Jump to content

Mission 9 Project Ape cache missing


Al 7365

Recommended Posts

In taking a peak at a good chunk of the caches on the Iron Horse Trail near where the Ape cache once was, it appears they are gone. These caches either have very recent multiple DNF logs or the cache owner verified the cache is gone. The caches are: GC79 (Iron Horse), GC1HQBR, GC15HY6, GC2ATM6, GCG5VG, and GCG9EZ (a MtnBike cache). It would seem that someone has hit the caches along the Iron Horse Trail near the tunnel. I sure hope it wasnt one of those "save the forest" nut jobs that hate geocaching.

 

That was my first thought as well. Anyone heard from Forest Defender lately?

Link to comment

So in reading through all the people who keep on talking about how someone should just drop an ammo can out there and publish a tribute cache. I wasn't going to post anything but this is killing me. 3 or 4 months ago, when the lid went missing for the first time, I dropped a holding tag on the APE cache coords because I had 10 120mm ammo cans from a pallet I had bought, and was afraid the APE thief would take the whole thing come spring and the old APE Archive rule would drop. Soon after it was archived I e-mailed a reviewer and let them know my intentions if Groundspeak or Moun10bike choose not to do anything and was told to give them some time (Which I completely understood I would be told, and rightly so.) I have the 120mm Ammo Can almost ready to go with the original markings along with a Moun10bike coin I will be attaching to the lid like the original (Took me a long time to get that coin, and I got from a cache). I also have a chain a bolt cutter can't cut. I am prepared to go through the process to get the permit, I live in the area and am single, have no kids, and have plenty of time to go through the process. I hope Groundspeak simply chooses to reverse their decision and unarchive it, but if neither Groundspeak nor Moun10bike choose to do anything with it long term, I will have a can up there as fast as I can.

 

Please note I e-mailed Moun10bike as soon as it was Disabled and offered him 5 of the Ammo Cans, my 1# preference in this is to see the cache unarchived, I'm just not sure that's likely to happen.

I would make other plans for your containers. Groundspeak most definitely has plans to do something with the APE location; all will be revealed around the time of Going APE event; attendees will be the first to benefit. B) I've been told to say no more yet. :ph34r:

 

Lol, my preference was always for them to do something. I was only planning for a worst case scenario. I was excited when Jon e-mailed me this morning and let me know. I archived my "holding" tags earlier today.

Edited by Hypnopaedia
Link to comment
..eliminate the public display of stats, icons, souvenirs, etc.

That would work for many players. Not so much for others. For instance; I don't know what my total find count is. It's just not that important to me. Somewhere around 1500? Maybe? When it gets closer to 2K, I'll start paying attention, as I think celebrating milestones is fun, in the right company. I do enjoy icons though, both admiring mine and looking at other's. Also, my inner mathematician enjoys playing with statistics, both mine and other's. While I agree that ridding ourselves of publicly accessible stats would alleviate some angst, it might end up generating even more.

 

I will opine that your solution would do little to solve this specific problem, as my desire to achieve the Trifecta is a goal I wanted for my own gratification, not for publicly visible stats. Sure, if the stats were entirely hidden from others, I could lie and say I travelled to Mecca, but such prevarication would prove shallow indeed.

Link to comment

So in reading through all the people who keep on talking about how someone should just drop an ammo can out there and publish a tribute cache. I wasn't going to post anything but this is killing me. 3 or 4 months ago, when the lid went missing for the first time, I dropped a holding tag on the APE cache coords because I had 10 120mm ammo cans from a pallet I had bought, and was afraid the APE thief would take the whole thing come spring and the old APE Archive rule would drop. Soon after it was archived I e-mailed a reviewer and let them know my intentions if Groundspeak or Moun10bike choose not to do anything and was told to give them some time (Which I completely understood I would be told, and rightly so.) I have the 120mm Ammo Can almost ready to go with the original markings along with a Moun10bike coin I will be attaching to the lid like the original (Took me a long time to get that coin, and I got from a cache). I also have a chain a bolt cutter can't cut. I am prepared to go through the process to get the permit, I live in the area and am single, have no kids, and have plenty of time to go through the process. I hope Groundspeak simply chooses to reverse their decision and unarchive it, but if neither Groundspeak nor Moun10bike choose to do anything with it long term, I will have a can up there as fast as I can.

