Jump to content

MINGO in jeopardy?


Recommended Posts

A 6" round container buried in the ground. Only the lid is exposed.
... there might be a Guidelines issue here!

 

Grandfathered.

A bit off topic, but this did make me curious.

We know that there are many guidelines that weren't in place way back when. They are an ever growing entity, as they should be. We also know that caches which violate certain guidelines, if placed before those guidelines were created, are often allowed to stay active, having been labeled as "Grandfathered". So far, every grandfathered cache I've seen, (and admittedly, I haven't seen many), were ones that violated guidelines which had some degree of flexibility to them. I.e; "You should not" as opposed to "You will not".

 

But the buried cache guideline doesn't seem to have any flexibility. Rather, it reads almost like a Commandment. "Caches are never buried".

 

If an ancient cache is found to violate a guideline that has no room for interpretation, even though it was perfectly fine when it was hidden, will the Reviewers give it a pass?

Link to comment
A 6" round container buried in the ground. Only the lid is exposed.
... there might be a Guidelines issue here!

 

Grandfathered.

A bit off topic, but this did make me curious.

We know that there are many guidelines that weren't in place way back when. They are an ever growing entity, as they should be. We also know that caches which violate certain guidelines, if placed before those guidelines were created, are often allowed to stay active, having been labeled as "Grandfathered". So far, every grandfathered cache I've seen, (and admittedly, I haven't seen many), were ones that violated guidelines which had some degree of flexibility to them. I.e; "You should not" as opposed to "You will not".

 

But the buried cache guideline doesn't seem to have any flexibility. Rather, it reads almost like a Commandment. "Caches are never buried".

 

If an ancient cache is found to violate a guideline that has no room for interpretation, even though it was perfectly fine when it was hidden, will the Reviewers give it a pass?

This cache, like the original stash, is not 100% buried. It was a 5 gal bucket buried up to near the top. The top was exposed. There are a couple other oldies hidden in the same manner. You did not need to dig it up to find it, but a pointy device was used to place it. Apparently the reviewers are giving them a pass.

Link to comment
It was a 5 gal bucket buried up to near the top. Apparently the reviewers are giving them a pass.

I'm wondering if this is because the cache has never been reported as being in direct violation of the guidelines? Maybe it's one of those things that the Reviewers are unwilling to address until/unless they are compelled to do so, with a Needs Archived log? I'm hoping a Reviewer will chime in and offer their thoughts on the matter. Specifically, if there are any guidelines that are so imperative that Groundspeak will not allow them to be violated, even as a grandfathered cache.

Link to comment
It was a 5 gal bucket buried up to near the top. Apparently the reviewers are giving them a pass.

I'm wondering if this is because the cache has never been reported as being in direct violation of the guidelines? Maybe it's one of those things that the Reviewers are unwilling to address until/unless they are compelled to do so, with a Needs Archived log? I'm hoping a Reviewer will chime in and offer their thoughts on the matter. Specifically, if there are any guidelines that are so imperative that Groundspeak will not allow them to be violated, even as a grandfathered cache.

 

Sure.

 

"By submitting a geocache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. "

 

If a cache is placed on private or public property and the property owner changes their mind about giving permission or the land owner changes, then the cache wouldn't remain because it was place when permission was not an issue.

 

I suppose that doesn't really meet the definition of "grandfathered" which I interpret as cases where a cache pre-existed a guideline but would violate that guideline if the cache was submitted after the guideline was added or changed.

Link to comment

I just read the log. Replacing a container like that is commendable,...

 

I can't say that I agree that it's commendable.

 

 

Let me clarify a bit. Doing maintainence on other people's caches is something that I think is commendable. This may be a bit of an extreme case in that sense, but the effort was there. I wouldn't replace a container like that unless it's one I've found before and I know the CO, but that's just me. Logging the find however, is not correct.

 

I dunno, I just appreciate the effort I guess. Results aren't quite what they should be though. I agree with your post.

Link to comment

It was grandfathered because it was hidden before the current regulations against being buried, due to the historic significance of it.

 

I can't tell if there is a missing "not" in that sentence (after the comma). Assuming you meant type type exactly what was written, "historical significance" has nothing to do with grandfathering. I don't know exactly when the "no buried caches" guideline was create but *every* cache which existed prior to the creation of the guideline was grandfathered, not just those deemed "historically significant".

Link to comment
A 6" round container buried in the ground. Only the lid is exposed.
... there might be a Guidelines issue here!

 

Grandfathered.

A bit off topic, but this did make me curious.

