Jump to content

MINGO in jeopardy?

cheech gang
Followers 14

Recommended Posts

Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted (edited)

To the poster about the original container: I know it's moot because this one's gone, but the original container makes a HUGE difference. We've found a few 10 year old caches, but only one in original container with original logbook, Hawg. There were printouts in there from the SecondToFind back in 2001 with rust stains on them. Definitely a priceless find. With that said, I think the history of geocaching for all of us who have picked it up in the last couple of years should be preserved. It sounds like that is the direction it's going for Mingo and that is a good thing.

 

The Spot (GC39) has a hide date only 15 days after Mingo and still has it's original container *and* it's original logbook. It appears "Beverly" may still have it's original container as well (don't know about GC12).

 

I'm going to have to gang up on you with IK. :lol: The Spot was originally a bucket, and was changed to a .50 cal ammo box. Not sure if it's the original logbook.

 

EDIT: 27 April 2002 Note by owner replacing with ammo box

 

Email submission of pre-Geocaching.com cache page to Mike Teague's website Which Identifies it as a 3.5 Gallon White Plastic Bucket.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted
It appears "Beverly" may still have it's original container as well

 

No, I found Beverly with ODragon, it was a return visit for him. He told me that container he found was not an ammo can. The logbook had some years on it, but not all the way back to 2000.

 

Okay, so it appears that GC12 is the oldest, originally intact active cache with the original logbook. Since the one in NZ has been converted to a virtual, The Spot would be the second oldest, originally intact active geocache in the world.

Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted

To the poster about the original container: I know it's moot because this one's gone, but the original container makes a HUGE difference. We've found a few 10 year old caches, but only one in original container with original logbook, Hawg. There were printouts in there from the SecondToFind back in 2001 with rust stains on them. Definitely a priceless find. With that said, I think the history of geocaching for all of us who have picked it up in the last couple of years should be preserved. It sounds like that is the direction it's going for Mingo and that is a good thing.

 

The Spot (GC39) has a hide date only 15 days after Mingo and still has it's original container *and* it's original logbook. It appears "Beverly" may still have it's original container as well (don't know about GC12).

 

I'm going to have to gang up on you with IK. :lol: The Spot was originally a bucket, and was changed to a .50 cal ammo box. Not sure if it's the original logbook.

 

EDIT: 27 April 2002 Note by owner replacing with ammo box

 

Email submission of pre-Geocaching.com cache page to Mike Teague's website Which Identifies it as a 3.5 Gallon White Plastic Bucket.

 

I stand corrected. The question as to whether it has the original logbook was discussed a little while back and there were at least a couple of confirmations that it was, in fact, the original logbook. Do you happen to have a link to the original email for (it's probably in usenet archives somewhere) GC12. Recent logs show what definitely appears to be the original log book.

Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted
It appears "Beverly" may still have it's original container as well

 

No, I found Beverly with ODragon, it was a return visit for him. He told me that container he found was not an ammo can. The logbook had some years on it, but not all the way back to 2000.

 

Okay, so it appears that GC12 is the oldest, originally intact active cache with the original logbook. Since the one in NZ has been converted to a virtual, The Spot would be the second oldest, originally intact active geocache in the world.

Thats correct... I found GC12 and the original logbook is still there and its soooooo cool to read it. If you havent found it, go find that cache if you can. There is another olde cache , GC17, really close by, which is the 3rd oldest cache in Oregon. I would pick GC17 over GC12 any day. Look at the picture on GC17 cache page and you will understand.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted (edited)
It appears "Beverly" may still have it's original container as well

 

No, I found Beverly with ODragon, it was a return visit for him. He told me that container he found was not an ammo can. The logbook had some years on it, but not all the way back to 2000.

 

Okay, so it appears that GC12 is the oldest, originally intact active cache with the original logbook. Since the one in NZ has been converted to a virtual, The Spot would be the second oldest, originally intact active geocache in the world.

