Mingo gone again?

[+Great Scott!]

A new cache at the same site would be allowed. But it could not be a buried cache. Given the site, the new cache would likely be a bison tube hung on the fence. The old Mingo page would have to be locked to not allow "accidental" finds.

[+roundnround we go]

 

On another thought, IF Mingo is archived for whatever reasons... Would the site be approved for a NEW cache by another owner? The 'damning' conditions would still be the same given it's history. Maybe things would change if it was a personal vendetta against the original owner, but I think that would be evident in the history.

 

Doug 7rxc

 

I'm sure the site would be approved for another cache as long as it met the current guidelines.

[+Cool Cow Cachers]

True, but if you change the style of the hide, the location of the hide and the type of container is it still Mingo or is it a new cache with a recycled GC number.

Isn't that all it has been for years now?

[+Straight-Cache-Homey]

I understand there's history, etc, but... who cares? It's still just one cache. There's literally millions more out there. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

Or if you're really into the older ones... go find the second oldest one? Whackos.

[+NeverSummer]

I understand there's history, etc, but... who cares? It's still just one cache. There's literally millions more out there. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

Or if you're really into the older ones... go find the second oldest one? Whackos.

While I appreciate nostalgia, and how old caches can help complete challenge caches or the like, I agree to a point. The guidelines talk about maintenance, and it is pretty straight forward. If the owner can't/won't maintain it, then it is time for it to retire.

 

As these old caches gain "watchers" or favorites, and continue to be pilgrimage caches, the attention is bound to bring people out of the woodwork who want to get their kicks off of things like damaging/removing/altering these old caches. The idea that any cache anywhere is more important than another is kind of a shame. Sure, the archival of Mingo will mean lots of pilgrims will be disappointed, but life goes on.

[Andronicus]

I understand there's history, etc, but... who cares? It's still just one cache. There's literally millions more out there. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

Or if you're really into the older ones... go find the second oldest one? Whackos.

While I appreciate nostalgia, and how old caches can help complete challenge caches or the like, I agree to a point. The guidelines talk about maintenance, and it is pretty straight forward. If the owner can't/won't maintain it, then it is time for it to retire.

 

As these old caches gain "watchers" or favorites, and continue to be pilgrimage caches, the attention is bound to bring people out of the woodwork who want to get their kicks off of things like damaging/removing/altering these old caches. The idea that any cache anywhere is more important than another is kind of a shame. Sure, the archival of Mingo will mean lots of pilgrims will be disappointed, but life goes on.

2 option I could see working

 

1) A notification of a planned archival date. Get your find before, say July 15 2013.

 

2) Groundspeak could take ownership of the cache (with approval from the CO), lease a small bit of land around it from the land owner to make it all legal (maybe move the cache a few feet away from the road so that it is on private land) or get official authorization form the state/county, and provide some sort of maintanence/security. Several organizations have got government cooperation for old caches. Canada's first geocache has an acutal monument put up by the province (with funding from the local geocaching group).

 

The way it is currently handled clearly does not work, and something needs to change.

[+NeverSummer]

I understand there's history, etc, but... who cares? It's still just one cache. There's literally millions more out there. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

Or if you're really into the older ones... go find the second oldest one? Whackos.

While I appreciate nostalgia, and how old caches can help complete challenge caches or the like, I agree to a point. The guidelines talk about maintenance, and it is pretty straight forward. If the owner can't/won't maintain it, then it is time for it to retire.

 

As these old caches gain "watchers" or favorites, and continue to be pilgrimage caches, the attention is bound to bring people out of the woodwork who want to get their kicks off of things like damaging/removing/altering these old caches. The idea that any cache anywhere is more important than another is kind of a shame. Sure, the archival of Mingo will mean lots of pilgrims will be disappointed, but life goes on.

2 option I could see working

 

1) A notification of a planned archival date. Get your find before, say July 15 2013.

 

2) Groundspeak could take ownership of the cache (with approval from the CO), lease a small bit of land around it from the land owner to make it all legal (maybe move the cache a few feet away from the road so that it is on private land) or get official authorization form the state/county, and provide some sort of maintanence/security. Several organizations have got government cooperation for old caches. Canada's first geocache has an acutal monument put up by the province (with funding from the local geocaching group).

 

The way it is currently handled clearly does not work, and something needs to change.

I wonder if Groundspeak would fear that setting an archival date would be a precedent they don't want to set. I mean, if a Reviewer posts something to that effect, it will make people think think that it applies to all disabled caches or caches in need of maintenance. If the cache is again missing, and the owner will not maintain, it is a cache that should be archived. That outcome would be consistent with the guidelines, no?