 

Please note I e-mailed Moun10bike as soon as it was Disabled and offered him 5 of the Ammo Cans, my 1# preference in this is to see the cache unarchived, I'm just not sure that's likely to happen.

I would make other plans for your containers. Groundspeak most definitely has plans to do something with the APE location; all will be revealed around the time of Going APE event; attendees will be the first to benefit. B) I've been told to say no more yet. :ph34r:

 

Sounds intriguing. I'd have to know more before deciding if it's worthwhile to make travel plans tho...

Link to comment

I like the idea of creating virtual caches (with a plaque. if stolen over and over) at each APE cache site while receiving an ape icon for the find. I don't think any of them should of been archived in the first place. It is a poor policy, in my opinion. The only reason a cache should be archived is if the hide becomes a danger or the owner does not maintain the cache. Replacing containers is one of those things that just happens.... remember they are just boxes! It's about the journey and where geocaching takes you not the container that the cache is in.

 

Another way to think about this is...if hypothetically, someone had switched an APE cache container lets say in 2005. Therefore the 'cachet' is gone... but no one realizes it because it is an exact original. Does that mean all of the finds afterwards are invalid? In my opinion, no. A find, is a find is a find.

 

This is why I believe Groundspeak should reverse their policy and reactivate all of the APE caches that are inactive due to stolen containers. There existing policy just gives people a reason to steal the containers... I hate to say this but I expect the last APE cache to be gone within a year... especially that it's value has substantially increased because of this policy.

Link to comment
The only reason a cache should be archived is if the hide becomes a danger...

Just thought I'd touch on this portion of your post. Groundspeak will not archive a cache if the only issue is danger. As (hopefully) thinking humans, we must decide for ourselves, on a case by case basis, if we are physically and mentally prepared to tackle whatever challenges a cache may present. Of my 60+ active hides, I'd guess that less than 5 of them would be considered "safe". The rest could very well get you quite dead if you are not prepared for the dangers inherent in the locations.

Link to comment
The only reason a cache should be archived is if the hide becomes a danger...

Just thought I'd touch on this portion of your post. Groundspeak will not archive a cache if the only issue is danger. As (hopefully) thinking humans, we must decide for ourselves, on a case by case basis, if we are physically and mentally prepared to tackle whatever challenges a cache may present. Of my 60+ active hides, I'd guess that less than 5 of them would be considered "safe". The rest could very well get you quite dead if you are not prepared for the dangers inherent in the locations.

 

Ok, so strike my line about archiving. Isn't my point valid?

Link to comment
Ok, so strike my line about archiving. Isn't my point valid?

Valid is in the eyes of the beholder. For me, I can say I agree with everything except the virtual part. And I'd even learn to live with that, as a compromise, if a site was not viable for a true container. Like you, I disagree with the notion of archiving a cache simply because the original container went missing. B)

Link to comment
The only reason a cache should be archived is if the hide becomes a danger...

Just thought I'd touch on this portion of your post. Groundspeak will not archive a cache if the only issue is danger. As (hopefully) thinking humans, we must decide for ourselves, on a case by case basis, if we are physically and mentally prepared to tackle whatever challenges a cache may present. Of my 60+ active hides, I'd guess that less than 5 of them would be considered "safe". The rest could very well get you quite dead if you are not prepared for the dangers inherent in the locations.

 

Ok, so strike my line about archiving. Isn't my point valid?

 

There are a whole lot of dangerous caches out there, and a lot of people like them that way.

 

But as it's been said, Danger is in the eye of the beholder.

some find caches placed too close to roads dangerous, while others don't find caches dangerous that you have to find with ropes and climbing gear.

 

Once Groundspeak starts judging which caches are dangerous it puts them in the position of being liable for the caches left not archived because they didn't archive it due to danger.

