MINGO in jeopardy?

[+Rose Red]

"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."

 

I discovered while doing the Portland Cache Machine II this month that there are at least three cachers in Portland, OR area that actually bury their caches. One of the cachers evidently buries the cache and then cannot find the cache when checking on it so buries another. Cannot find either cache when checking on them so buries another.

[+jellis]

But unless someone reports it,it continues. Locals don't much because they get the rep of being the Cache Police.

But in this case this cache is grandfathered before the rules changed so it is exempt and Groundspeak knows about it. Don't know why that part keeps coming up unless no one reads the previous postings.

The issue rides on if the owner will okay the replacement or if Groundspeak or reviewers archive it if they believe the cacher is no longer active. Of course that takes time. Does anyone know them? They could be on vacation, computer problems, ill, no longer interested or heaven forbid died. Of course it is difficult to adopt out a cache or respond if it were some of those reasons. If they don't respond to an email why would they respond to a N/M request.

So why would you draw more attention to this cache? Be happy it was replaced by someone who cares about those who haven't found it yet.

[Clan Riffster]

But in this case this cache is grandfathered before the rules changed so it is exempt and Groundspeak knows about it. Don't know why that part keeps coming up unless no one reads the previous postings.

Those who read the previous postings, (at least that posting made by a Reviewer), know that buried caches, published prior to the "Caches are never buried" guideline are not always grandfathered. They are evaluated on a case by case basis.

[+jellis]

For a historic cache like this am almost sure Jeremy must have at sometime either visited this cache or heard about it. If he had an issue with it, it would have been archived a long time ago. Just wondering why in 11 years and it goes missing that it is now an issue? If you look at an earlier posting here I showed a clearly new buried cache and seems no one cares to archive that, even if they said they got permission. In a park!?! No less, and in the open next where you walk.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

But unless someone reports it,it continues. Locals don't much because they get the rep of being the Cache Police.

 

And that is why I (and a few others) just drop a private email to the local reviewer. Less angst.

[Clan Riffster]

For a historic cache like this am almost sure Jeremy must have at sometime either visited this cache or heard about it.

Has Jeremy found Mingo? No reason to speculate. If you go here, and scroll down, you'll find a list, in chronological order of everyone who has logged a find on it. I didn't see his name. Thinking I may have missed it amongst all the other logs, I checked his profile. Didn't see it there either. Has he heard about it? Quite possibly. Does he know it's a buried cache? Maybe. I did see some Reviewers who found it, and they didn't seem too concerned. I was fascinated by the number of folks I know who have taken long trips just to find this cache. There was a time when I would have wanted to add my name to the list of monikers, so I could be part of the history of the cache, but we learned in another thread, about another iconic cache, that history is pretty irrelevant. It's just another smiley. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

(OK, sarcasm off. I'd still love to have the "experience" of adding my name to that list)

 

On a positive note, I did see a whole bunch of maintenance conducted logs from the owner. It appears he takes his cache ownership duties pretty seriously. If that trend continues, (and I see nothing that would lead me to believe it won't), Mingo should be restored to its former glory at some point in the near future. Can we say "Roadtrip!"?

 

Just wondering why in 11 years and it goes missing that it is now an issue?

What issue" are you reffering to? Frankly, I'm seeing nothing more than some inquisitive folks asking questions, a few folks bemoaning the fact that it was taken, a few folks burying their collective heads in the sand, (pun intended), insisting that Mingo was not buried, and a few folks bashing someone for having the audacity to post a NM on a cache that clearly needs maintenance.

 

(That is, assuming that a cache which is stolen, along with the object used to conceal it, in such a manner as to indicate that someone had a serious problem with this cache being there, and was later replaced with something drastically different from the owner's intent, without any communication betwixt the owner and the replacer, requires maintenance)

 

Are you seeing some "issue" that is hidden from us mere mortals?