We know that there are many guidelines that weren't in place way back when. They are an ever growing entity, as they should be. We also know that caches which violate certain guidelines, if placed before those guidelines were created, are often allowed to stay active, having been labeled as "Grandfathered". So far, every grandfathered cache I've seen, (and admittedly, I haven't seen many), were ones that violated guidelines which had some degree of flexibility to them. I.e; "You should not" as opposed to "You will not".

 

But the buried cache guideline doesn't seem to have any flexibility. Rather, it reads almost like a Commandment. "Caches are never buried".

 

If an ancient cache is found to violate a guideline that has no room for interpretation, even though it was perfectly fine when it was hidden, will the Reviewers give it a pass?

 

It will depend on the situation. If its presence has the potential to portray geocaching in a negative light it may have to go regardless if its age. Mingo has been there a long time and gets a ton of visitors. I don't know who manages the land it is on, but I'm sure they are likely aware of such a popular cache and haven't complained.

 

If on the other hand it was placed in a state park that has since developed a geocaching policy that includes a no burying clause, it will probably be archived if the CO won't bring it into compliance with park policy.

Link to comment

I have two caches that are among my very favorite caches ever, but I am hesitant to ever mention them when the topic of great caches comes up. One is partly buried, the other is located inside a restaurant. Both were in place long before the relevant guidelines were written.

Link to comment

The thing about burying that is tricky... I think it's worth something to prevent new cachers vrom getting confused (or more confused than they already are) about the fact that caches are never buried. I'd be against a policy that allows caches to be buried with permission on private property, because I wouldn't want cachers who found it then going around and digging things up when they run into a difficult hide later. I think a blanket prohibition is better.

 

That said, I'd still be willing to make some exceptions for a small handful of unusual grandfathered caches though.

Link to comment
A 6" round container buried in the ground. Only the lid is exposed.
... there might be a Guidelines issue here!

 

Grandfathered.

A bit off topic, but this did make me curious.

We know that there are many guidelines that weren't in place way back when. They are an ever growing entity, as they should be. We also know that caches which violate certain guidelines, if placed before those guidelines were created, are often allowed to stay active, having been labeled as "Grandfathered". So far, every grandfathered cache I've seen, (and admittedly, I haven't seen many), were ones that violated guidelines which had some degree of flexibility to them. I.e; "You should not" as opposed to "You will not".

 

But the buried cache guideline doesn't seem to have any flexibility. Rather, it reads almost like a Commandment. "Caches are never buried".

 

If an ancient cache is found to violate a guideline that has no room for interpretation, even though it was perfectly fine when it was hidden, will the Reviewers give it a pass?

 

It will depend on the situation. If its presence has the potential to portray geocaching in a negative light it may have to go regardless if its age. Mingo has been there a long time and gets a ton of visitors. I don't know who manages the land it is on, but I'm sure they are likely aware of such a popular cache and haven't complained.

 

If on the other hand it was placed in a state park that has since developed a geocaching policy that includes a no burying clause, it will probably be archived if the CO won't bring it into compliance with park policy.

The map shows it at the turn of a county road. Judging from the pictures it looks to be at the corner of the right-of-way fence. I would speculate that it is on county right-of-way. It certainly does not appear to be in any sort of park. I would go with someone was out picking up trash and did not understand what a geocache is.

Link to comment

I would hate to be the fool to put the maintenance log on the oldest active cache that may cause it to be archived. I really wanted to find Mingo someday and hoping the CO can go replace it or allow the one placed down to be the replacement.

We found the 2nd oldest cache on Saturday and if this is the same person then they will have the same hard time finding it then we did. We eventually did with the 4 of us.

When I saw the log of Leaky spoon that they found the hole then came back and found it filled in? That is strange! Some muggle fed up with it being there, a muggle who just wants to be mean, or cacher on revenge for some reason.

Link to comment
The map shows it at the turn of a county road. Judging from the pictures it looks to be at the corner of the right-of-way fence. I would speculate that it is on county right-of-way. It certainly does not appear to be in any sort of park. I would go with someone was out picking up trash and did not understand what a geocache is.

 

I would concur about the property being county road right of way.

 

Based on the nearby I-70 I wonder if the fence is also the border of the I-70 right of way? (The cache looks to be clearrly on the county road side of the fence BTW.) I know they have such fences along I-95 here in Florida and they are periodically replaced. My local stretch of I-95 was built in the late 80s and the fencing on both sides was completely replaced in the last year or so.

 

It's possible someone was checking on the fence and found it.

Link to comment

It is an iconic cache, being very old and spurring many people to go out of their way to find it. It also may be poor public relations to have it exist because of it being buried, and setting a poor example. I suppose there would be a small percentage of cachers who would like to see it fade away, similarly to a commercially themed cache..