Thats correct... I found GC12 and the original logbook is still there and its soooooo cool to read it. If you havent found it, go find that cache if you can. There is another olde cache , GC17, really close by, which is the 3rd oldest cache in Oregon. I would pick GC17 over GC12 any day. Look at the picture on GC17 cache page and you will understand.

 

Yeah, I'd take this over Mingo any day!

 

6c4ffd2f-0ac3-4073-b507-892845f232f7.jpg

 

Picture from GC17's gallery by InxtricablFate.

 

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted
It appears "Beverly" may still have it's original container as well

 

No, I found Beverly with ODragon, it was a return visit for him. He told me that container he found was not an ammo can. The logbook had some years on it, but not all the way back to 2000.

 

Okay, so it appears that GC12 is the oldest, originally intact active cache with the original logbook. Since the one in NZ has been converted to a virtual, The Spot would be the second oldest, originally intact active geocache in the world.

Thats correct... I found GC12 and the original logbook is still there and its soooooo cool to read it. If you havent found it, go find that cache if you can. There is another olde cache , GC17, really close by, which is the 3rd oldest cache in Oregon. I would pick GC17 over GC12 any day. Look at the picture on GC17 cache page and you will understand.

 

Yeah, I'd take this over Mingo any day!

 

6c4ffd2f-0ac3-4073-b507-892845f232f7.jpg

 

Picture from GC17's gallery by InxtricablFate.

 

 

If you are ever out here in Oregon and wanna do that cache, let me know since I wanna go back. Thats one cache that I would revisit over and over. Its a further hike now since the road to the nearest trailhead is closed for good. The CO havent update that info and its confusing. I was really short on time the day I found it and was looking all over the place for the nearest cache. So I really have to RUSH it to the cache and back to my rig. When I got back to my rig, I was soaked wet from sweat and it was a cold day. That how hard I was pushing myself!!

Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted

Just noticed the archived request. oh boy here it comes.

 

I'm not seeing the archive request when I just looked at the cache listing...

 

It was changed to a note.

I know...I am talking to her via email. She didnt realized that 225 are watching that cache. I warned her that she might get hate mails. She doesnt have a mean bone in her so it was done in good will. I know team360 posted some logs in the past and he wont touch that cache anymore.

Link to comment
Lil Devil

+Lil Devil

Posted
Posted (edited)

Don't worry, folks. The latest logger was not aware that a reviewer is already monitoring the situation. I'm not ready to do anything yet.

 

Interesting tidbit for discussion: A cacher who is a licensed land surveyor in Kansas, and has been working with the highway department, contacted me. He doesn't know what is going on, but he did have this to say:

As a licensed surveyor, I can say that all the markings at the cache site are vandalism and not the professional standard work of surveying.

 

Edit: Whoops. Posted with the wrong account. I'm also Hemlock, for those that didn't already know.

Edited by Lil Devil
Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted

Don't worry, folks. The latest logger was not aware that a reviewer is already monitoring the situation. I'm not ready to do anything yet.

 

Interesting tidbit for discussion: A cacher who is a licensed land surveyor in Kansas, and has been working with the highway department, contacted me. He doesn't know what is going on, but he did have this to say:

As a licensed surveyor, I can say that all the markings at the cache site are vandalism and not the professional standard work of surveying.

 

Edit: Whoops. Posted with the wrong account. I'm also Hemlock, for those that didn't already know.

 

:unsure:

No I didnt know that! :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted

Don't worry, folks. The latest logger was not aware that a reviewer is already monitoring the situation. I'm not ready to do anything yet.

 

Interesting tidbit for discussion: A cacher who is a licensed land surveyor in Kansas, and has been working with the highway department, contacted me. He doesn't know what is going on, but he did have this to say:

As a licensed surveyor, I can say that all the markings at the cache site are vandalism and not the professional standard work of surveying.