 

If you look at an earlier posting here I showed a clearly new buried cache and seems no one cares to archive that

Did you post a NA? If you have a problem with that cache, (and the fact that you brought it up seems to indicate you do), you should take steps to keep that problem from giving geocaching a bad reputation. Then the Reviewer can make the determination if the permission trumps the, (now determined to be untrue), sentiment that "Caches are never buried".

[+Team GPSaxophone]

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.

I don't recall there being a pipe to maintain the hole when I found the cache. The hole had pretty much collapsed and the cache just sitting there. i found a picture in the logs from around the time of my find where you can clearly see the cache in that state:

 

Edited June 29, 2011 by Team GPSaxophone

[+GeoGeeBee]

I don't recall there being a pipe to maintain the hole when I found the cache. The hole had pretty much collapsed and the cache just sitting there. i found a picture in the logs from around the time of my find where you can clearly see the cache in that state:

 

 

Wow, that's pretty awful. Maybe I should go post a NA on it?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I don't recall there being a pipe to maintain the hole when I found the cache. The hole had pretty much collapsed and the cache just sitting there. i found a picture in the logs from around the time of my find where you can clearly see the cache in that state:

 

 

Wow, that's pretty awful. Maybe I should go post a NA on it?

Only if you back date it to 2005.

[+jellis]

If you look at an earlier posting here I showed a clearly new buried cache and seems no one cares to archive that

Did you post a NA? If you have a problem with that cache, (and the fact that you brought it up seems to indicate you do), you should take steps to keep that problem from giving geocaching a bad reputation. Then the Reviewer can make the determination if the permission trumps the, (now determined to be untrue), sentiment that "Caches are never buried".

I did report it to the reviewer by email. And he did archive it. But the reviewer reinstated it saying they have permission. But when I talked to a Lackey he said even if the cacher got permission from the park manager doesn't mean they got it from the Parks Dept who may not want the legal issues if anything comes up. By the time I got that email too many cachers had said how great the cache is and I don't want to be the bad guy. But I am sure I will see other caches in the ground because this one was so called allowed.

Edited June 29, 2011 by jellis

[+addisonbr]

Has [he] found Mingo? No reason to speculate. If you go here, and scroll down, you'll find a list, in chronological order of everyone who has logged a find on it. I didn't see his name. Thinking I may have missed it amongst all the other logs, I checked his profile. Didn't see it there either.

FWIW, I don't think everyone logs every find online. No idea if it would apply here, but I don't think it's unreasonable to give allowance for offline discoveries.

Edited June 29, 2011 by addisonbr

[4wheelin_fool]

"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."

 

I discovered while doing the Portland Cache Machine II this month that there are at least three cachers in Portland, OR area that actually bury their caches. One of the cachers evidently buries the cache and then cannot find the cache when checking on it so buries another. Cannot find either cache when checking on them so buries another.

 

Those cachers should be archived. However, if there were a NA log for posting on individual profiles, it probably would be misconstrued to mean Narcotics Anonymous.

[knowschad]

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.

 

Yes. The question was, "What part needed to be maintained?" (as in, why did you feel the need to post an NM log). Your answer was, "What arout the trackables?". Sure sounds to me like you gave your reason right there, and I'm saying that I have never seen that as a reason before. The cache owner, if he sees your NM log, has already seen the log that the container went missing and has been replaced. Your NM was, at best, redundant, and at worst, a red flag for a reviewer doing a routine sweep of unmaintained caches.

[+jellis]

"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."

 

I discovered while doing the Portland Cache Machine II this month that there are at least three cachers in Portland, OR area that actually bury their caches. One of the cachers evidently buries the cache and then cannot find the cache when checking on it so buries another. Cannot find either cache when checking on them so buries another.

 

Those cachers should be archived. However, if there were a NA log for posting on individual profiles, it probably would be misconstrued to mean Narcotics Anonymous.

I just logged into a cache from our PDX CMII trip and I think we found one of the caches you may have been talking about. But it was not on the route. A pvc pipe in the ground and a container in it and something glued to the top. Not likely the pipe was there before because it was in a forest.

