Jump to content

MINGO in jeopardy?

cheech gang
Followers 14

Recommended Posts

GeoBain

+GeoBain

Posted
Posted
Things are going to get ugly really fast now.

Which I suspect will just get the cache locked, too. <_<

 

That note was removed, but I dont know who removed it.

 

I'm sure Hemlock is watching this one very closely now.

Let the countdown begin...

Interesting. Does the frog always send out hit men from Northern California? Nomex the rouge reviewer archiving that cache in Michigan(?) and now Hemlock taking note of Mingo. I guess it is the 49'er spirit or something.

Local reviewers dont wanna take the heat, so they "hired" someone out of their area to do the dirty job. :laughing:

 

They should not have had to get involved to begin with. This is a classic example of a cache that needs to be disabled until after construction in the area finishes. I don't know why the CO didn't want to disable it.

Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted

We have to ask:

 

Imagine the situation: What if The Kansas Stasher asked the person to place the temporary bison tube?

 

 

And I'm going to answer with another question:

 

What if the current land manager removed the cache and filled up the hole (twice) because they don't want a cache there? It would be unfortunate if that were the case, but I have yet to hear anything which does not rule out that possibility. It doesn't matter if Kansas Stasher or someone else placed a temporary bison tube while the area is under construction. What matters is if *any* cache should located in the spot right now, because as long as there is, there are many that will attempt to find it (I'll be curious to see how long it is before someone logs it even though it's now disabled). If people keep searching for a cache there the current land manager may just decide that they want any containers placed there removed. Permanently.

 

 

If the person who placed the bison tube didn't do it and The Kansas Stasher came by and placed a temporary bison tube, would Team 360 get their panties all in a bunch still? (probably)

 

We offered a valid point and the point is this: there is a valid container at the exact place that MINGO is listed to be. The current construction prevents the replacement of the original or like container at those coordinates. Instead of keeping this oldest active cache in the world, it seems as though Team 360 would rather see it archived. What a joke.

 

I didn't see Team 360 suggesting that the cache be archived. They posted a Needs Maintenance log and the suggestion that it should be disabled. Apparently the local reviewer agrees.

Link to comment
JeePSer

+JeePSer

Posted
Posted

So.... who's responsibility is it to take care of Mingo? The Cache Owner. If the CO says to a cacher that is willing to place a replacement container, "Go Ahead", then what's the problem? you're not there for the container, or the contents, you're there for the site itself, usually.

 

Did the CO ask anyone else to replace it or tell someone who asked him to "Go Ahead"? If so then great. If not then should it be replaced by someone who went there knowing or not knowing the circumstances of why it was missing for the second time? I would think that the first plan of action would be to post a DNF and explain the circumstances of why it is thought to be missing and then give the CO time to respond. Just because it is the oldest active geocache (which is only because the oldest active one before it was archived and the oldest active one before that was archived and the oldest one before that...) and you may have driven hundreds of miles to get there shouldn't mean that you can claim a find on something that is stated in your log that you did not find resulting in you or someone after you putting out a new container so that everyone from that point on can claim a find on something they didn't. All that being said it is up to the CO to allow or delete logs as he or she sees fit.

Link to comment
geodarts

+geodarts

Posted
Posted (edited)

I didn't see Team 360 suggesting that the cache be archived. They posted a Needs Maintenance log and the suggestion that it should be disabled. Apparently the local reviewer agrees.

 

Or at least "a reviewer." I am not arguing with Hemlock's call, but I wonder how long it will be before someone posts something here or starts a new thread complaining about a rogue reviewer from California.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment
Hemlock

+Hemlock

Posted
Posted
... I wonder how long it will be before someone posts something here or starts a new thread complaining about a rogue reviewer from California.

The threats of personal violence are already pouring into my inbox :rolleyes:

 

You'd think I'd killed someone's kitten or something :unsure:

Link to comment
Chokecherry

+Chokecherry

Posted
Posted (edited)
... I wonder how long it will be before someone posts something here or starts a new thread complaining about a rogue reviewer from California.