 

We all must judge for ourselves.

 

Some of the best caches I've found have been very dangerous ones. I'm glad they're out there. Not everyone has to get them though.

Link to comment

I haven't read all of the other post yet but I will add my two cents to the topic.

 

I'm PO'ed. Archiving one of the two most iconic caches left out there is a bad thing. If Moun10Bike is tired of taking care of this monumental cache, then let someone else take it over. There certainly seems to be a lot of cachers willing to step-up to the plate on this one.

 

Guess we can now all go look for some crap skirt lifters...

 

GS, you really need to rethink your decision on this one.

 

Jack2U

Link to comment
I haven't read all of the other post yet but I will add my two cents to the topic.

...

If Moun10Bike is tired of taking care of this monumental cache, then let someone else take it over.

I think reading the other posts would have been useful on this point. This decision had nothing to do with Moun10Bike's willingness to take care of this cache. He has been indefatigable in his efforts to keep it going.

Link to comment

For me it is not realistic to find a cache for which I would have to fly to Sao Paulo in the most dangerous city in the world and to drive another 5 hours to find the "one" cache. To cache in Sao Paulo is not an option and at "Southern Bowl" there is far and wide no other cache ...

So it is only realistic for the locals to find Southern Bowl, for most of the other simply is not affordable to fly to Brazil for this one cache.

Many People would come to Seattle to find many great old Caches and "Mission 9" was and is a part of this.

I think the time has made "Mission 9" to something special. It was the last of the APE... realistic to find for all. In my opinion this fact justifies, definitely let him back to life!

Link to comment
The only reason a cache should be archived is if the hide becomes a danger or the owner does not maintain the cache... This is why I believe Groundspeak should reverse their policy and reactivate all of the APE caches that are inactive due to stolen containers.

I'll sort of agree with you and sort of disagree with you on this point. Generally speaking I think archiving the APE caches as they went missing was a perfectly fine policy. They were commercials! As a geocacher I'd kind of like it if the commercials had a natural attrition rate. In the last couple of years within a couple of miles of my house there have been commercials hidden for the movie Splinterheads, for the TV show Dinosaur Train, and so on... I would hate to think that they are permanent forever. As they go missing they usually get archived, and I'm generally happy to have the blight removed from my map. I don't really want the Splinterheads cache that a production assistant threw down in Central Park one afternoon to live forever. I'm not a huge fan of commercial caches.

 

I just thought that the last US APE cache was different. It became a link to geocaching's history - a silly commercial at the time, sure. But it had become a "thing" in the intervening decade. People booked flights to come out and visit, people created challenges around it, companies started selling coins to commemorate it. I think of it like I think of the Pepsi-Cola sign across the East River... It's been a part of the landscape for so long, it's retro - the company it represents doesn't even have a presence in Long Island City anymore, but locals were fond of it and the Landmarks Preservation Commission now watches over it.

 

The APE caches were given their own icon back when we were all still figuring the game out, and new icons were being tossed out seemingly every couple of months. Unknown caches, event caches, virtual caches, multi-caches, APE caches, locationless caches, etc... Now with the benefit of 10 years of hindsight maybe we can recognize some of the silliness, but it still happened and it's a part of geocaching history and I think people really liked feeling like they were a part of that. It was one of the caches that gave people a chance to feel like they had a link to the early days of the game, even if they only started playing recently. I'm sure a big part of that was the icon that gave people a virtual badge of accomplishment, but that's fine!

 

(I have a hard time wrapping my head around the dismissiveness that Groundspeak seems to be displaying for the icon part of the experience, when it seemed like they were really excited about "souvenirs" - which are nothing *but* icons and pixels. Why are we supposed to be excited about earning a souvenir for attending "West Bend $1000 Cache Ba$h", but earning the APE icon is viewed with such disdain?)

Link to comment
There existing policy just gives people a reason to steal the containers... I hate to say this but I expect the last APE cache to be gone within a year...

While I don't agree with your conclusion (that all APE caches should be un-archived), this is an interesting point.