Edited June 29, 2011 by jellis

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Your NM was, at best, redundant, and at worst, a red flag for a reviewer doing a routine sweep of unmaintained caches.

It's one thing if there were no finds for a couple of months (or at least several weeks) after the NM log. That would probably get a reviewer's attention, but only if the cache was disabled by the owner. Even if they could filter PQs using the NM attribute they would give the cache owner time (normally a few weeks as specified in the guidelines) to fix any issues.

[knowschad]

Kansas Stasher

Member Since:Monday, 04 September 2000

Last Visit:Wednesday, 29 June 2011

 

 

Edited June 29, 2011 by knowschad

[+jellis]

Glad to see the owner will be replacing the cache soon.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Glad to see the owner will be replacing the cache soon.

 

It seems that most of the recent logs and responses in this thread assume the cache was taken by a muggle. I just can't come up with a reasonable explanation for why a muggle would take the cache, then return later to fill the pipe it was in full of dirt. Hopefully the owner will try to determine if the land manager had anything to do with the removal of the cache before replacing the container.

[Clan Riffster]

Kansas Stasher

Member Since:Monday, 04 September 2000

Last Visit:Wednesday, 29 June 2011

 

He's back! Whoo Hoo!!

[Clan Riffster]

But the reviewer reinstated it saying they have permission.

Well, I guess that answers my question.

Contrary to what the guidelines claim, sometimes caches are buried.

Even in parks.

[jholly]

Kansas Stasher

Member Since:Monday, 04 September 2000

Last Visit:Wednesday, 29 June 2011

 

He's back! Whoo Hoo!!

and he said ...

Just found out about the missing container. I have another one like the original and will get out there in the next day or two to replace it. Thanks for all the words of support for Mingo.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

But the reviewer reinstated it saying they have permission.

Well, I guess that answers my question.

Contrary to what the guidelines claim, sometimes caches are buried.

Even in parks.

 

I have two hides in a State Park that required digging. Not only did I have permission, but the Park provided the signs I needed to facilitate the hides! ("Authorized Vehicles Only" and "Stay Off the GolF Course")

[+jellis]

But the reviewer reinstated it saying they have permission.

Well, I guess that answers my question.

Contrary to what the guidelines claim, sometimes caches are buried.

Even in parks.

Jeremy says caches should never be buried. And if you included the rest of the post says the Lackey disagrees with it. He said he doubts the park would ever allow it.

Edited June 29, 2011 by jellis

[Dinoprophet]

Wait, the CO only has 96 finds?! Well, there's your problem. He shouldn't have been allowed to hide one until he had at least 500.

[+jellis]

But the reviewer reinstated it saying they have permission.

Well, I guess that answers my question.

Contrary to what the guidelines claim, sometimes caches are buried.

Even in parks.

 

I have two hides in a State Park that required digging. Not only did I have permission, but the Park provided the signs I needed to facilitate the hides! ("Authorized Vehicles Only" and "Stay Off the GolF Course")

If these were after the guidelines change you wouldn't mind telling me which ones they are and I can ask GS if these are allowed.

Edited June 29, 2011 by jellis

[7rxc]

I have two hides in a State Park that required digging. Not only did I have permission, but the Park provided the signs I needed to facilitate the hides! ("Authorized Vehicles Only" and "Stay Off the GolF Course")

If these were after the guidelines change you wouldn't mind telling me which ones they are and I can ask GS if these are allowed.

lets see.. state parks erected needed signs as per request and did the needed digging, owner hid nanos on the sign posts with permission... seems about right... cache not buried.

 

Doug 7rxc

Edited June 29, 2011 by 7rxc

[Clan Riffster]

Jeremy says caches should never be buried.

But the Reviewer said they could be buried... Sometimes...

