

[+M3J]

As I have shared before, I was OK with a lot of the caches I found as they were in interesting places up north and I understood the intention was to get more people into caching...a family event.

 

Knowing the guys at the Canadian Ecology Center who were the organizers of the OGPSTH, I can assure you the problems with the early caches were mainly due to the first guy who was in charge of OGPSTH really not knowing much about geocaching, but was well versed on GPS for outdoor use. He did put out some bad caches and did not maintain most of them, primarily because they were spread out everywhere in the north (as a side note to this comment, if reviewers would have not allowed them to place caches hundreds of kms or more from home (Mattawa area) as I thought the guidelines prevented, they wouldn't have had a maintenance issue).

 

When the next guy took over (I think it was Rob), the cache quality went way up and he put out some great hikes in beautiful areas....I can think of a couple close to Burk's Falls I think they were). Take a look at the dates of publication for the crappy ones vs the good ones....its pretty clear.

 

That being said, the inherant flaw was that, no matter who was placing these caches and maintaining them, they were basically employees of the Canadian Ecology Center and if they left the organization, there was no incentive for them to take care of these caches anymore.

 

Personally, I think the error in the first place was that GC.com allowed these caches to be published on their site. I feel there are a number of reasons why they did not meet GC guidelines. That being said, having the caches on their own website was just fine and it should have stayed as a seperate entity. I actually found out about these caches from their website, not from GC.com. There were a number of caches on their website that were never published on GC.com in the early days.

 

And yes, I won a couple of prizes

[+CacheDrone]

{snip}

 

(as a side note to this comment, if reviewers would have not allowed them to place caches hundreds of kms or more from home (Mattawa area) as I thought the guidelines prevented, they wouldn't have had a maintenance issue).

 

{snip}

Personally, I think the error in the first place was that GC.com allowed these caches to be published on their site. I feel there are a number of reasons why they did not meet GC guidelines. That being said, having the caches on their own website was just fine and it should have stayed as a seperate entity. I actually found out about these caches from their website, not from GC.com. There were a number of caches on their website that were never published on GC.com in the early days.

 

I can assure you that all caches placed, regardless of the distance from the CEC's head office, had adequate maintenance plans at the time they were published. Sadly in some cases those plans fell through, which is not a problem exclusive to the CEC. It may have been more noticeable due to the high profile this group received in these same forums and also in part due to the large number of listing under their account.

 

During the time that this project was started, Groundspeak itself was consulted by the local reviewers to ensure that the interests of Groundspeak were being protected and observed. At no time would any of the reviewers involved have acted inappropriately.

 

In short, despite what many people think, the listings themselves were fully compliant with the Listing Guidelines available at the time that they were published. However, we have all learned a great deal in the past few years and changes to the Listing Guidelines continue to this day in order to keep the game a fun activity for all to participate in.

 

CD

[Mag Magician]

.....I can assure you that all caches placed, regardless of the distance from the CEC's head office, had adequate maintenance plans at the time they were published.....

 

I fully agree with CD on this point. The maintenance plans at the time of listing were well within reason. However, one local to me, on which I logged a CITO of a replacement container, was found today, claiming to have found the original container. ??? I will recheck the cache to validate, but shouldn't that have been the responsibility of the CO? This cache has had no physical maintenance by the CO since it's inception.

 

NOGMAG0855

[+M3J]

 

I can assure you that all caches placed, regardless of the distance from the CEC's head office, had adequate maintenance plans at the time they were published. Sadly in some cases those plans fell through, which is not a problem exclusive to the CEC. It may have been more noticeable due to the high profile this group received in these same forums and also in part due to the large number of listing under their account.

 

During the time that this project was started, Groundspeak itself was consulted by the local reviewers to ensure that the interests of Groundspeak were being protected and observed. At no time would any of the reviewers involved have acted inappropriately.

 

CD

 

No offence at all CD, its really not that big of a deal to me at all, but you were not a reviewer when the early caches by these guys were put out there...early 2005. I am sure you may have communicated with other reviewers that were around at the time, but since this would be second hand info, I would think the only way to make the above statement is if you had been part of those early conversations directly with OGPSTH while acting as a representative of GC.com. Regardless, if the conversaations you indicated really did play out as you mentioned and there were concrete maintenancce plans in place, not much GC.com can do about it I guess.

 

Anyway, I certainly don't believe that allowing caches to be placed by folks living far away is something that has only happened for the OGPSTH people. I have seen many caches over the years placed by those living far away...I still run into them from time to time when I am travelling. To be frank, I think this is one area where caches have fallen through the cracks and been allowed to be published when they shoulddn't have been.

 

I have always stood behind one common thought though...if you don't like a certian cache placer, or type of hide, or location, etc, then don't do them. I would be willing to bet that many who have complained about OGPSTH caches have done more than one of them. If people really didn't enjoy doing them, why did they bother doing more?