The threats of personal violence are already pouring into my inbox :rolleyes:

 

You'd think I'd killed someone's kitten or something :unsure:

 

You'd probably be more popular if you killed a kitten.

 

Anyhow seriously???? Threat of violence. Come on people it is just a cache. It's just a game. If you're taking it taht seriously that you would threaten another person. Seriously you need to step back and take a break.

Edited by Chokecherry
Link to comment
jholly

jholly

Posted
Posted
... I wonder how long it will be before someone posts something here or starts a new thread complaining about a rogue reviewer from California.

The threats of personal violence are already pouring into my inbox :rolleyes:

 

You'd think I'd killed someone's kitten or something :unsure:

Ah, just put Nomex on the job. He has the suit for it. :lol:

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

This is an example of why I quit hiding geocaches. The nonsense.

<_< I see that you had a few hides, only one of which seems to have had any "nonsense", although apparently a lot of logs must have been deleted, because there isn't much to see there but the reviewer's note. All of your other hides are archived because "I give up on Geocaching.com. I may move this listing to a competitors site. Goodbye. Thanks all for stopping by."

 

I have never had any "nonsense" to deal with on my caches. Mingo is a bit of a special case because of its history and popularity, but I don't see the cache owner archiving it because of "nonsense".

Link to comment
RayQix

+RayQix

Posted
Posted

I wouldn't threaten anyone about a cache container....

 

I would say that some people take this a little more seriously than others.

 

A: it's a game.

B: it was created by people...for people... to...

C: HAVE FUN.

 

Some folks take this wayyyy to serious. It's a piece of Tupperware....or pill bottle... or whatever.

 

There was life before I geocached... now my time is taken-up with it more though.

 

If the CO isn't taking care of it, then it's up to Groundspeak or a Reviewer to disable or whatever.

 

But again... do we know if the person that replaced the container at Mingo was asked to or not?

 

I only know about Mingo because I researched the "oldest one" and found it...then its on my watchlist.

 

If I find it...great. If not, I dont. I've been to HQ and i've been to original GZ.... I'd like to find Mingo... but if not, i'm not gonna lose sleep over it.

 

GCD would be a bigger loss...in my opinion.... but thats only because there's a "By the Numbers" (http://coord.info/GC33QEQ) Challenge near me. ;)

 

Aside from that.... i'm still gonna go on and hunt at least one-a-day.... and place more out there for others to find.

 

When it's not fun anymore.... i'll stop.

Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted

Someone log a really really late log this morning.

 

Location: Kansas, United States

GeoDudeGPS found Mingo (Disabled) (Traditional Cache) at 7/27/2009

 

Log Date: 7/27/2009

Found with Lazylightning. TFTC

 

But...when I found Lazylighting log, this what I found.

 

Found it

07/27/2010

 

The largest prarie dog in the world at the exit before of the oldest cache in the world. No contest. Sure was fun to find this one.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Someone log a really really late log this morning.

 

Location: Kansas, United States

GeoDudeGPS found Mingo (Disabled) (Traditional Cache) at 7/27/2009

 

Log Date: 7/27/2009

Found with Lazylightning. TFTC

 

But...when I found Lazylighting log, this what I found.

 

Found it

07/27/2010

Logging errors happen. What's the problem?
Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted

Someone log a really really late log this morning.

 

Location: Kansas, United States

GeoDudeGPS found Mingo (Disabled) (Traditional Cache) at 7/27/2009

 

Log Date: 7/27/2009

Found with Lazylightning. TFTC

 

But...when I found Lazylighting log, this what I found.

 

Found it

07/27/2010

Logging errors happen. What's the problem?

 

Why they wait until now? We all know there will be a rush of logging in fear that cache will be archived.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Someone log a really really late log this morning.

 

Location: Kansas, United States

GeoDudeGPS found Mingo (Disabled) (Traditional Cache) at 7/27/2009

 

Log Date: 7/27/2009

Found with Lazylightning. TFTC

 

But...when I found Lazylighting log, this what I found.

 

Found it

07/27/2010

Logging errors happen. What's the problem?

 

Why they wait until now? We all know there will be a rush of logging in fear that cache will be archived.

 

Who knows? They forgot? They saw this thread? Meh!