Prior to seeing your post, I was under the impression that the statement "Caches are never buried" had very little wiggle room. When I see a term like "Never", I figure it means "Never". That's probably my second favorite part of the guidelines, as I agree wholeheartedly with the reasoning behind the wording. So many misinformed land managers fear allowing geocaches on their properties because of the perception that we bury them. With that guideline, we could look the land managers right in the eye and tell them "Absolutely not. There is no way Groundspeak, or its staff of volunteer Reviewers would allow a buried cache to be listed on their website". When I read your post, I learned that I can no longer give that assurance to land managers and keep any shred of integrity, as some Reviewers will allow buried caches, in parks.

[jholly]

Jeremy says caches should never be buried.

But the Reviewer said they could be buried... Sometimes...

Prior to seeing your post, I was under the impression that the statement "Caches are never buried" had very little wiggle room. When I see a term like "Never", I figure it means "Never". That's probably my second favorite part of the guidelines, as I agree wholeheartedly with the reasoning behind the wording. So many misinformed land managers fear allowing geocaches on their properties because of the perception that we bury them. With that guideline, we could look the land managers right in the eye and tell them "Absolutely not. There is no way Groundspeak, or its staff of volunteer Reviewers would allow a buried cache to be listed on their website". When I read your post, I learned that I can no longer give that assurance to land managers and keep any shred of integrity, as some Reviewers will allow buried caches, in parks.

I think any *new* cache today can not be buried. Where they buried in the past? yes, a number of the low GC number caches were buried. Are these still buried today? yes. If you get on the way back machine the very first guideline was "be sure you have permission". Before that there were no guidelines. Things have tighten up in the last 11 years.

[+jellis]

I'm just happy to hear the CO is alive and well and will have it back up. Sad about all the missing trackables. But that happens with any cache even when the container doesn't go missing.

I'm done here and now on to do my other hobby I love to do. FIREWORKS!!!!!!!! If anyone is in my area and wants to volunteer let me know.

[Clan Riffster]

I think any *new* cache today can not be buried.

The post from Jellis, (# 110, I think), stated that the cache he reported as being buried was a new cache. It was archived due to the guideline violation, then reinstated, when the Reviewer was told it had permission to be buried. Knowing this, I can no longer tell land managers that "caches are never buried" without being dishonest.

[+dfx]

Knowing this, I can no longer tell land managers that "caches are never buried" without being dishonest.

 

Maybe you should say "they're never buried without your consent" instead.

[+Castle Mischief]

Guidelines != rules. Sheesh.

[knowschad]

Guidelines != rules. Sheesh.

 

Never != Sometimes. Sheesh.

[+addisonbr]

I can no longer tell land managers that "caches are never buried"

I'm pretty much with CR on this. I like the bright-line test for both land managers and new cachers. I think it serves some very useful purposes.

[+B+L]

If you get on the way back machine the very first guideline was "be sure you have permission". Before that there were no guidelines. Things have tighten up in the last 11 years.

The original guidelines were slightly more complicated than that:

 

Preliminary FAQ Ver0.0 (by Dave the Ulmer)

 

The guidelines have been widely ignored ever since.

[knowschad]

If you get on the way back machine the very first guideline was "be sure you have permission". Before that there were no guidelines. Things have tighten up in the last 11 years.

The original guidelines were slightly more complicated than that:

 

Preliminary FAQ Ver0.0 (by Dave the Ulmer)

 

The guidelines have been widely ignored ever since.

 

I want a new cache type!!

CAR STASHES

 

Cars make great stashes, they are waterproof and can hold a lot

of stuff. They can be enjoyable as well as troublesome.

 

 

[+jellis]

Found the email I received from the Lackey I asked about the cache. Only gave the initials but I am sure you can figure who they were.

 

Jellis,

 

We strongly resist publishing caches that are buried, even with permission, as that just creates ideas in the minds of others. But if push comes to shove, we will publish a cache hidden in that manner after confirming that the person granting permission has the authority to do so. In the case of a city park, it's pretty rare to find someone who is wiling to provide their name and contact information to us because their boss might later ask "what were you thinking?"

 

We do have the cache owner provide a clear statement on the cache page that the cache and hide method has been granted permission by x, with x being the department or organization granting permission. We don't put people's names and contact information on the publicly viewable part of the cache page.