[4wheelin_fool]

I understand there's history, etc, but... who cares? It's still just one cache. There's literally millions more out there. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

Or if you're really into the older ones... go find the second oldest one? Whackos.

While I appreciate nostalgia, and how old caches can help complete challenge caches or the like, I agree to a point. The guidelines talk about maintenance, and it is pretty straight forward. If the owner can't/won't maintain it, then it is time for it to retire.

 

As these old caches gain "watchers" or favorites, and continue to be pilgrimage caches, the attention is bound to bring people out of the woodwork who want to get their kicks off of things like damaging/removing/altering these old caches. The idea that any cache anywhere is more important than another is kind of a shame. Sure, the archival of Mingo will mean lots of pilgrims will be disappointed, but life goes on.

 

The cache has been replaced several times this year with the owners explicit approval. It is not a situation where the cache is not being maintained, and it makes no difference who does it. Should he be forced to put his signature on the container to make it legit?

[+jellis]

It is totally up to the CO if what's to keep replacing it, not reviewers.

 

The reviewer can make a decision that the cache owner has abandoned his cache, though, and archive it on that basis. Happens all the time.

Yes but when I said CO I meant active and he is still active.

[+jellis]

True, but if you change the style of the hide, the location of the hide and the type of container is it still Mingo or is it a new cache with a recycled GC number.

Isn't that all it has been for years now?

And it's not just this cache. (and yes I can say it now) The Stash Plaque cache has been replaced and moved many times, and I don't believe anyone has complained about that.

Mingo was placed at that spot. To me it doesn't matter how many times it gets replaced, or what size the CO decides to change it to, it is still Mingo until the CO decides or the reviewer has a GOOD reason to archive it.

Edited December 19, 2012 by jellis

[+Lexmarks567]

All this over a cache. Yes it's the oldest surviving cache but each time it's fixed it gets destroyed within a month. If it means so much then we need to find a way to make it indestructible. maybe rig it so the lid has to be opened a certain way or a exploding die-pack goes off lol. a camera could be well hidden somewhere without being seen. Any trees nearby that the camera could be mounted to or geocachers take turns standing guard to protect it.

[+NeverSummer]

I understand there's history, etc, but... who cares? It's still just one cache. There's literally millions more out there. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

Or if you're really into the older ones... go find the second oldest one? Whackos.

While I appreciate nostalgia, and how old caches can help complete challenge caches or the like, I agree to a point. The guidelines talk about maintenance, and it is pretty straight forward. If the owner can't/won't maintain it, then it is time for it to retire.

 

As these old caches gain "watchers" or favorites, and continue to be pilgrimage caches, the attention is bound to bring people out of the woodwork who want to get their kicks off of things like damaging/removing/altering these old caches. The idea that any cache anywhere is more important than another is kind of a shame. Sure, the archival of Mingo will mean lots of pilgrims will be disappointed, but life goes on.

 

The cache has been replaced several times this year with the owners explicit approval. It is not a situation where the cache is not being maintained, and it makes no difference who does it. Should he be forced to put his signature on the container to make it legit?

Well, then, the issue is how big a deal everyone is making out of this cache. As soon as we stop making it a big deal, the sooner the perp will stop messing with it. And by that, it might mean time for it to be retired, and an honorary cache put up in its place, ala the Original Stash Plaque.

[+NeverSummer]

And it's not just this cache. (and yes I can say it now) The Stash Plaque cache has been replaced and moved many times, and I don't believe anyone has complained about that.

It has?

[4wheelin_fool]

I understand there's history, etc, but... who cares? It's still just one cache. There's literally millions more out there. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

Or if you're really into the older ones... go find the second oldest one? Whackos.

While I appreciate nostalgia, and how old caches can help complete challenge caches or the like, I agree to a point. The guidelines talk about maintenance, and it is pretty straight forward. If the owner can't/won't maintain it, then it is time for it to retire.

 

As these old caches gain "watchers" or favorites, and continue to be pilgrimage caches, the attention is bound to bring people out of the woodwork who want to get their kicks off of things like damaging/removing/altering these old caches. The idea that any cache anywhere is more important than another is kind of a shame. Sure, the archival of Mingo will mean lots of pilgrims will be disappointed, but life goes on.

 

The cache has been replaced several times this year with the owners explicit approval. It is not a situation where the cache is not being maintained, and it makes no difference who does it. Should he be forced to put his signature on the container to make it legit?

Well, then, the issue is how big a deal everyone is making out of this cache. As soon as we stop making it a big deal, the sooner the perp will stop messing with it. And by that, it might mean time for it to be retired, and an honorary cache put up in its place, ala the Original Stash Plaque.

 

It has 2608 visits, 689 favorites and 255 people watching it. In contrast, only 29 people have replied to this thread 2 or more times.