 

However, the cacher that replaced it did it in good faith, and not for the smiley, so I think that y'all should go easy on him.

Link to comment

As many have mentioned it was a grandfathered cache. Hmm let's see, it's been there how long and because it went missing it is now becoming an issue that it was buried? From what I heard, it was a pipe and the cache was in the pipe with a stone covering it. Is this correct? I have seen so many of them, even new caches buried in the ground. Even one that I reported to a reviewer and it was archived and then unarchived because the CO said they had permission to put it in a park. Grandfathered ones I totally understand that are exempt. But this one I don't understand even with permission to allow it in a park. I read a log saying someone actually tripped over it because it is in an area locals let their dogs run unleashed. If you notice the clear area in front is where a dog was trying to dig it up. Yes it is still live and other cachers will say "hey" if they can do it so can I. IMG_1251.jpg

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

The cache was not buried. It is/was in a piece of 6 inch PVC pipe that was sunk into the ground, and that pipe stuck up about 4-6 inches. The cache container was put into the pipe, and not covered in anyway. All you had to do was reach down and get it. The reason the PVC pipe was put there was most likely to keep the hole it was in open. When I found it last year, it had just rained about 2 inches in 15 minute, and I had to wade out to it, thinking it'd be soaked. But it was nice and dry. So the cache was not buried.

 

 

...

So, what if the Mingo was removed and replaced by the current land manager/owner? I honestly don't know what the actual location looks like, but the mention of "it's on the other side of a fence" earlier in the thread implies to me that one or both sides of the fence are private property. Is it possible that the land owner got tired of people stopping there to grab the cache and decide to remove it and filled the hole so that it wouldn't be replaced. Or, perhaps the road workere mentioned in recent logs pulled a NVDOT manoever and removed it as part of their road maintenance. Either way, if the land manager doesn't want it there, putting another cacher there after the hole was refilled (and digging out the dirt to do so) is not commendable as I see it, and could cause strife between the land manager and geocaching.

 

Exactly, and I thought buried caches were illegal. Something like that would get archived (and rightfully so) as soon as it was learned about by our local reviewer.

 

A cache is Location+Container+How it's Hidden. Changing any of these elements makes it a different cache.

If MINGO was replace with a Nano on the other side of the fence, would it be the same cache?

 

Either way, time to break out the tin-foil hats and get into geo-conspiracy mode. :lol:

The buried part was grandfathered a long time ago. Even the very first cache was buried.

Link to comment
If a cache is placed on private or public property and the property owner changes their mind about giving permission or the land owner changes, then the cache wouldn't remain because it was place when permission was not an issue.

And yet, I've seen just what you described. A local state forest had no regulations in place in the early days of geocaching, so it was assumed that we could hide stuff there. The Reviewers felt the same way, and would publish caches there without requiring explicit permission. No complaints, as that's how it should be, in my opinion.

 

But times change. Eventually, the forest in question developed a geocaching policy, with a permit process. Once that was established, the Reviewers would not publish any cache within the borders of that forest, unless it had explicit permission. Again. no complaints. By acting thus, Groundspeak is demonstrating that they respect the wishes of the land manager.

 

And yet, those caches placed before the permit process was developed were not addressed immediately, even though the land managers made it quite clear that no cache should be on their property without a permit.

 

They remained in place without permits.

 

That sure feels like a grandfathered permission issue to me.

 

This was eventually, mostly corrected, but it took a long time, and direct communication between the land managers and the Reviewers to accomplish it. Notes were sent to the old cache owners, stating that they needed to get explicit permission for each cache. Most complied. When I was perusing the folder of caches that had permission, I noticed that one cache owner was conspicuously absent. There were no permits for that person's caches.

 

I don't know whether this owner fibbed about having permission, or if the Reviewers did not push the issue once most of the caches were in compliance. I prefer to assume the former, as I don't like the notion that a Reviewer would deliberately choose to ignore a land manager's wishes.

Link to comment

CO has not been online for at least 6 weeks, and has not found a cache in almost two years. If he has moved onto other activities, hopefully he will allow the cache to be adopted and maintained. That is allowable but only with the CO's approval. I placed a need maintenance log so that it would flag that it needs his attention/intervention. Replacing the cache is an admirable thing to do, but ultimately it is the CO's responsibility to determine the cache's final disposition, just like it was with the APE cache.

 

 

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:

 

He placed a throwdown and logged that. Been two new finds since then, too.

 

I don't see any problem with that. He was aware of the exact location and it was definitely missing, so he hid a replica. It's not like 2 caches or a throwdown film can is there.