 

If you have a specific issue in mind, please send a new message to contact@

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

-BW

[jd-mitchell]

Jeremy says caches should never be buried.

But the Reviewer said they could be buried... Sometimes...

Prior to seeing your post, I was under the impression that the statement "Caches are never buried" had very little wiggle room. When I see a term like "Never", I figure it means "Never". That's probably my second favorite part of the guidelines, as I agree wholeheartedly with the reasoning behind the wording. So many misinformed land managers fear allowing geocaches on their properties because of the perception that we bury them. With that guideline, we could look the land managers right in the eye and tell them "Absolutely not. There is no way Groundspeak, or its staff of volunteer Reviewers would allow a buried cache to be listed on their website". When I read your post, I learned that I can no longer give that assurance to land managers and keep any shred of integrity, as some Reviewers will allow buried caches, in parks.

 

I think any *new* cache today can not be buried. Where they buried in the past? yes, a number of the low GC number caches were buried. Are these still buried today? yes. If you get on the way back machine the very first guideline was "be sure you have permission". Before that there were no guidelines. Things have tighten up in the last 11 years.

That's what I was referring to when I made the comment on it being grandfathered in due to historical significance. The wording was correct.

Edited June 29, 2011 by jd-mitchell

[+addisonbr]

But if push comes to shove, we will publish a cache hidden in that manner after confirming that the person granting permission has the authority to do so.

Wow. Color me pretty surprised.

Edited June 29, 2011 by addisonbr

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I have two hides in a State Park that required digging. Not only did I have permission, but the Park provided the signs I needed to facilitate the hides! ("Authorized Vehicles Only" and "Stay Off the GolF Course")

If these were after the guidelines change you wouldn't mind telling me which ones they are and I can ask GS if these are allowed.

lets see.. state parks erected needed signs as per request and did the needed digging, owner hid nanos on the sign posts with permission... seems about right... cache not buried.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

Not exactly.

 

Cacher asks state park worker who caches if they need some signs anywhere..and get a "Yes, here are the signs." Cacher then assembles signs and posts (making for non-nano, unique hides). Cacher then travels to park with shovels and post-hole digger and proceeds to install signs for the State. So, state park gets signs installed free of charge, and cachers get some pretty cool hides.

 

If I remember correctly, photos of at least the first hide were provided to my local reviewer for full disclosure. I think his reply back was something long the lines of "You're evil." I took it as a compliment.

[+youkfish]

I'm just happy to hear the CO is alive and well and will have it back up. Sad about all the missing trackables. But that happens with any cache even when the container doesn't go missing.

I'm done here and now on to do my other hobby I love to do. FIREWORKS!!!!!!!! If anyone is in my area and wants to volunteer let me know.

 

I'm guessing that the cache had very few (if any) trackables in it. I made the find last Christmas time and there were 15 or so listed and only 1 present. Don't know why, but that's probably another thread around here.

[+jellis]

I have two hides in a State Park that required digging. Not only did I have permission, but the Park provided the signs I needed to facilitate the hides! ("Authorized Vehicles Only" and "Stay Off the GolF Course")

If these were after the guidelines change you wouldn't mind telling me which ones they are and I can ask GS if these are allowed.

lets see.. state parks erected needed signs as per request and did the needed digging, owner hid nanos on the sign posts with permission... seems about right... cache not buried.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

Not exactly.

 

Cacher asks state park worker who caches if they need some signs anywhere..and get a "Yes, here are the signs." Cacher then assembles signs and posts (making for non-nano, unique hides). Cacher then travels to park with shovels and post-hole digger and proceeds to install signs for the State. So, state park gets signs installed free of charge, and cachers get some pretty cool hides.

 

If I remember correctly, photos of at least the first hide were provided to my local reviewer for full disclosure. I think his reply back was something long the lines of "You're evil." I took it as a compliment.

So not sure how that is buried. The sign post maybe but the sign and the whole container sounds like it is above ground. The sign would have gone in with or without the container. So how does that relate to the discussion that the container is buried?