 

 

Of course if it does get archived, someone else could always hide a micro and reset the hide date on the new cache to 5/11/2000 to satisfy everyone's Jasmer challenge grid requirements. :ph34r:

Edited December 19, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[knowschad]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

[4wheelin_fool]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest.

 

I suppose you would like him to log a few finds, as well as put his signature on the bucket in sharpie to make it authentic?

 

Perhaps I could post a note on the page noting that a half dozen or so people in the forums, who live hundreds of miles away, would like to see it archived because they cannot resist the urge to open the thread and are tired of reading about it?

Edited December 19, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[knowschad]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest.

 

I suppose you would like him to log a few finds, as well as put his signature on the bucket in sharpie to make it authentic?

 

Perhaps I could post a note on the page noting that a half dozen or so people in the forums, who live hundreds of miles away, would like to see it archived because they cannot resist the urge to open the thread and are tired of reading about it?

 

No, I would not consider staying at home and moving the mouse around a bit and punching a few keys to be "active" in the sense of geocaching. Alive, yes. An active geocacher? No.

[+Castle Mischief]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest.

 

Define "oversaw".

[knowschad]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest.

 

Define "oversaw".

Not sure, but I think that means that he saw the logs come in that mentioned that the cache had been replaced.

[4wheelin_fool]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest.

 

Define "oversaw".

 

Were you there at the time? I have visions of him standing over the cache with his hands on his hips, nodding, giving pointers, as well as sage advice, all the while regaling a lively crowd of devoted watchers with tales of the cache's history.

[knowschad]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest.

 

Define "oversaw".

 

Were you there at the time? I have visions of him standing over the cache with his hands on his hips, nodding, giving pointers, as well as sage advice, all the while regaling a lively crowd of devoted watchers with tales of the cache's history.

[4wheelin_fool]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest.

 

I suppose you would like him to log a few finds, as well as put his signature on the bucket in sharpie to make it authentic?

 

Perhaps I could post a note on the page noting that a half dozen or so people in the forums, who live hundreds of miles away, would like to see it archived because they cannot resist the urge to open the thread and are tired of reading about it?

 

No, I would not consider staying at home and moving the mouse around a bit and punching a few keys to be "active" in the sense of geocaching. Alive, yes. An active geocacher? No.

 

 

Logging in and disabling the cache shows that he is active.

 

 

So you do want him to log a few finds, as well as put his signature on the bucket in sharpie to make it authentic? C'mon admit it. Do you want a video of him restoring it as forensic evidence? Was it actually the true owner who is behind the restoration? Or some shadowy figure behind the grassy knoll nearby? Are you a Mingo conspiracy restoration theorist?

[+Don_J]

I understand there's history, etc, but... who cares? It's still just one cache. There's literally millions more out there. Seems to be more trouble than it's worth.

 

Or if you're really into the older ones... go find the second oldest one? Whackos.

While I appreciate nostalgia, and how old caches can help complete challenge caches or the like, I agree to a point. The guidelines talk about maintenance, and it is pretty straight forward. If the owner can't/won't maintain it, then it is time for it to retire.

 

As these old caches gain "watchers" or favorites, and continue to be pilgrimage caches, the attention is bound to bring people out of the woodwork who want to get their kicks off of things like damaging/removing/altering these old caches. The idea that any cache anywhere is more important than another is kind of a shame. Sure, the archival of Mingo will mean lots of pilgrims will be disappointed, but life goes on.

 

The cache has been replaced several times this year with the owners explicit approval. It is not a situation where the cache is not being maintained, and it makes no difference who does it. Should he be forced to put his signature on the container to make it legit?

Well, then, the issue is how big a deal everyone is making out of this cache. As soon as we stop making it a big deal, the sooner the perp will stop messing with it. And by that, it might mean time for it to be retired, and an honorary cache put up in its place, ala the Original Stash Plaque.

 

It has 2608 visits, 689 favorites and 255 people watching it. In contrast, only 29 people have replied to this thread 2 or more times.

 

 

Of course if it does get archived, someone else could always hide a micro and reset the hide date on the new cache to 5/11/2000 to satisfy everyone's Jasmer challenge grid requirements. :ph34r:

 

Thanks for saving me from having to do the math. What may be a big issue in our little part of the forum doesn't necessarily mean that it is a big issue to geocachers in general.

[+Don_J]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

That's the big question isn't it?

 

I'm active to the point that I read my email cache notifications almost every day and if an issue is reported, I post a response on my cache page almost instantly. Then, I follow up on the problem in a timely manner. I could easily decide that if you are not doing the same, you are not active, or you are not active enough.