Something wrong with just posting a DNF and letting the cache owner handle it? <_<

 

Many cache owners would welcome such a thing. The cache owner is also the one who decides whether his actions were OK, and is free to delete his log. Considering that it was a cache worth perpetuating, I'd say his actions were fine. Perhaps he should let the DNFs pile up and let it get archived? I can't speak for the cache owner, but neither can any of you.

Link to comment

The fence in question is really a fence in name only. If you've ever looked at the satellite photos of the area, you'll see that it separates nothing. It's between a dirt county road, a paved county road and Interstate 70, and ends about 10 feet from where the cache is actually placed. If you look at the log photos, it'll make more sense. There are no signs posting it as private property or no tresspassing.

 

I just read the log. Replacing a container like that is commendable,...

 

So, what if the Mingo was removed and replaced by the current land manager/owner? I honestly don't know what the actual location looks like, but the mention of "it's on the other side of a fence" earlier in the thread implies to me that one or both sides of the fence are private property. Is it possible that the land owner got tired of people stopping there to grab the cache and decide to remove it and filled the hole so that it wouldn't be replaced. Or, perhaps the road workere mentioned in recent logs pulled a NVDOT manoever and removed it as part of their road maintenance. Either way, if the land manager doesn't want it there, putting another cacher there after the hole was refilled (and digging out the dirt to do so) is not commendable as I see it, and could cause strife between the land manager and geocaching.

Link to comment

Why would you hate to be the fool who placed the needs maintenance log?? When is it appropriate (or not appropriate) to report a cache that has been muggled, and the CO appears to not be an active participant anymore?? BTW, I really don't like being called a fool in a public forum.......especially by someone who has never been to the cache in question.

 

 

I would hate to be the fool to put the maintenance log on the oldest active cache that may cause it to be archived. I really wanted to find Mingo someday and hoping the CO can go replace it or allow the one placed down to be the replacement.

We found the 2nd oldest cache on Saturday and if this is the same person then they will have the same hard time finding it then we did. We eventually did with the 4 of us.

When I saw the log of Leaky spoon that they found the hole then came back and found it filled in? That is strange! Some muggle fed up with it being there, a muggle who just wants to be mean, or cacher on revenge for some reason.

Edited by ivhs72
Link to comment

 

The buried part was grandfathered a long time ago. Even the very first cache was buried.

The cache was not buried. It is/was in a piece of 6 inch PVC pipe that was sunk into the ground, and that pipe stuck up about 4-6 inches. The cache container was put into the pipe, and not covered in anyway. All you had to do was reach down and get it. The reason the PVC pipe was put there was most likely to keep the hole it was in open. When I found it last year, it had just rained about 2 inches in 15 minute, and I had to wade out to it, thinking it'd be soaked. But it was nice and dry. So the cache was not buried.

From the cache description: "A 6" round container buried in the ground. Only the lid is exposed."

 

The cache may have changed over time, but it certainly was buried when originally hidden.

 

Edit: pic from 2003:

 

2080614_200.jpg

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment

CO has not been online for at least 6 weeks, and has not found a cache in almost two years. If he has moved onto other activities, hopefully he will allow the cache to be adopted and maintained. That is allowable but only with the CO's approval. I placed a need maintenance log so that it would flag that it needs his attention/intervention. Replacing the cache is an admirable thing to do, but ultimately it is the CO's responsibility to determine the cache's final disposition, just like it was with the APE cache.

 

I dont think it was your place to post a NM log. There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

 

I would never post a NM on a cache that I have never visited.

Link to comment

Actually, I have visited Mingo, about this time last year. The log that was there went back several years, the one that is there now is new. The container is new. There are now over 20 trackable items that are missing. Don't you think the owners would like to know what's up with them. Just because the an NM log is posted does not mean the cache will automatically be archived.

 

CO has not been online for at least 6 weeks, and has not found a cache in almost two years. If he has moved onto other activities, hopefully he will allow the cache to be adopted and maintained. That is allowable but only with the CO's approval. I placed a need maintenance log so that it would flag that it needs his attention/intervention. Replacing the cache is an admirable thing to do, but ultimately it is the CO's responsibility to determine the cache's final disposition, just like it was with the APE cache.

 

I dont think it was your place to post a NM log. There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

 

I would never post a NM on a cache that I have never visited.

Edited by ivhs72
Link to comment

The cache was not buried. It is/was in a piece of 6 inch PVC pipe that was sunk into the ground, and that pipe stuck up about 4-6 inches. The cache container was put into the pipe

According to the guidelines, what you described is a textbook example of what a buried cache is. Remember the whole, "If a shovel, trowel or other pointy object is used to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache," part? Mingo is clearly a buried cache. That's not really up for debate. The question I had was if the Reviewers would willingly ignore a guideline with no ambiguity in it, such as "Caches are never buried", if the cache was buried prior to that guideline being created. Brian answered that for me.

ad19a87a-bbc0-4556-ad0f-57be4f69bdf5.jpg

Link to comment

Actually, I have visited Mingo. Have you??