Edited June 30, 2011 by jellis

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have two hides in a State Park that required digging. Not only did I have permission, but the Park provided the signs I needed to facilitate the hides! ("Authorized Vehicles Only" and "Stay Off the GolF Course")

If these were after the guidelines change you wouldn't mind telling me which ones they are and I can ask GS if these are allowed.

lets see.. state parks erected needed signs as per request and did the needed digging, owner hid nanos on the sign posts with permission... seems about right... cache not buried.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

Not exactly.

 

Cacher asks state park worker who caches if they need some signs anywhere..and get a "Yes, here are the signs." Cacher then assembles signs and posts (making for non-nano, unique hides). Cacher then travels to park with shovels and post-hole digger and proceeds to install signs for the State. So, state park gets signs installed free of charge, and cachers get some pretty cool hides.

 

If I remember correctly, photos of at least the first hide were provided to my local reviewer for full disclosure. I think his reply back was something long the lines of "You're evil." I took it as a compliment.

So not sure how that is buried. The sign post maybe but the sign and the whole container sounds like it is above ground. The sign would have gone in with or without the container. So how does that relate to the discussion that the container is buried?

 

BBW didn't say that it was buried. He said it required digging, and did so with the permission of the land manager.

 

Suppose I wanted to hide a cache in a public park that had a liberal policy on geocaching. So I find a spot with several trees nearby and proceed to dig several large holes, refill the holes with dirt, then cover each of them up with a small pile of rocks. Instead of hiding the container under one of the piles of rocks, I hide the container in one of the trees.

Some might even argue that the cache doesn't violate the guideline because the container is not buried, but if the land manager came across my work, they just might change their policy on geocaches in the park if they discovered that someone had dug a bunch of holes and they were related to the game of geocaching.

 

As I've said before, the purpose of the guideline is not to prevent geocachers from using pointy objects, or in the act of digging. It's to diminish the perception among many non-geocachers that geocaching is about finding buried treasure. Or even more generally, it promotes the idea that geocachers are not going to engage in reckless or destructive behavior while playing the game. Even when a specific hiding technique technically falls within the guidelines, any sort of behavior that tarnishes the responsible, environmentally conscience image we should be portraying is just a really bad idea.

[+briansnat]

I have two hides in a State Park that required digging. Not only did I have permission, but the Park provided the signs I needed to facilitate the hides! ("Authorized Vehicles Only" and "Stay Off the GolF Course")

If these were after the guidelines change you wouldn't mind telling me which ones they are and I can ask GS if these are allowed.

lets see.. state parks erected needed signs as per request and did the needed digging, owner hid nanos on the sign posts with permission... seems about right... cache not buried.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

Not exactly.

 

Cacher asks state park worker who caches if they need some signs anywhere..and get a "Yes, here are the signs." Cacher then assembles signs and posts (making for non-nano, unique hides). Cacher then travels to park with shovels and post-hole digger and proceeds to install signs for the State. So, state park gets signs installed free of charge, and cachers get some pretty cool hides.

 

If I remember correctly, photos of at least the first hide were provided to my local reviewer for full disclosure. I think his reply back was something long the lines of "You're evil." I took it as a compliment.

So not sure how that is buried. The sign post maybe but the sign and the whole container sounds like it is above ground. The sign would have gone in with or without the container. So how does that relate to the discussion that the container is buried?

 

Under normal circumstances that would be a guideline violation, as digging was required to hide the cache. In this case he apparently did it with the permission and cooperation of the land manager.

 

Still, even with land manager approval most reviewers will try to discourage digging or other apparent guideline violations.

 

I do trail building and maintenance in NJ state parks. I was clearing a new trail and a park superintendent was with me. I chainsawed a deadfall that was blocking a trail and the super half jokingly said that I should cut out a hiding place for a cache in the section of trunk that we had removed. I could have easily carved out a spot for an ammo box or Lock n Lock with the chainsaw. I thought about it, then decided that it was a bad idea because others may try to emulate it.