 

Cheers

[+CacheDrone]

 

I can assure you that all caches placed, regardless of the distance from the CEC's head office, had adequate maintenance plans at the time they were published. Sadly in some cases those plans fell through, which is not a problem exclusive to the CEC. It may have been more noticeable due to the high profile this group received in these same forums and also in part due to the large number of listing under their account.

 

During the time that this project was started, Groundspeak itself was consulted by the local reviewers to ensure that the interests of Groundspeak were being protected and observed. At no time would any of the reviewers involved have acted inappropriately.

 

CD

 

No offence at all CD, its really not that big of a deal to me at all, but you were not a reviewer when the early caches by these guys were put out there...early 2005. I am sure you may have communicated with other reviewers that were around at the time, but since this would be second hand info, I would think the only way to make the above statement is if you had been part of those early conversations directly with OGPSTH while acting as a representative of GC.com. Regardless, if the conversaations you indicated really did play out as you mentioned and there were concrete maintenancce plans in place, not much GC.com can do about it I guess.

 

Anyway, I certainly don't believe that allowing caches to be placed by folks living far away is something that has only happened for the OGPSTH people. I have seen many caches over the years placed by those living far away...I still run into them from time to time when I am travelling. To be frank, I think this is one area where caches have fallen through the cracks and been allowed to be published when they shoulddn't have been.

 

I have always stood behind one common thought though...if you don't like a certian cache placer, or type of hide, or location, etc, then don't do them. I would be willing to bet that many who have complained about OGPSTH caches have done more than one of them. If people really didn't enjoy doing them, why did they bother doing more?

 

Cheers

 

No offense taken. I can appreciate exactly what you are saying. Perhaps since I've been able to see the back-story I know that due diligence was followed. I tend to trust other reviewers because there is no benefit if they are deceptive, and we are all here to try to get caches published if possible.

 

If people really didn't enjoy doing them, why did they bother doing more?

 

Ask me why my player account enjoys Waymarking

 

CD

[+M3J]

 

Ask me why my player account enjoys Waymarking

 

CD

 

You know, I remember you telling me that before and I never got it...these days, with a lot of new stuff coming out that really shouldn't be out there, I am starting to agree with you more. I think I've only done 50 caches in the last 4 months...just getting a little tired of crappy caches. Thank goodness for the ignore button!

 

Maybe I'll have to try some Waymarking too! Just don't think Timmie's will cut it for me though

[+Binrat]

BUMP!

 

So far I have collected three caches and rescued 2 TB's. The warm weather is here so add a couple of these to your next road trip and collect them.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.a...20-9fd0255fb282

 

I just looked at the map of where they are and am amazed how far reaching they were.

 

I plan to pick up as many as I can on my way to the Moosenee Event in August if they are still out there.

 

Oh, and please email Cache-tech after a pick up so he can adjust the above Bookmark List.

 

Binrat

Edited April 26, 2009 by Binrat

[+bwmick]

picked up three so far and plans to get 4 more in the next few weeks.

 

bryan

[+Binrat]

I also know that npsh is picking them up in wholesale fashion between Peterborough and Brockville.

 

Sasquatch hunting is what he calls it.

 

Binrat

[+Team MacKenzie]

Can we get an updated Bookmark list so that no one goes out hunting for what's already been cleaned up?

[+Cache-tech]

Can we get an updated Bookmark list so that no one goes out hunting for what's already been cleaned up?

 

I actually went through the bookmark list (found only 1 I missed the log on) and updated it today. Unless a cache was removed and not logged, the boomark list is up to date.

 

Bookmark list

 

About half the caches on the list have been pick up.

[+hunter-killer]

Can we get an updated Bookmark list so that no one goes out hunting for what's already been cleaned up?

 

I actually went through the bookmark list (found only 1 I missed the log on) and updated it today. Unless a cache was removed and not logged, the boomark list is up to date.

 

Bookmark list

 

About half the caches on the list have been pick up.

 

Cache-tech you can remove #167 "Canoeing in Atikokan"

 

GCPGCD

 

Kathy and I found it and removed the cache on Sept. 6 2009. A fitting end to this wet cache. Nice spot though.

Thanks

 

H.K.

[+Tequila]

Sure nice to see some cachers making the effort to pick these up. Signs the true caching spirit and CITO are alive and well.

 

Thanks to everyone who has picked one up.

[+hunter-killer]

Cache-tech:

 

You can also remove the following from the bookmark list. Kathy and I removed the cache containers, contents and holders from these 5 caches.

 

GCPGCB #166 Walleye fishing

 

GCPGBX NOGQC131 Jackpine

 

GCPGBV NOGQC130 Woody the woodpecker

 

GCPGBY NOGQC132 Natural forecaster

 

GCPGBM NOGQC133 Why do bears Attack ?

 

Unfortunately all caches were in poor condition, contents wet, but we managed to hopefully salvage 1 travel Bug in the process.

 

Hopefully some day the area will see a new group of caches. A worthy area.