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Someone log a really really late log this morning.

 

Location: Kansas, United States

GeoDudeGPS found Mingo (Disabled) (Traditional Cache) at 7/27/2009

 

Log Date: 7/27/2009

Found with Lazylightning. TFTC

 

But...when I found Lazylighting log, this what I found.

 

Found it

07/27/2010

Logging errors happen. What's the problem?

 

Why they wait until now? We all know there will be a rush of logging in fear that cache will be archived.

 

You might want to take a look at the photograph and its caption on Lazylighting's profile page. :lol:

Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted

Someone log a really really late log this morning.

 

Location: Kansas, United States

GeoDudeGPS found Mingo (Disabled) (Traditional Cache) at 7/27/2009

 

Log Date: 7/27/2009

Found with Lazylightning. TFTC

 

But...when I found Lazylighting log, this what I found.

 

Found it

07/27/2010

Logging errors happen. What's the problem?

 

Why they wait until now? We all know there will be a rush of logging in fear that cache will be archived.

 

Who knows? They forgot? They saw this thread? Meh!

 

Serious, I dont care, I just posted it to get your attention.

Link to comment
GeoBain

+GeoBain

Posted
Posted
On behalf of countless geocachers around the world, let me be the first to say thank you to the Kansas Stasher for keeping this historic cache alive.

 

I sure hope Kansas Stasher has explicit permission for this cache because rather than keeping this historic cache alive, keeping it active during the construction is likely to lead to its ultimate archival if the property owner gets involved. Since there is construction going on, there are eyes on the cache location. It's probably best to leave it disabled until construction has ceased and cachers can once again look for it without drawing a lot of attention.

Link to comment
Jumpin' Jack Cache

+Jumpin' Jack Cache

Posted
Posted

Looks like the CO fixed the problem but will it get muggled again by the construction workers again? The CO shouldnt fix it until construction is OVER. PERIOD! Now looks like more problems is going to happen. :ph34r:

Just what is it, besides getting attention, about this cache that has your tail all uncurled enough to squeal every time there's a log on it?

 

FWIW, someone happened by the spot a couple of weeks ago & actually talked to someone on the construction site. They were informed that construction was expected to be finished soon and not exactly run offsite at gunpoint or anything...

Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted

Looks like the CO fixed the problem but will it get muggled again by the construction workers again? The CO shouldnt fix it until construction is OVER. PERIOD! Now looks like more problems is going to happen. :ph34r:

Just what is it, besides getting attention, about this cache that has your tail all uncurled enough to squeal every time there's a log on it?

 

I won't speak for SwineFlew but, personally, I'd like to find and log Mingo some day. Continuing to replace a container at that location when it's obvious (at least to me) that someone doesn't want it there. If that someone is the owner of the land where the cache is placed, continuing to keep it as a viable find will pretty much ensure that the location will become unavailable forever. It would be one thing if the container was just missing, but the fact that the hole it was in was filled up (twice) indicates that it's not a typical "muggle stumbles across the cache and decides to take it" scenario.

 

 

FWIW, someone happened by the spot a couple of weeks ago & actually talked to someone on the construction site. They were informed that construction was expected to be finished soon and not exactly run offsite at gunpoint or anything...

 

That's nice, but I haven't see anything while following this saga which indicates that the construction has anything to do with the caches being removed. We don't actually know that construction workers removed (and filled in the hole) that containers that have gone missing, do we? Now, I haven't actually been to the location but from the photos I've seen, the hole the cache was in is very close to a fence which encloses property owned by someone (probably not Kansas DOT). I also haven't looked at property maps so I don't know that the fence is on the property boundary, or if the property boundary actually extends closer to the road and that the cache has actually been on someone's private property for the past 11 years. If it *is* on private property, it seems to me that the CO should contact the land owner and try to get explicit permission. Continuing to try and keep Mingo active by replacing containers, when the possibility exists that the actual land manager is removing them, will pretty much guarantee that I and future geocachers will never have the opportunity to find Mingo.