Link to comment

I know the APE caches started out as a "commercial" but you can not deny that they took a life of their own. To me to let the APE caches go especially the one as part of the "Triad" is just denying people an experience. Appealing the business side, Groundspeak knows you make money by giving people what they want...not taking away.

Link to comment
Appealing the business side, Groundspeak knows you make money by giving people what they want...not taking away.
I'm confused. Aside from selling a few coins (I doubt it's extremely profitable), how does Groundspeak make money off of one cache, unless they charge a fee to log it? Granted, people may boycott their premium membership, which may cost them in the short run. But while there was a short blip of "hey, what's going on" back in 2006, the furor didn't seem to last long. I'm not saying that's the case here. I'm just trying to see how Groundspeak makes/loses significant money from this?

 

If "just give the people what they want" were the business model of Groundspeak, we'd have caches every 10 feet with overlapping virutals and locationless caches (throw in a few webcams).

Link to comment
I'm confused. Aside from selling a few coins (I doubt it's extremely profitable), how does Groundspeak make money off of one cache, unless they charge a fee to log it?

I agree with you about the coins, I don't think that's it.

 

I think the effect (so much as it exists at all) would be more diffuse than that. It would have more to do with how happy the customers are in general, and how engaged they remain with the game over time.

 

I don't really think there will be any geocides over this, specifically. But if it affects people's enthusiasm for the game overall and makes it marginally less likely that they'll stick with it in the future, it's the kind of thing that might have an effect.

 

I find that in general when people drop out of geocaching (and I know quite a few), it's not usually a specific "event" of some sort that caused them to stop playing. It wasn't the moment that their cache was declined for publication, or not being able to earn the 10/10/10 icon, or Locationless caches being mass archived. It's usually some combination of little things leading them to play less and less and less and one day they realize they don't play much anymore, and they don't really miss it.

 

I'm less worried about actual APE-related geocide than I am about sapping the enthusiasm a lot of people had for getting that icon and completing the Triad one day, and for generally feeling like they're not being heard. Anyone thinking about going for the Triad yesterday is unlikely to quit geocaching tomorrow, but they may be the folks who become a little less likely to still be playing a year or two from now.

 

That's if the effect exists at all. Disclaimer - this is just one man's spitballin'.

Edited by addisonbr
Link to comment
That's if the effect exists at all. Disclaimer - this is just one man's spitballin'.

I think you pegged it fairly well. While there may actually be a small handful of folks who are so unstable in their recreational lives that they would geocide over something like this, I think the long term effects are what will affect us the most. For many, this game is much more than just following an arrow to a film can. For many, this game has a heart and a soul. Groundspeak has shown that it is willing to cut out that heart by archiving what they've proclaimed to be the Mecca of geocaching. One could argue that it is the height of inhumanity to give people a goal, then snatch that goal away from them, dashing their hopes.

 

If we operate under the assumption that Groundspeak's long term objective is to turn this game into a P&G phenomenon, (hence the ignoring of their own "don't hide something every 600' just because you can" proximity guideline), then taking away Mecca makes perfect sense.

Link to comment

Then taking away Mecca makes perfect sense.

 

Mecca? Okay, the blog did describe the Triad as one of the crowning achievements of caching, although Jeremy now states it was meant to be over the top. In some ways he has a point since HQ is not much of an achievement (this is not meant to belittle Groundspeak or the people who work there and it is a fine place to visit if one is in the area).

 

I agree that Mission 9 became a mecca because of the ape icon and the uniqueness of the tunnel experience (for those of us who did it when the tunnel was open). But going to Brazil makes that icon even more rare and precious -- and if it disappears along with the locationless tenth anniversary icons, I can accept that. The caches were never meant to last forever. In some ways, I am glad that Brazil has the last one rather than North America.

 

But before we dismiss Groundspeak as taking away Mecca, perhaps we should find out what they have in mind for the Mission 9 spot. Something is being planned, whether it turns into a destination worthy of a new Triad is anyone's guess. I just hope that someone from the garmin caching site does not go out there and put a huge ammo can in that spot -- unless they somehow find the original and restore it as a public service to us all. I trust that the park would not issue a permit for anyone other than Groundspeak.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

...I trust that the park would not issue a permit for anyone other than Groundspeak.