[+addisonbr]

As I've said before, the purpose of the guideline is not to prevent geocachers from using pointy objects, or in the act of digging. It's to diminish the perception among many non-geocachers that geocaching is about finding buried treasure. Or even more generally, it promotes the idea that geocachers are not going to engage in reckless or destructive behavior while playing the game. Even when a specific hiding technique technically falls within the guidelines, any sort of behavior that tarnishes the responsible, environmentally conscience image we should be portraying is just a really bad idea.

I do trail building and maintenance in NJ state parks. I was clearing a new trail and a park superintendent was with me. I chainsawed a deadfall that was blocking a trail and the super half jokingly said that I should cut out a hiding place for a cache in the section of trunk that we had removed. I could have easily carved out a spot for an ammo box or Lock n Lock with the chainsaw. I thought about it, then decided that it was a bad idea because others may try to emulate it.

Yes. This and this. Theory and practice.

[+hzoi]

If you get on the way back machine the very first guideline was "be sure you have permission". Before that there were no guidelines. Things have tighten up in the last 11 years.

The original guidelines were slightly more complicated than that:

 

Preliminary FAQ Ver0.0 (by Dave the Ulmer)

 

The guidelines have been widely ignored ever since.

 

I want a new cache type!!

CAR STASHES

 

Cars make great stashes, they are waterproof and can hold a lot

of stuff. They can be enjoyable as well as troublesome.

 

 

I had the exact same reaction. I bet we'd get a lot of "legitimate businessmen" interested in caching if we brought back car stashes.

 

-----------

 

For those who hadn't seen it, it looks like Mingo will abide:

 

Just found out about the missing container. I have another one like the original and will get out there in the next day or two to replace it. Thanks for all the words of support for Mingo.

[knowschad]

I have two hides in a State Park that required digging. Not only did I have permission, but the Park provided the signs I needed to facilitate the hides! ("Authorized Vehicles Only" and "Stay Off the GolF Course")

If these were after the guidelines change you wouldn't mind telling me which ones they are and I can ask GS if these are allowed.

lets see.. state parks erected needed signs as per request and did the needed digging, owner hid nanos on the sign posts with permission... seems about right... cache not buried.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

Not exactly.

 

Cacher asks state park worker who caches if they need some signs anywhere..and get a "Yes, here are the signs." Cacher then assembles signs and posts (making for non-nano, unique hides). Cacher then travels to park with shovels and post-hole digger and proceeds to install signs for the State. So, state park gets signs installed free of charge, and cachers get some pretty cool hides.

 

If I remember correctly, photos of at least the first hide were provided to my local reviewer for full disclosure. I think his reply back was something long the lines of "You're evil." I took it as a compliment.

So not sure how that is buried. The sign post maybe but the sign and the whole container sounds like it is above ground. The sign would have gone in with or without the container. So how does that relate to the discussion that the container is buried?

 

Under normal circumstances that would be a guideline violation, as digging was required to hide the cache. In this case he apparently did it with the permission and cooperation of the land manager.

 

Still, even with land manager approval most reviewers will try to discourage digging or other apparent guideline violations.

 

I do trail building and maintenance in NJ state parks. I was clearing a new trail and a park superintendent was with me. I chainsawed a deadfall that was blocking a trail and the super half jokingly said that I should cut out a hiding place for a cache in the section of trunk that we had removed. I could have easily carved out a spot for an ammo box or Lock n Lock with the chainsaw. I thought about it, then decided that it was a bad idea because others may try to emulate it.

 

The way I read it, he was really just joking. The "digging" simply involved posthole digging for the park to plant the sign. The cache is somehow hidden on the sign. If the sign had already been in place, no digging would have been involved.

[+geo-jenkins]

I was passing thru yesterday, and logged the find with the new container. I will post pictures with my log soon.

 

I would describe the site as like a mini fire pit. There is a metal pipe about 16-18 inches in diameter, that is flush with the ground. The pit is about 8 inches deep with dirtt at the bottom. It sounds like, based on other logs, that someone leveled off the pit with dirt, but then that dirt was taken back out to put in the new container.