Link to comment
9CachersAmongUs

9CachersAmongUs

Posted
Posted

Either way we look at it, this one appears to be on Public R.O.W. no matter what side of the fence it is on. The North and South sides of the East/West running fence are both for County roads (CR 25 and CR K). The Northeast side of the Northwest/Southeast running part of the fence is along the R.O.W. for I-70 with CR 25 on the other side.

 

This picture leads us to believe that the cache itself is on the Public R.O.W. for CR 25 as the grade for CR K is elevated to cross over I-70 (this is the "hill" you see in the background).

b900ee80-f386-47b7-b367-228a2b7ccbe0.jpg

 

Therefore, the argument that this cache is on private property is moot point. The person that would have jurisdiction over this site would likely be the county roads commissioner or township commissioner (if existent at this site) Just a little bit of information from us map enthusiasts...

Link to comment
addisonbr

+addisonbr

Posted
Posted
rather than keeping this historic cache alive, keeping it active during the construction is likely to lead to its ultimate archival if the property owner gets involved. Since there is construction going on, there are eyes on the cache location. It's probably best to leave it disabled until construction has ceased and cachers can once again look for it without drawing a lot of attention.

I think this is spot-on.

Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted
It's probably best to leave it disabled until construction has ceased and cachers can once again look for it without drawing a lot of attention.

FWIW, it is still disabled. Replaced, but disabled.

 

It just took him a while to figure out the maintenance log doesn't re-enable the cache.

 

The lifehood of this cache is still in sorry state. Replacing the cache container isnt going to slove the problem here.

 

Personaly, I dont want that cache archived and because of that, its best to get to the root of the problem of WHY it was removed twice this past year and the hole was filled both time. There are red flags right there.

Link to comment
GeoBain

+GeoBain

Posted
Posted (edited)
It's probably best to leave it disabled until construction has ceased and cachers can once again look for it without drawing a lot of attention.

FWIW, it is still disabled. Replaced, but disabled.

 

It just took him a while to figure out the maintenance log doesn't re-enable the cache.

 

The lifehood of this cache is still in sorry state. Replacing the cache container isnt going to slove the problem here.

 

Personaly, I dont want that cache archived and because of that, its best to get to the root of the problem of WHY it was removed twice this past year and the hole was filled both time. There are red flags right there.

 

If it's on the right of way as has been indicated, then my guess is that it's a result of someone with a beef against geocaching in general or some of the workers noticing people snooping around and taking joy in ruining someone's fun.

 

However, it is possible one of the workers reported it up the chain of command and were told to fill it in. In any of these scenarios it would be best to give it a rest for a while before it manages to get archived.

 

It really can't hurt to disable it at least until the construction is finished.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment
SwineFlew

+SwineFlew

Posted
Posted
It's probably best to leave it disabled until construction has ceased and cachers can once again look for it without drawing a lot of attention.

FWIW, it is still disabled. Replaced, but disabled.

 

It just took him a while to figure out the maintenance log doesn't re-enable the cache.

 

The lifehood of this cache is still in sorry state. Replacing the cache container isnt going to slove the problem here.

 

Personaly, I dont want that cache archived and because of that, its best to get to the root of the problem of WHY it was removed twice this past year and the hole was filled both time. There are red flags right there.

 

If it's on the right of way as has been indicated, then my guess is that it's a result of someone with a beef against geocaching in general or some of the workers noticing people snooping around and taking joy in ruining someone's fun.

 

However, it is possible one of the workers reported it up the chain of command and were told to fill it in. In any of these scenarios it would be best to give it a rest for a while before it manages to get archived.

 

It really can't hurt to disable it at least until the construction is finished.

 

I feel its one of the workers thats doing it.

 

However, one of the scenarios that they (construcation company(ies)) may had complained to the county and the county did the removing. Around here, most CO disable their caches for construcation reason and sometime up to a few years if its bridge works. There is a reason to disable a cache to keep people away from the construcation area.

 

Having a cache druing construcation is a recipe for a cache get archived and this is my main concern. Someone is going to get upset all the more and might call GS to shut it down. I know GS will do it no matter how old or special the cache is. So AGAIN, disable the cache until construcation is OVER is the best way to keep that cache going.