That's scary. I like Groundspeak but I hope they NEVER become that powerful!

 

The original listing service has pretty much come to own and manage geocaching, true, but I hope they can never manage where other activities or competitors are allowed!

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

...I trust that the park would not issue a permit for anyone other than Groundspeak.

That's scary. I like Groundspeak but I hope they NEVER become that powerful!

 

The original listing service has pretty much come to own and manage geocaching, true, but I hope they can never manage where other activities or competitors are allowed!

 

I was thinking more in terms of the particular Mission 9 spot. I trust the old permit would still be valid to keep someone from placing a new cache there until Groundspeak unveils what they are going to do with it. Some parks, of course, do require that caches be listed here but that is another topic.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

...I trust that the park would not issue a permit for anyone other than Groundspeak.

That's scary. I like Groundspeak but I hope they NEVER become that powerful!

 

The original listing service has pretty much come to own and manage geocaching, true, but I hope they can never manage where other activities or competitors are allowed!

 

I was thinking more in terms of the particular Mission 9 spot. I trust the old permit would still be valid to keep someone from placing a new cache there until Groundspeak unveils what they are going to do with it. Some parks, of course, do require that caches be listed here but that is another topic.

Once a cache is archived that location is available for anyone to hide a cache there. I hope that no exception is made in this case. Groundspeak's only legitimate interest is what can be listed on this site, not what permits a park may issue others.

 

I suspect that any park rules requiring that caches be listed on geocaching.com could be easily rendered null and void. They might can require them to be listed online, but not on one specific website. Don't get me wrong, I respect and support Groundspeak, but parks with pro-Groundspeak-only policies would give the company way too much anti-competitive influence on the game.

Edited by TheAlabamaRambler
Link to comment

...I trust that the park would not issue a permit for anyone other than Groundspeak.

That's scary. I like Groundspeak but I hope they NEVER become that powerful!

 

The original listing service has pretty much come to own and manage geocaching, true, but I hope they can never manage where other activities or competitors are allowed!

 

I was thinking more in terms of the particular Mission 9 spot. I trust the old permit would still be valid to keep someone from placing a new cache there until Groundspeak unveils what they are going to do with it. Some parks, of course, do require that caches be listed here but that is another topic.

 

Washington State parks does not require caches to be listed on Geocaching.com. As far as I know, they may not be aware that there are other sites.

Link to comment
I suspect that any park rules requiring that caches be listed on geocaching.com could be easily rendered null and void.

Seminole County Natural Lands will only approve cache permits for hides listed on this website. They looked at the utter lack of rules on the competition's website and said "Eek!" I'm not sure how much that helps them though. If I were to hide a TC on one of their properties, I would never be asked if I had a permit, and as such, my cache would get listed. Since the land manager doesn't have a TC account, she would probably never know it was there. :ph34r:

Link to comment
That's if the effect exists at all. Disclaimer - this is just one man's spitballin'.

I think you pegged it fairly well. While there may actually be a small handful of folks who are so unstable in their recreational lives that they would geocide over something like this, I think the long term effects are what will affect us the most. For many, this game is much more than just following an arrow to a film can. For many, this game has a heart and a soul. Groundspeak has shown that it is willing to cut out that heart by archiving what they've proclaimed to be the Mecca of geocaching. One could argue that it is the height of inhumanity to give people a goal, then snatch that goal away from them, dashing their hopes.

 

If we operate under the assumption that Groundspeak's long term objective is to turn this game into a P&G phenomenon, (hence the ignoring of their own "don't hide something every 600' just because you can" proximity guideline), then taking away Mecca makes perfect sense.

 

Whoa, what happened to Captain Tolerance? There's nothing wrong with P&G caches every .1 miles for Captain Tolerance! Everybody plays the game they want it!

 

 

Mecca? Inhumanity? Dashing of hopes? If some folks find value in the cache/icon/experience then that's fine a groovy but the hyperbole in this thread is off the hook.