 

CO has not been online for at least 6 weeks, and has not found a cache in almost two years. If he has moved onto other activities, hopefully he will allow the cache to be adopted and maintained. That is allowable but only with the CO's approval. I placed a need maintenance log so that it would flag that it needs his attention/intervention. Replacing the cache is an admirable thing to do, but ultimately it is the CO's responsibility to determine the cache's final disposition, just like it was with the APE cache.

 

I dont think it was your place to post a NM log. There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

 

I would never post a NM on a cache that I have never visited.

Yes, I have, and I also don't think the NM was necessary. The CO received a copy of the log noted in Post #1, and by that was alerted to an issue with the cache. All you did was needlessly raise it to a higher level.

Link to comment
A 6" round container buried in the ground. Only the lid is exposed.
... there might be a Guidelines issue here!

 

Grandfathered.

A bit off topic, but this did make me curious.

We know that there are many guidelines that weren't in place way back when. They are an ever growing entity, as they should be. We also know that caches which violate certain guidelines, if placed before those guidelines were created, are often allowed to stay active, having been labeled as "Grandfathered". So far, every grandfathered cache I've seen, (and admittedly, I haven't seen many), were ones that violated guidelines which had some degree of flexibility to them. I.e; "You should not" as opposed to "You will not".

 

But the buried cache guideline doesn't seem to have any flexibility. Rather, it reads almost like a Commandment. "Caches are never buried".

 

If an ancient cache is found to violate a guideline that has no room for interpretation, even though it was perfectly fine when it was hidden, will the Reviewers give it a pass?

 

It will depend on the situation. If its presence has the potential to portray geocaching in a negative light it may have to go regardless if its age. Mingo has been there a long time and gets a ton of visitors. I don't know who manages the land it is on, but I'm sure they are likely aware of such a popular cache and haven't complained.

 

I would agree that probably *was* the case with Mingo. What is unclear is whether or nor that land manager has changed their mind, has decided that they no longer want such a popular cache located on the property that they manage, and not only decided to remove the container, but also filled the PVC pipe the container was sitting in with dirt. Does anyone know if the container had contact information on it?

 

In a later post, ivs72 writes:

 

The cache was not buried. It is/was in a piece of 6 inch PVC pipe that was sunk into the ground, and that pipe stuck up about 4-6 inches. The cache container was put into the pipe, and not covered in anyway. All you had to do was reach down and get it. The reason the PVC pipe was put there was most likely to keep the hole it was in open. When I found it last year, it had just rained about 2 inches in 15 minute, and I had to wade out to it, thinking it'd be soaked. But it was nice and dry. So the cache was not buried.

 

Sorry, but sinking a six inch PVC pipe in the ground still, IMHO, meets the definition of buried. You might define the cache as buried, and it might even get past a reviewer (who wouldn't know how it was hidden when unless the CO specifically mentioned it), but a land manager that discovered a hole in the ground with a six inch PVC pipe sunk into it probably isn't going to distinguish the container from the PVC pipe. They're just going to see a hole in the ground that wasn't there prior to cache being placed.

Link to comment

The cache was not buried. It is/was in a piece of 6 inch PVC pipe that was sunk into the ground, and that pipe stuck up about 4-6 inches. The cache container was put into the pipe

According to the guidelines, what you described is a textbook example of what a buried cache is. Remember the whole, "If a shovel, trowel or other pointy object is used to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache," part? Mingo is clearly a buried cache. That's not really up for debate. The question I had was if the Reviewers would willingly ignore a guideline with no ambiguity in it, such as "Caches are never buried", if the cache was buried prior to that guideline being created. Brian answered that for me.

ad19a87a-bbc0-4556-ad0f-57be4f69bdf5.jpg

Here's a clearer, and far more recent photo of the hide. For some reason, I remembered it as a steel pipe that the "6-inch PVC" sat in.

 

3bed6369-ded5-467e-b7cf-8fb55dd7f66c.jpg

Link to comment

How about the 20+ trackables that are now missing? Only the CO can mark them as missing by sending out message to the owners. That will change their status as well.

 

Thats pretty cool how you ignored the question: There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

Incorrect. The trackable owners can mark them missing as well.

Link to comment

How about the 20+ trackables that are now missing? Only the CO can mark them as missing by sending out message to the owners. That will change their status as well.