 

 

I was thinking along that line since I heard of the situation.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Don't worry, folks. The latest logger was not aware that a reviewer is already monitoring the situation. I'm not ready to do anything yet.

 

Interesting tidbit for discussion: A cacher who is a licensed land surveyor in Kansas, and has been working with the highway department, contacted me. He doesn't know what is going on, but he did have this to say:

As a licensed surveyor, I can say that all the markings at the cache site are vandalism and not the professional standard work of surveying.

 

Edit: Whoops. Posted with the wrong account. I'm also Hemlock, for those that didn't already know.

 

Pleased to meet you, Hemlock. I'm Ringbone.

Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted

Don't worry, folks. The latest logger was not aware that a reviewer is already monitoring the situation. I'm not ready to do anything yet.

 

Interesting tidbit for discussion: A cacher who is a licensed land surveyor in Kansas, and has been working with the highway department, contacted me. He doesn't know what is going on, but he did have this to say:

As a licensed surveyor, I can say that all the markings at the cache site are vandalism and not the professional standard work of surveying.

 

Edit: Whoops. Posted with the wrong account. I'm also Hemlock, for those that didn't already know.

 

Pleased to meet you, Hemlock. I'm Ringbone.

Are you sure? :blink:

Link to comment
jellis

+jellis

Posted
Posted (edited)

Don't worry, folks. The latest logger was not aware that a reviewer is already monitoring the situation. I'm not ready to do anything yet.

 

Interesting tidbit for discussion: A cacher who is a licensed land surveyor in Kansas, and has been working with the highway department, contacted me. He doesn't know what is going on, but he did have this to say:

As a licensed surveyor, I can say that all the markings at the cache site are vandalism and not the professional standard work of surveying.

 

Edit: Whoops. Posted with the wrong account. I'm also Hemlock, for those that didn't already know.

 

Pleased to meet you, Hemlock. I'm Ringbone.

Are you sure? :blink:

Are you sure your sure?

Sorry had to do that.

Two things, I feel sorry for the ones who traveled far and logged finds, but they will wonder if it was right logging on a cache that wasn't the intended cache.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted

Don't worry, folks. The latest logger was not aware that a reviewer is already monitoring the situation. I'm not ready to do anything yet.

 

Interesting tidbit for discussion: A cacher who is a licensed land surveyor in Kansas, and has been working with the highway department, contacted me. He doesn't know what is going on, but he did have this to say:

As a licensed surveyor, I can say that all the markings at the cache site are vandalism and not the professional standard work of surveying.

 

Edit: Whoops. Posted with the wrong account. I'm also Hemlock, for those that didn't already know.

 

Didn't know that. I have to wonder if, because the DOT person that visited the essentially gave explicit permission for a cache to be located there, if permission might be granted to construct something more permanent such as a cement pedestal with a "Mingo - Worlds Oldest Geocache" plaque and place to hold a 6" round container. Permission has been granted to place a cache there and perhaps a "reminder" that tampering with the location *is* vandalism, and anyone doing so will be prosecuted might help preserve Mingo.

Link to comment
GeoBain

+GeoBain

Posted
Posted

Everyone realizes this is just a cache, right?

 

It is pretty ignorant to fill it in with cement.

 

But it's pretty looney to act like this is some sort of mecca of geocaching.

 

Even the great Apes have all but gone away. This too will likely fade into the night one day.

 

When it does, another will become the oldest, active cache.

 

It will not be the end of the world or even of geocaching.

Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted (edited)

I got a question, once there is plaque in place and would it be protected under the local/state vandalism law?

 

Edit to add...I mean a bigger fine and jail sentence if you get caught vandalizing the plaque.

 

The vandalism law we got in place to protect our geocaches is too weak to do anything serious.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment
grateful cacher

+grateful cacher

Posted
Posted

I don't think that it's been filled with just cement. From the pictures, the dirt around it looks just like what is on the road that is about 10 feet from the cache. It's the same color/texture as what all the back roads of Kansas I was on a couple a years ago are made of. They're easy to drive on, but when they get saturated, you can sink way down in them. Again, I feel that whoever placed that there did just so the spot will be acurately marked so when it is eventually replaced it will be where it belongs.