 

EDIT: As for the "heart of geocaching". That's not a single cache. The heart of geocaching is you and me, all the other cachers and the volunteers that make this game possible. If it takes one cache archival to "cut out our heart" then I might as well let my PM status lapse right now and use my GPSr for a door stop.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

This was one of my favorite caches with a lot of fond memories. Unfortunately with my health I will probably never get back to the area.

 

Now a lot of people will miss an interesting experience walking three miles through the tunnel and seeing the waterfalls, etc. just because some idiot stole the cache.

Link to comment

If possible, can someone please write a greasemonkey script that people can sneak onto their profile to make it appear that they found a APE cache? Thanks.

Don't know a thing about greasemonkey scripts... but the new ICON comes to mind... a monkey on a crutch, limping... awarded for... Any Parking lot Experience... AKA a lame LPC in a parking lot.... anyone wanting one simple edits their log to put A.P.E. as the first six characters... standard slicing should handle that as a trigger... if a picture or name can do it... why not.

 

Doug 7rxc

Link to comment
If possible, can someone please write a greasemonkey script that people can sneak onto their profile to make it appear that they found a APE cache? Thanks.
Don't know a thing about greasemonkey scripts... but the new ICON comes to mind... a monkey on a crutch, limping... awarded for... Any Parking lot Experience... AKA a lame LPC in a parking lot.... anyone wanting one simple edits their log to put A.P.E. as the first six characters... standard slicing should handle that as a trigger... if a picture or name can do it... why not.

 

Doug 7rxc

Why would.... someone want to.... put a monkey on a.... crutch.... for an LP.... C..... cache?

 

I just wrote a script that changes my profile and adds an APE icon. Go look for yourself, now it shows I have 1 APE find. Hooray!

Link to comment
I suspect that any park rules requiring that caches be listed on geocaching.com could be easily rendered null and void. They might can require them to be listed online, but not on one specific website. Don't get me wrong, I respect and support Groundspeak, but parks with pro-Groundspeak-only policies would give the company way too much anti-competitive influence on the game.
Just to clarify, the parks and open spaces around here don't prevent owners from listing their caches on other sites. They just require that caches go through the review process here.

 

And if someone were to challenge and overturn the rules requiring caches to be listed on the geocaching.com site, then I suspect the alternative would be a ban on caches in those parks and open spaces. The rule isn't there to promote Groundspeak. The rule is there to force caches to be reviewed before publication.

Link to comment

You can say (and probably will) that I am only saying this because I've already got the icon, but I say the cache was about a lot more than the icon.

 

It was the last of it's kind in the US, the second last in the world.

It was nice that it was a hike to get there, through beautiful woods, and soon would have been a hike through a tunnel once again.

 

Still there's something more about that cache than the icon, than the hike and great scenery, than the metal container with the ape painted on it.

 

It may have started out as just an advertisement, but it has grown into a sort of geocaching mecca.

 

I really doubt that people were willing to spend thousands to get there from Europe for just an icon. It was more than that.

 

We need our destinations. We need our meccas. We need special places to travel to.

 

Maybe it's just an excuse to see new places, but in a way that's what all geocaches are anyway. A good excuse to get outdoors, explore and see something new.

 

These special caches get people farther to see something new.

 

 

I think we should try for a plaque.

If Jeremy says it shouldn't get the icon, that's fine. I have no problem with that.

Let's get the plaque anyway.

If people were only traveling for the icon, then they won't come. But if it was more, then they will still have their mecca.

 

I vote for a plaque with no icon.

Let's have this continue any way we can.

 

And then it should be a bit safer from Cache maggots, and the maggot would not have won.

 

We need destination caches.

 

THIS!

Link to comment
I haven't read all of the other post yet but I will add my two cents to the topic.

...

If Moun10Bike is tired of taking care of this monumental cache, then let someone else take it over.

I think reading the other posts would have been useful on this point. This decision had nothing to do with Moun10Bike's willingness to take care of this cache. He has been indefatigable in his efforts to keep it going.