 

Thats pretty cool how you ignored the question: There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

Incorrect. The trackable owners can mark them missing as well.

And a Reviewer. :)

Link to comment

It may have been steel. It looked and felt like PVC when I was getting the cache out. It's also a lot drier there in your picture that when I was there. The entire area was under about 2-3 inches of water, and there was more of the pipe exposed. I can't post my pictures till later tonight since they're on my home computer.

 

 

The cache was not buried. It is/was in a piece of 6 inch PVC pipe that was sunk into the ground, and that pipe stuck up about 4-6 inches. The cache container was put into the pipe

According to the guidelines, what you described is a textbook example of what a buried cache is. Remember the whole, "If a shovel, trowel or other pointy object is used to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache," part? Mingo is clearly a buried cache. That's not really up for debate. The question I had was if the Reviewers would willingly ignore a guideline with no ambiguity in it, such as "Caches are never buried", if the cache was buried prior to that guideline being created. Brian answered that for me.

ad19a87a-bbc0-4556-ad0f-57be4f69bdf5.jpg

Here's a clearer, and far more recent photo of the hide. For some reason, I remembered it as a steel pipe that the "6-inch PVC" sat in.

 

3bed6369-ded5-467e-b7cf-8fb55dd7f66c.jpg

Link to comment

My error on who can mark them missing, I admit. But without an NM log, how is anyone to know that there is a problem and that they are missing?? The original poster said they emailed the CO but didn't expect a response. How else would people know that there is something going on??

 

 

How about the 20+ trackables that are now missing? Only the CO can mark them as missing by sending out message to the owners. That will change their status as well.

 

Thats pretty cool how you ignored the question: There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

Incorrect. The trackable owners can mark them missing as well.

And a Reviewer. :)

Link to comment

It may have been steel. It looked and felt like PVC when I was getting the cache out. It's also a lot drier there in your picture that when I was there. The entire area was under about 2-3 inches of water, and there was more of the pipe exposed. I can't post my pictures till later tonight since they're on my home computer.

 

 

The cache was not buried. It is/was in a piece of 6 inch PVC pipe that was sunk into the ground, and that pipe stuck up about 4-6 inches. The cache container was put into the pipe

According to the guidelines, what you described is a textbook example of what a buried cache is. Remember the whole, "If a shovel, trowel or other pointy object is used to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache," part? Mingo is clearly a buried cache. That's not really up for debate. The question I had was if the Reviewers would willingly ignore a guideline with no ambiguity in it, such as "Caches are never buried", if the cache was buried prior to that guideline being created. Brian answered that for me.

ad19a87a-bbc0-4556-ad0f-57be4f69bdf5.jpg

Here's a clearer, and far more recent photo of the hide. For some reason, I remembered it as a steel pipe that the "6-inch PVC" sat in.

 

3bed6369-ded5-467e-b7cf-8fb55dd7f66c.jpg

May have been as I don't know when you were there (today perhaps? :rolleyes: ) but for clarity, the pic CR posted is timestamped 5-10-2000, and the most recent one I found that actually showed the hide is from January 2011. Pictures can be very deceiving, especially dated ones. I found Mingo in 2008, and it sure looked like a 6-inch PVC pipe sitting in a much larger steel pipe to me.

Link to comment

How about the 20+ trackables that are now missing? Only the CO can mark them as missing by sending out message to the owners. That will change their status as well.

Thats pretty cool how you ignored the question: There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

 

I was told by Bluedeuce that the NM is not to be used for trackables at all. Also an owner can mark a trackable missing. I know, ive had to do it on our first two bugs. Stinking muggles.

Link to comment

My error on who can mark them missing, I admit. But without an NM log, how is anyone to know that there is a problem and that they are missing?? The original poster said they emailed the CO but didn't expect a response. How else would people know that there is something going on??

 

 

How about the 20+ trackables that are now missing? Only the CO can mark them as missing by sending out message to the owners. That will change their status as well.

 

Thats pretty cool how you ignored the question: There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

Incorrect. The trackable owners can mark them missing as well.

And a Reviewer. :)

A NM log will only alert the CO. If you want trackable owners to know about it, or a reviewer, then you would need to email them directly.

Link to comment

I found it on June 13th, 2010 as part of my cross country geo-vacation. I'd tried to find Arikee (GC31) earlier in the day, but it had rained so much that the road to it was pure mud and I didn't make that one. (BTW, the CO of Mingo is also the CO of Arikee, and it seems to be just fine). Just before I got to Mingo, it rained another couple of inches in 15-20 minutes, so much that I had to wait in the abandonded gas station that is just at the turn off for the county road. Wipers on high speed couldn't even touch it.

