commercial cache?

[+dfx]

The guys cache was archived after receiving (and yes not responding) to an email saying it was on private property when the last two posts to the cache page from people with boots on the ground say it wasn't! So this scuba cache can be published? "Bad Form", as one of those poster's said in their log.

 

Of course Groundspeak could also just have published that other cache without archiving the old one first by simply ignoring their own proximity rule...

 

Yes, they should done it that way.

 

My point was that the whole "conspiracy theory" of "they archived that cache only to make room for another, specially Groundspeak-approved one" is kinda silly, because if they really wanted to get the new one published that badly, they could've just ignored the proximity and publish it anyway. Archiving a cache solely for that purpose would be kinda stupid because pointless.

[Mr.Yuck]

The guys cache was archived after receiving (and yes not responding) to an email saying it was on private property when the last two posts to the cache page from people with boots on the ground say it wasn't! So this scuba cache can be published? "Bad Form", as one of those poster's said in their log.

 

Of course Groundspeak could also just have published that other cache without archiving the old one first by simply ignoring their own proximity rule...

 

Yes, they should done it that way.

 

My point was that the whole "conspiracy theory" of "they archived that cache only to make room for another, specially Groundspeak-approved one" is kinda silly, because if they really wanted to get the new one published that badly, they could've just ignored the proximity and publish it anyway. Archiving a cache solely for that purpose would be kinda stupid because pointless.

 

Who you calling a conspiracy theorist? Don't mind me, I'm still back peddling.

[+jipow]

Mr. Yuck, my hats off to you for back peddling.