 

Thanks Addisonbr, point taken but while I haven't read them all - I have read enough of them and perhaps I've very unfairly lumped Lackeys and GS into the same group, moderators of our game.

 

Personally, in my opinion, if you're one of the 3082 cachers to of walked the "Tunnel of Light" already then you really shouldn't be in the debate about whether it lives or dies a tragic death. You've got it, yeah!!! Give the rest of us a chance to do the same.

 

I see this as giving the 5 million others cachers a chance to grab an Ape without having to apply for a visa or take malaria pills to find. Many, who have not had the means or time yet to travel thousands of miles, rent vehicles and hike hours through the woods.

 

This cache should not be a case of "too bad - so sad" and I for one really hope that the Lackeys at GS reconsider their decision.

 

Jack2U

Link to comment

It's a shame that this cache got stolen. We had fun finding it last June, and yep, it still had the original lid on it when we did. (And when we left, too, for the record.)

 

But even when we found it last year, it wasn't the intended experience. You were supposed to go through the tunnel for this cache. We found it in a big pile of rocks after hiking a trail. A nice trail? You bet. But not a 2-mile tunnel. You could argue that we didn't really get the A.P.E. experience, and in a way you'd be right.

 

We joined shortly after locationless caches were all archived, so we'll never have that icon. We went to Seattle two weeks before the event at HQ, so we didn't get that one, and we didn't have time to visit HQ itself, missed out there, too.

 

It's a little disappointing, but we're moving on.

 

Maybe we'll get down to the A.P.E. cache in Brazil someday. It's on my wish list, but it's not the only cache on there by a long shot, and there are plenty of other places I'd like to get to first.

Link to comment

For me it is not realistic to find a cache for which I would have to fly to Sao Paulo in the most dangerous city in the world and to drive another 5 hours to find the "one" cache. To cache in Sao Paulo is not an option and at "Southern Bowl" there is far and wide no other cache ...

So it is only realistic for the locals to find Southern Bowl, for most of the other simply is not affordable to fly to Brazil for this one cache.

Many People would come to Seattle to find many great old Caches and "Mission 9" was and is a part of this.

I think the time has made "Mission 9" to something special. It was the last of the APE... realistic to find for all. In my opinion this fact justifies, definitely let him back to life!

 

I disagree. Yes, it may be unrealistic for many to travel to Brazil to find Southern Bowl, but it's also just not that feasible for many to travel to Seattle, even for those that live in the same country. A round trip airfare from where I live to Seattle runs about $400. That's for one person. Hotel for just a couple of nights adds at $300 or so.. Add a rent car for $150 or so. Add food and other incidentals and you're approaching $1000 just to find a few geocaches.

 

Frankly, those that live in the Pacific Northwest are already getting benefits from Groundspeak that are just not realistically obtainable for most geocachers and to make a special case about a cache because it's relatively close to Groundspeak HQ is just not something that I would condone.

Link to comment

This was one of my favorite caches with a lot of fond memories. Unfortunately with my health I will probably never get back to the area.

 

Now a lot of people will miss an interesting experience walking three miles through the tunnel and seeing the waterfalls, etc. just because some idiot stole the cache.

 

Actually they don't have to. If someone places another cache there they get the same, interesting experience. Thing is that if a new, regular cache is placed there a lot of people will still miss the experience because they don't get a special icon for doing it.

Link to comment
If someone places another cache there they get the same, interesting experience.

Would a replacement have the same history? Would it come with an Ape icon? Would it grant them an Ape souvenir? Would it give them 1/3 of the Trifecta? I'm betting the answer to those four questions would be "No". If it is "No", I'm not sure how the experience could be identical. Could it be that for some folks, there was more to this cache than just an icon? Looking at the now archived Mission 9. Let's say for argument's sake that there was no extensive history of cachers coming from all across the globe for just that cache. Let's even say that you did not get a shiny new Ape souvenir. Heck, let's go so far as to say there was never a Trifecta, hailed by Groundspeak as the pinnacle of geocaching. To appease those who keep insisting on the fairy tale of, "It was all about an icon", let's set reality aside and pretend that Mission 9 was just an ammo box in a neat spot, with a rather unique icon.