 

It is pretty ignorant to fill it in with cement.

 

But it's pretty looney to act like this is some sort of mecca of geocaching.

 

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted (edited)

To the poster about the original container: I know it's moot because this one's gone, but the original container makes a HUGE difference. We've found a few 10 year old caches, but only one in original container with original logbook, Hawg. There were printouts in there from the SecondToFind back in 2001 with rust stains on them. Definitely a priceless find. With that said, I think the history of geocaching for all of us who have picked it up in the last couple of years should be preserved. It sounds like that is the direction it's going for Mingo and that is a good thing.

 

The Spot (GC39) has a hide date only 15 days after Mingo and still has it's original container *and* it's original logbook. It appears "Beverly" may still have it's original container as well (don't know about GC12).

 

I'm going to have to gang up on you with IK. :lol: The Spot was originally a bucket, and was changed to a .50 cal ammo box. Not sure if it's the original logbook.

 

EDIT: 27 April 2002 Note by owner replacing with ammo box

 

Email submission of pre-Geocaching.com cache page to Mike Teague's website Which Identifies it as a 3.5 Gallon White Plastic Bucket.

 

I stand corrected. The question as to whether it has the original logbook was discussed a little while back and there were at least a couple of confirmations that it was, in fact, the original logbook. Do you happen to have a link to the original email for (it's probably in usenet archives somewhere) GC12. Recent logs show what definitely appears to be the original log book.

 

I think Mike Teague's entire website is indexed on the wayback machine, with a date of 21 June 2000. Meaning, I believe every single link works. Well, at least every one I've ever tried. It looks like all caches didn't have a "cache description" as we would call it, such as The Spot did. If you click on any of the links for U.S. States, or Stashes in Other Countries, you'll see all stashes had coordinates, some had only photo clues, etc.. It looks like what we would call a modern-day cache description, such as The Spot had, was called "stash notes". Note the other cache in New York had a "more info" link, where the cache owner actually made himself a little web page for his stash on his ISP's web space.

 

GC12 is one that has only coordinates, no "stash notes" or clues whatsoever. However, it does have a Hunt Story link, which just happens to be posted by Mike Teague himself on 5/14/11. He clearly identifies it as a white and blue bucket.

 

Long story short, I'd say it's the original container. :P

 

Oops, I forgot, here's MT's indexed Main Page which you can navigate around on.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment
lamoracke

+lamoracke

Posted
Posted

I found the original container for GC6 a couple years ago at the cache location. There was water in the container but did not have anything with me to bail it out. Perhaps the log was still in it?

Nope.

 

might be a log now, but that was a recent thing and not the original one. The original casing of the cache is still there but that is about it. A friend just visited this place a month or so ago.

Link to comment
Castle Mischief

+Castle Mischief

Posted
Posted (edited)

Owner's log sounds like they are getting :angry:

I saw that and wonder whats going on!! I am sure the CO is so sick of all the emails about it.

 

I have to agree with the CO to a point. There was a time when simply finding A THING using your GPS was enough and that the location of the hide was stressed over the particularities of the container.

 

But... either manage your caches or don't. Absent COs are living in glass houses.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment
jellis

+jellis

Posted
Posted

Owner's log sounds like they are getting :angry:

I saw that and wonder whats going on!! I am sure the CO is so sick of all the emails about it.

 

I have to agree to the CO to a point. There was a time when simply finding A THING using your GPS was enough and that the location of the hide was stressed over the particularities of the container.

 

But... either manage your caches or don't. Absent COs are living in glass houses.

They are not absent but I am sure life does get in the way sometimes.