 

A couple other things I noticed. The exit is right off the interstate. The cache is actually less than 200 feet from the interstate, but you wouldn't & shouldn't park along the interstate to go get it, cuz "caching is dangerous, and you could die".

 

You have to take a small dirt frontage road to back track to the site, and can park with 50 feet of the cache.

 

I think one of the reasons this has lasted so long, is because there is literally nothing else here. There has just not been any development here, which has helped it's longevity. And I honestly don't see anything happening anytime soon. The infrastructure feeder roads in this area are pretty bad off too.

 

So, I'm glad I was able to find it, and I don't think it should be archived at all, since it is still fully functional as a cache.

[+grateful cacher]

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.

 

Yes. The question was, "What part needed to be maintained?" (as in, why did you feel the need to post an NM log). Your answer was, "What arout the trackables?". Sure sounds to me like you gave your reason right there, and I'm saying that I have never seen that as a reason before. The cache owner, if he sees your NM log, has already seen the log that the container went missing and has been replaced. Your NM was, at best, redundant, and at worst, a red flag for a reviewer doing a routine sweep of unmaintained caches.

 

 

Actually, the full question was "There is a log and a container. What part needs to be maintained?". That makes my response seem a little more accurate. Just because someone put a log and a container to replace the missing one may not adequately fulfill the maintenance to restore the cache to how the CO wants it to be. Notice that the CO (who thankfully is stil in the game) said that he has a container like the one that was taken and will replace it in a couple of days. If one of my caches is reported missing (either via a log or a NM entry), I disable it at once so that cachers know that there is an issue. If someone replaces one of my containers and notes it, I still disable it till I can check it out. That will ensure that the cache is still within the parameters that I submitted it for approval (ie, where it's hidden, proper cammo, etc. etc). Then I will renable it. I've never put an NM entry for missing trackables, and that was not the sole reason for this entry. Also, how do you know that the CO would have seen the entry about the missing container before seeing the NM log?? If all the emails are for cachers finding it, one would think nothing out of the ordinary, unless every log is read. But an NM log would, or should, draw their attention to it. Isn't that's what they're is for? in hindsight, I'll admit to a breach of etiquitte on posting the NM log, but it was not intended to cause any harm to the cache. To quote Stan Lee, " 'nuff said!".

[knowschad]

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.

 

Yes. The question was, "What part needed to be maintained?" (as in, why did you feel the need to post an NM log). Your answer was, "What arout the trackables?". Sure sounds to me like you gave your reason right there, and I'm saying that I have never seen that as a reason before. The cache owner, if he sees your NM log, has already seen the log that the container went missing and has been replaced. Your NM was, at best, redundant, and at worst, a red flag for a reviewer doing a routine sweep of unmaintained caches.

 

 

Actually, the full question was "There is a log and a container. What part needs to be maintained?". That makes my response seem a little more accurate. Just because someone put a log and a container to replace the missing one may not adequately fulfill the maintenance to restore the cache to how the CO wants it to be. Notice that the CO (who thankfully is stil in the game) said that he has a container like the one that was taken and will replace it in a couple of days. If one of my caches is reported missing (either via a log or a NM entry), I disable it at once so that cachers know that there is an issue. If someone replaces one of my containers and notes it, I still disable it till I can check it out. That will ensure that the cache is still within the parameters that I submitted it for approval (ie, where it's hidden, proper cammo, etc. etc). Then I will renable it. I've never put an NM entry for missing trackables, and that was not the sole reason for this entry. Also, how do you know that the CO would have seen the entry about the missing container before seeing the NM log?? If all the emails are for cachers finding it, one would think nothing out of the ordinary, unless every log is read. But an NM log would, or should, draw their attention to it. Isn't that's what they're is for? in hindsight, I'll admit to a breach of etiquitte on posting the NM log, but it was not intended to cause any harm to the cache. To quote Stan Lee, " 'nuff said!".

 

Peace.