 

It may have been steel. It looked and felt like PVC when I was getting the cache out. It's also a lot drier there in your picture that when I was there. The entire area was under about 2-3 inches of water, and there was more of the pipe exposed. I can't post my pictures till later tonight since they're on my home computer.

 

 

The cache was not buried. It is/was in a piece of 6 inch PVC pipe that was sunk into the ground, and that pipe stuck up about 4-6 inches. The cache container was put into the pipe

According to the guidelines, what you described is a textbook example of what a buried cache is. Remember the whole, "If a shovel, trowel or other pointy object is used to dig or break ground, whether in order to hide or to find the cache," part? Mingo is clearly a buried cache. That's not really up for debate. The question I had was if the Reviewers would willingly ignore a guideline with no ambiguity in it, such as "Caches are never buried", if the cache was buried prior to that guideline being created. Brian answered that for me.

ad19a87a-bbc0-4556-ad0f-57be4f69bdf5.jpg

Here's a clearer, and far more recent photo of the hide. For some reason, I remembered it as a steel pipe that the "6-inch PVC" sat in.

 

3bed6369-ded5-467e-b7cf-8fb55dd7f66c.jpg

May have been as I don't know when you were there (today perhaps? :rolleyes: ) but for clarity, the pic CR posted is timestamped 5-10-2000, and the most recent one I found that actually showed the hide is from January 2011. Pictures can be very deceiving, especially dated ones. I found Mingo in 2008, and it sure looked like a 6-inch PVC pipe sitting in a much larger steel pipe to me.

Link to comment

Why would you hate to be the fool who placed the needs maintenance log?? When is it appropriate (or not appropriate) to report a cache that has been muggled, and the CO appears to not be an active participant anymore?? BTW, I really don't like being called a fool in a public forum.......especially by someone who has never been to the cache in question.

 

 

I would hate to be the fool to put the maintenance log on the oldest active cache that may cause it to be archived. I really wanted to find Mingo someday and hoping the CO can go replace it or allow the one placed down to be the replacement.

We found the 2nd oldest cache on Saturday and if this is the same person then they will have the same hard time finding it then we did. We eventually did with the 4 of us.

When I saw the log of Leaky spoon that they found the hole then came back and found it filled in? That is strange! Some muggle fed up with it being there, a muggle who just wants to be mean, or cacher on revenge for some reason.

I reported an issue with a old cache before and been jumped on by other cachers. If the cache had gotten archived because of my request and the cache owner didn't respond I know how other cachers would have treated me. The maintainer of that cache responded to me about the issue and I took off the NM request now know why.

Link to comment

Why would you hate to be the fool who placed the needs maintenance log?? When is it appropriate (or not appropriate) to report a cache that has been muggled, and the CO appears to not be an active participant anymore?? BTW, I really don't like being called a fool in a public forum.......especially by someone who has never been to the cache in question.

 

 

I would hate to be the fool to put the maintenance log on the oldest active cache that may cause it to be archived. I really wanted to find Mingo someday and hoping the CO can go replace it or allow the one placed down to be the replacement.

We found the 2nd oldest cache on Saturday and if this is the same person then they will have the same hard time finding it then we did. We eventually did with the 4 of us.

When I saw the log of Leaky spoon that they found the hole then came back and found it filled in? That is strange! Some muggle fed up with it being there, a muggle who just wants to be mean, or cacher on revenge for some reason.

I reported an issue with a old cache before and been jumped on by other cachers. If the cache had gotten archived because of my request and the cache owner didn't respond I know how other cachers would have treated me. The maintainer of that cache responded to me about the issue and I took off the NM request now know why.

Old/historic caches are watched by lots of people so the likelihood of armchair NM/NA logs increases. Doesn't make it right, but it happens.

 

If you're ever unsure, an email directly to the cache owner is the way to go.

Link to comment

My error on who can mark them missing, I admit. But without an NM log, how is anyone to know that there is a problem and that they are missing?? The original poster said they emailed the CO but didn't expect a response. How else would people know that there is something going on??

 

 

How about the 20+ trackables that are now missing? Only the CO can mark them as missing by sending out message to the owners. That will change their status as well.

 

Thats pretty cool how you ignored the question: There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

Incorrect. The trackable owners can mark them missing as well.

And a Reviewer. :)

A NM log will only alert the CO. If you want trackable owners to know about it, or a reviewer, then you would need to email them directly.

NM will not draw attention from reviewers but but actually they do if they also cache too and have some on their watchlists like we do. NA will definitely draw attention.

Link to comment

My error on who can mark them missing, I admit. But without an NM log, how is anyone to know that there is a problem and that they are missing?? The original poster said they emailed the CO but didn't expect a response. How else would people know that there is something going on??