 

If the cache is still being remove after the construcation is over, we will cross that bridge later.

Link to comment
knowschad

knowschad

Posted
Posted

Bumping up this thread all over again.

 

Looks like there is more problem again. :unsure:

 

Read my reply to the other thread. I don't think there is a problem other than a leftover micro throwdown.

 

Where is the other cache since they didnt find the "real" cache in the hole?

 

How do you get that out of this?

 

Well, I found it, but I was somewhat disappointed to only find a micro sized container. I was hoping to swap TBs and pick up a new geocoin. Oh well, looks like the county or state put a stake in the ground nearby, so the original had to be downsized.
Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

Bumping up this thread all over again.

 

Looks like there is more problem again. :unsure:

 

Read my reply to the other thread. I don't think there is a problem other than a leftover micro throwdown.

 

Where is the other cache since they didnt find the "real" cache in the hole?

 

It certainly would be difficult to miss the full sized container in the hole, I must say. :huh:

 

I thought everything was A-OK here. Construction was over, and the cache was replaced by the Kansas Stasher. I would like to comment that the note posted on 11/04/11 is totally whacked though. :mad:

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

I would like to comment that the note posted on 11/04/11 is totally whacked though. :mad:

 

Why?

 

Why? Who the heck is that guy to take it upon himself to call the County, ask about permission issues, and pretty much convince a County employee to go look at it? What if the answers were "25 feet from the center of the road", and "no, I looked at it, and I don't want it there"? Buh-Bye Mingo. What on earth compelled him to even call the County? That action had exactly what to do with the fact he didn't like someone throwing down a micro?

Link to comment
Crow-T-Robot

+Crow-T-Robot

Posted
Posted

 

Why? Who the heck is that guy to take it upon himself to call the County, ask about permission issues, and pretty much convince a County employee to go look at it? What if the answers were "25 feet from the center of the road", and "no, I looked at it, and I don't want it there"? Buh-Bye Mingo. What on earth compelled him to even call the County? That action had exactly what to do with the fact he didn't like someone throwing down a micro?

 

I agree that the guy seems like a busy-body, but the cache itself should be able to stand up to the scrutiny. That goes for any cache, really. If the county employee/land owner had said that the cache needed to be removed, then the cache didn't belong there and archiving it would've been the correct thing to do. As it is, the cache passed muster and is still in play.

Link to comment
wimseyguy

+wimseyguy

Posted
Posted

Perhaps his real motivation is despair that there aren't any rusty relics from this cache to add to his trophy case? But seriously-calling up a government employee five states over to check on something you do not own? That is seriously overstepping the responsibility that we all share for self policing this game.

Link to comment
JL_HSTRE

+JL_HSTRE

Posted
Posted
I agree that the guy seems like a busy-body, but the cache itself should be able to stand up to the scrutiny. That goes for any cache, really. If the county employee/land owner had said that the cache needed to be removed, then the cache didn't belong there and archiving it would've been the correct thing to do. As it is, the cache passed muster and is still in play.

 

+1

 

Kansas Stasher should've already contacted the appropriate county authorities himself after the mugglings.

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

Perhaps his real motivation is despair that there aren't any rusty relics from this cache to add to his trophy case? But seriously-calling up a government employee five states over to check on something you do not own? That is seriously overstepping the responsibility that we all share for self policing this game.

 

Two things I'm fairly certain of. 1) He felt he was doing a good deed, and looking out for the best interest of the game. And 2) He's reading this thread. He can contact me (or any responders) through our profiles, if he so wishes. :)

Link to comment
NYPaddleCacher

+NYPaddleCacher

Posted
Posted

Yep looks like someone is out to put an end to this hide...filled it with cement...wow.

 

I know that there have been several people that were critical of the cacher that took it upon himself to contact the road department to check on any permission issues regarding the location but the end result (someone form the road department visiting the location) was tantamount to granting explicit permission for the cache to be located where it is. If someone is pouring concrete into holes at the location, the communication channel has already been opened and could potentially be explored to replace the cache is something a lot more permanent.

 

I hope that the issue can be resolved because I thought having the oldest active cache located someplace that was *not* the pacific northwest was a good thing.

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