Like in my case I am very active in caching so close to getting 20K, but very soon I will be unable to cache or maintain my caches for awhile. Hoping some of my good caching friends will help me out until I get back.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

FTR, I agree with the CO. Who cares what kind of container it is? If the CO wishes to change it to a micro, why shouldn't he? COs do that all the time, why should this cache be treated different?

 

I obviously can't speak for Hemlock, but I suspect that what he meant about "it's not Mingo if its a micro" is that a micro throwdown by some other cacher is not Mingo. Just as with any cache, the owner has every right to change the container size.

Link to comment
dfx

+dfx

Posted
Posted

FTR, I agree with the CO. Who cares what kind of container it is? If the CO wishes to change it to a micro, why shouldn't he? COs do that all the time, why should this cache be treated different?

 

Because it's the oldest active geocache in the world?

 

So what?

 

Let's see, on one side we have:

 

CO: If you find the location, you can log it on the website, even if the cache isn't there.

Response: No! That would be a virtual cache! Those are not allowed, no exceptions!

 

And then we have...

 

CO (hypothetical): I'm gonna put a micro there because it gets vandalized so often.

Response: No! That wouldn't be the original cache any more! For all other caches it wouldn't be a problem, but this one is an exception!

 

Seriously? Come on people...

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

FTR, I agree with the CO. Who cares what kind of container it is? If the CO wishes to change it to a micro, why shouldn't he? COs do that all the time, why should this cache be treated different?

 

Because it's the oldest active geocache in the world?

 

So what?

 

Well, let's see if we can figure that out...

 

1) Some people care. You are not in this group.

2) Some people don't. This is the group that you are in.

Link to comment
ArcherDragoon

+ArcherDragoon

Posted
Posted

FTR, I agree with the CO. Who cares what kind of container it is? If the CO wishes to change it to a micro, why shouldn't he? COs do that all the time, why should this cache be treated different?

 

I obviously can't speak for Hemlock, but I suspect that what he meant about "it's not Mingo if its a micro" is that a micro throwdown by some other cacher is not Mingo. Just as with any cache, the owner has every right to change the container size.

+1

Link to comment
JeePSer

+JeePSer

Posted
Posted

Would it be fair to assume based on the COs latest post to the Mingo cache page that being the CO of the oldest active geocache is more important than actually having a container at the site?

 

I understand that it has to be a pain in the butt that this cache keeps coming up missing and he keeps having to replace it. However you still have to maintain the cache and cache page. There are legitimate virtual caches that were archived because the CO was not responding to emails or maintaining the cache page so how would this be any different. I can't say that I understand the if the container goes missing and I haven't had a chance to replace it again but you drove by go ahead and log a find anyway attitude.

 

If Hemlock had not temporarily disabled this cache the last two times it would have remained active with no container in place (that is if you don't count all the containers that everyone who visits when it is missing leaves). Oldest active geocache or not it is still the COs responsibility to temporarily disable it when the container goes missing and maintain the cache.

 

People keep talking about the need for exceptions for this cache because it just so happens to be the current oldest active cache. Personally I think far too many exceptions have already been made. But as we all know that is just my opinion.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted (edited)

Would it be fair to assume based on the COs latest post to the Mingo cache page that being the CO of the oldest active geocache is more important than actually having a container at the site?

 

I understand that it has to be a pain in the butt that this cache keeps coming up missing and he keeps having to replace it. However you still have to maintain the cache and cache page. There are legitimate virtual caches that were archived because the CO was not responding to emails or maintaining the cache page so how would this be any different. I can't say that I understand the if the container goes missing and I haven't had a chance to replace it again but you drove by go ahead and log a find anyway attitude.

 

If Hemlock had not temporarily disabled this cache the last two times it would have remained active with no container in place (that is if you don't count all the containers that everyone who visits when it is missing leaves). Oldest active geocache or not it is still the COs responsibility to temporarily disable it when the container goes missing and maintain the cache.

 

People keep talking about the need for exceptions for this cache because it just so happens to be the current oldest active cache. Personally I think far too many exceptions have already been made. But as we all know that is just my opinion.