 

Is that such a bad thing? <_<:unsure::huh:

Link to comment
If someone places another cache there they get the same, interesting experience.

Would a replacement have the same history? Would it come with an Ape icon? Would it grant them an Ape souvenir? Would it give them 1/3 of the Trifecta? I'm betting the answer to those four questions would be "No". If it is "No", I'm not sure how the experience could be identical. Could it be that for some folks, there was more to this cache than just an icon? Looking at the now archived Mission 9. Let's say for argument's sake that there was no extensive history of cachers coming from all across the globe for just that cache. Let's even say that you did not get a shiny new Ape souvenir. Heck, let's go so far as to say there was never a Trifecta, hailed by Groundspeak as the pinnacle of geocaching. To appease those who keep insisting on the fairy tale of, "It was all about an icon", let's set reality aside and pretend that Mission 9 was just an ammo box in a neat spot, with a rather unique icon.

 

Is that such a bad thing? <_<:unsure::huh:

 

I was referring to a specific post where the author lamented that people will "will miss an interesting experience walking three miles through the tunnel and seeing the waterfalls..". That experience is still there A.P.E. cache, regular cache or no cache at all.

Link to comment

This was one of my favorite caches with a lot of fond memories. Unfortunately with my health I will probably never get back to the area.

 

Now a lot of people will miss an interesting experience walking three miles through the tunnel and seeing the waterfalls, etc. just because some idiot stole the cache.

 

Actually they don't have to. If someone places another cache there they get the same, interesting experience. Thing is that if a new, regular cache is placed there a lot of people will still miss the experience because they don't get a special icon for doing it.

I think what he is saying is that the motivation to visit the spot is not nearly as strong without the APE cache.

Link to comment

Here is an interesting link that I came across about the entire APE cache series. It's slightly outdated, but it does share some of the original thoughts about what motivated the series. One nice thing is that it links to each of the the original caches GC page on Groundspeak. So you can see what happened to them over time. I knew there was one about 3 miles from where I lived, but it only lasted a short time before being confiscated by the local fish and wildlife agency.

 

http://www.markwell.us/projectape.htm

Link to comment

I think that it's important that people get there feelings out about this here, but there comes a point where we've got to let go of it.

 

There comes a point where all we're doing here is giving satisfaction to the ...uh... person who took it.

 

It was just a cache, although an important cache.

We'll just have to go out and make some more important caches.

Link to comment

I think that it's important that people get there feelings out about this here, but there comes a point where we've got to let go of it.

 

There comes a point where all we're doing here is giving satisfaction to the ...uh... person who took it.

 

It was just a cache, although an important cache.

We'll just have to go out and make some more important caches.

 

Took what? :huh:

 

 

 

OK... just kidding.

Link to comment
I suspect that any park rules requiring that caches be listed on geocaching.com could be easily rendered null and void.

Since the land manager doesn't have a TC account, she would probably never know it was there. :ph34r:

 

 

That only goes to show just how ridiculous permits for caches even are, but I know that's another topic for another thread...

Link to comment

Did some organization do a thorough trail clean up? Perhaps part of the construction or rehab afterwards... or just a routine cleanup. Hate to think it was an assault or collector problem. Recyclers looking for scrap/refundables? Was the rest of the trail super clean of other items? Looks from the map as if it covered a fair distance along the trail... can't really tell, but there were a few that had no new logs since May but no DNFs even then... so it might be more...

 

Doug 7rxc

well, if it was recyclers there was plenty of pipe, railroad iron , plates and old rusty equipement frames and such that did not seem

bothered.

Those are considered historical relics and federally protected.

Edited by TotemLake
Link to comment

Frankly, those that live in the Pacific Northwest are already getting benefits from Groundspeak that are just not realistically obtainable for most geocachers

 

And what would those benefits be? As far as I can tell Groundspeak treats us the same way as anyone else. So if you are not liking special treatment for one, bring them all back... there's a new movie out. :D

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...