 

 

How about the 20+ trackables that are now missing? Only the CO can mark them as missing by sending out message to the owners. That will change their status as well.

 

Thats pretty cool how you ignored the question: There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

Incorrect. The trackable owners can mark them missing as well.

And a Reviewer. :)

A NM log will only alert the CO. If you want trackable owners to know about it, or a reviewer, then you would need to email them directly.

NM will not draw attention from reviewers but but actually they do if they also cache too and have some on their watchlists like we do. NA will definitely draw attention.

Sure, it's always a possibility, but not the best solution.

 

edit: I was talking about the NM, specifically.

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment

I placed a need maintenance log so that it would flag that it needs his attention/intervention.

 

Why did you think it was your responsibility to log a NM?

 

Yes. I only put NM on caches where I have observed the need for maintenance. Certainly not on a cache that I found last year where the problem is recent, and someone else has already cited the problem.

Link to comment

Actually, I have visited Mingo. Have you??

 

CO has not been online for at least 6 weeks, and has not found a cache in almost two years. If he has moved onto other activities, hopefully he will allow the cache to be adopted and maintained. That is allowable but only with the CO's approval. I placed a need maintenance log so that it would flag that it needs his attention/intervention. Replacing the cache is an admirable thing to do, but ultimately it is the CO's responsibility to determine the cache's final disposition, just like it was with the APE cache.

 

I dont think it was your place to post a NM log. There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

 

I would never post a NM on a cache that I have never visited.

Yes, I have, and I also don't think the NM was necessary. The CO received a copy of the log noted in Post #1, and by that was alerted to an issue with the cache. All you did was needlessly raise it to a higher level.

In addition, those leaving notes on the cache page are likely to get the cache page locked.

Link to comment

How about the 20+ trackables that are now missing? Only the CO can mark them as missing by sending out message to the owners. That will change their status as well.

 

Thats pretty cool how you ignored the question: There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

Pretty minor reason to post a NM log. I personally have NEVER seen a NM log posted for that reason.

Link to comment

I just read the log. Replacing a container like that is commendable, logging your replacement isn't so cool. Just my pair of pennies...

 

Here is my take on it....I, too, think it is commendable to want to restore a cache to working condition. I've done so myself a time or two, though not a cache of this importance and fame. It does not mean that the CO can't come in and replace it to his/her specifications. It just is a place-holder to keep it going until the repair can be made permanent. The cache itself is beside a public road. The fence is between the road and the interstate right-of-way. It is not "buried" per se, but was a smaller container inside a metal tube that was sunk in the ground. The actual container was readily available to lift out of the tube and examine the contents. It was not covered, or wasn't when I visited last Sept. I wondered how water kept from accumulating in the tube, but after thinking about it, I do not think there was a metal bottom, so water just probably drained out.

Link to comment

I just read the log. Replacing a container like that is commendable, logging your replacement isn't so cool. Just my pair of pennies...

 

Here is my take on it....I, too, think it is commendable to want to restore a cache to working condition. I've done so myself a time or two, though not a cache of this importance and fame. It does not mean that the CO can't come in and replace it to his/her specifications. It just is a place-holder to keep it going until the repair can be made permanent. The cache itself is beside a public road. The fence is between the road and the interstate right-of-way. It is not "buried" per se, but was a smaller container inside a metal tube that was sunk in the ground. The actual container was readily available to lift out of the tube and examine the contents. It was not covered, or wasn't when I visited last Sept. I wondered how water kept from accumulating in the tube, but after thinking about it, I do not think there was a metal bottom, so water just probably drained out.

 

Just to be clear... unless that pipe was in place before the cache was hidden, it would by all means be considered a buried cache by reviewers and Groundspeak, and disallowed today, if they knew that was how it was hidden.

Link to comment

How about the 20+ trackables that are now missing? Only the CO can mark them as missing by sending out message to the owners. That will change their status as well.

 

Thats pretty cool how you ignored the question: There is a cache and a log. What part needs to be maintained?

Pretty minor reason to post a NM log. I personally have NEVER seen a NM log posted for that reason.

 

It wasn't for just that reason. I was simply responding to the question. The reason for posting was to alert the CO that there was a problem with his cache, and the he needed to look into it. Since it is ultimately his responsibility to maintain the cache, if he approves of the replacement, then all they have to do is post a maintenance completed entry. If he doesn't like it, then he can disable it till he can repair/replace to his satisfaction. Or if he doesn't feel like maintaining it, he can put it up for adoption. I'm sure there would be no shortage of folks willing to adopt this one.

Edited by ivhs72
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...