 

Except that without a container at the site, it is no longer the world's oldest geocache. It is just where one of the worlds oldest geocache was hidden (in other words, I agree with you!)

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
Lil Devil

+Lil Devil

Posted
Posted
I obviously can't speak for Hemlock, but I suspect that what he meant about "it's not Mingo if its a micro" is that a micro throwdown by some other cacher is not Mingo. Just as with any cache, the owner has every right to change the container size.

Some people have a way with words.

Other people... not have way.

 

From what I've heard, Hemlock is in that 2nd group.

 

Except that without a container at the site, it is no longer the world's oldest geocache. It is just where one of the worlds oldest geocache was hidden

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Link to comment
Guwapo

+Guwapo

Posted
Posted (edited)
It appears "Beverly" may still have it's original container as well

 

No, I found Beverly with ODragon, it was a return visit for him. He told me that container he found was not an ammo can. The logbook had some years on it, but not all the way back to 2000.

 

Okay, so it appears that GC12 is the oldest, originally intact active cache with the original logbook. Since the one in NZ has been converted to a virtual, The Spot would be the second oldest, originally intact active geocache in the world.

 

Ouch!! Confusing New Zealand for Australia could get you in a lot of trouble down under. :unsure: We like our trans-tasman cousins over on the West Island, seemingly a lot of us want to go and live there these days, personally the thought of wearing ankle bracelets all the time isn't my cup of tea. I think you are referring to GC3E Lane Cove. (Don't get me started on my opinion on converting to virtual just to stay on the oldest active list - it ain't the real cache so should have been archived a long time ago).

 

The oldest New Zealand cache is still GC46.

 

On the subject of original containers who gives a rats? Containers get replaced all the time. Build a bridge and get over it.

Edited by Guwapo
Link to comment
grateful cacher

+grateful cacher

Posted
Posted

I can't speak for the CO, but this is the third time in six months that Mingo has had "vanishing" issues. I don't know where he lives in relation to the cache, but he also owns one of the other oldest caches, GC31 Arikaree which is in NW Kansas, about 2 hours from Mingo. He isn't that active in the community, but obviously feels some responsibility for these caches, or else he wouldn't keep them alive. Maybe adoption is the answer?? ( Iknow that GC12, GC16, and GC17 in Oregon have all been adopted out). I agree with him that there are a lot more rules and regulations now that when geocaching started, and they do take some of the fun out of it. But finding a balance between iconic historic caches (like Mingo, and the A.P.E. caches) have to be balanced with the increase in number of caches that are being published. Geocaching has evolved to the point where we can look back at these older caches and realize that they're a part of the heritage of where this all started. I would think that the reviewers should give some leeway to the older caches, and their maintenance, so that this heritage can be maintained. But we also have to do our parts, and not go ballistic on the cache pages about what should and shouldn't be done. When the A.P.E. cache was archived last year, you would have thought the world had come to an end.

 

 

 

Would it be fair to assume based on the COs latest post to the Mingo cache page that being the CO of the oldest active geocache is more important than actually having a container at the site?

 

I understand that it has to be a pain in the butt that this cache keeps coming up missing and he keeps having to replace it. However you still have to maintain the cache and cache page. There are legitimate virtual caches that were archived because the CO was not responding to emails or maintaining the cache page so how would this be any different. I can't say that I understand the if the container goes missing and I haven't had a chance to replace it again but you drove by go ahead and log a find anyway attitude.

 

If Hemlock had not temporarily disabled this cache the last two times it would have remained active with no container in place (that is if you don't count all the containers that everyone who visits when it is missing leaves). Oldest active geocache or not it is still the COs responsibility to temporarily disable it when the container goes missing and maintain the cache.

 

People keep talking about the need for exceptions for this cache because it just so happens to be the current oldest active cache. Personally I think far too many exceptions have already been made. But as we all know that is just my opinion.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 14
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...