 

Obviously it wouldn't be fair to hold everyone to that standard. Not every one has made geocaching an integral part of their lives like some of us, and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to own a cache. Groundspeak has maintenance guidelines and I think that they expect cache owners to at least be active to the point that they meet those guidelines. Groundspeak also allows someone else to maintain your cache as long as you are active in the process.

 

I think that except for the period where the out of town reviewer stepped in, the CO has remained active enough to meet these guidelines.

[+Don_J]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest.

 

Define "oversaw".

 

SAW VI

Everything past SAW IV has been oversaw.

[+Cool Cow Cachers]

All this for what is essentially a guardrail cache. This poor cache has been nothing but a recycled location and GC number for years now. The only history is that hole in the ground.

 

By comparison, GC12 5/12/2000 is still in it's original location, original container and with the original logbook intact. It's had one Needs Maintenance log since 5/12/2000 and that was a false alarm. There are several other caches here in the Northwest from 2000 that fit that description as well such as GC17 Geocache 7/21/2000 and GCBC Monte Cristo. (I'm sure there are other examples out there but I can speak from experience about these.)

 

It's time to reconsider what being the "oldest cache" really means.

Edited December 19, 2012 by CoolCowCachers

[+Team Hugs]

Define "oversaw".

 

SAW VI

Everything past SAW IV has been oversaw.

 

But once they re-booted with the new cast in SAW 11, I think they're free to start fresh.

[+lamoracke]

 

Of course if it does get archived, someone else could always hide a micro and reset the hide date on the new cache to 5/11/2000 to satisfy everyone's Jasmer challenge grid requirements. :ph34r:

 

Personally if I owned a jasmer challenge, I would not allow any 2000 year qualifying finds that were not among the first 260 year 2000 caches (ie on those old bookmark lists like the one I own). Course, you can sort finds by publication date so would not take that long to notice as a CO. I have seen some caches with false old dates and will not log any of those if I notice it. I wish GS would block folks using a hide date that is using an extremely old hide date, though occasionally I see some a few years old which may be when they hid it. I see nothing wrong with liking the old historical caches, even if the original container is not there. Almost all old caches had neat GZs and that is cool in itself.

Edited December 19, 2012 by lamoracke

[knowschad]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest.

 

I suppose you would like him to log a few finds, as well as put his signature on the bucket in sharpie to make it authentic?

 

Perhaps I could post a note on the page noting that a half dozen or so people in the forums, who live hundreds of miles away, would like to see it archived because they cannot resist the urge to open the thread and are tired of reading about it?

 

No, I would not consider staying at home and moving the mouse around a bit and punching a few keys to be "active" in the sense of geocaching. Alive, yes. An active geocacher? No.

 

 

Logging in and disabling the cache shows that he is active.

 

 

So you do want him to log a few finds, as well as put his signature on the bucket in sharpie to make it authentic? C'mon admit it. Do you want a video of him restoring it as forensic evidence? Was it actually the true owner who is behind the restoration? Or some shadowy figure behind the grassy knoll nearby? Are you a Mingo conspiracy restoration theorist?

Sitting at the computer & logging in to the website is not what it takes to make you an active cache owner:

 

http://www.geocachin...guidelines.aspx

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

Edited December 19, 2012 by knowschad

[knowschad]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

That's the big question isn't it?

 

I'm active to the point that I read my email cache notifications almost every day and if an issue is reported, I post a response on my cache page almost instantly. Then, I follow up on the problem in a timely manner. I could easily decide that if you are not doing the same, you are not active, or you are not active enough.

 

Obviously it wouldn't be fair to hold everyone to that standard. Not every one has made geocaching an integral part of their lives like some of us, and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to own a cache. Groundspeak has maintenance guidelines and I think that they expect cache owners to at least be active to the point that they meet those guidelines. Groundspeak also allows someone else to maintain your cache as long as you are active in the process.

 

I think that except for the period where the out of town reviewer stepped in, the CO has remained active enough to meet these guidelines.

 

See my previous post regarding physical visits to the cache site.

[+Don_J]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

That's the big question isn't it?

 

I'm active to the point that I read my email cache notifications almost every day and if an issue is reported, I post a response on my cache page almost instantly. Then, I follow up on the problem in a timely manner. I could easily decide that if you are not doing the same, you are not active, or you are not active enough.

 

Obviously it wouldn't be fair to hold everyone to that standard. Not every one has made geocaching an integral part of their lives like some of us, and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to own a cache. Groundspeak has maintenance guidelines and I think that they expect cache owners to at least be active to the point that they meet those guidelines. Groundspeak also allows someone else to maintain your cache as long as you are active in the process.

 

I think that except for the period where the out of town reviewer stepped in, the CO has remained active enough to meet these guidelines.

 

See my previous post regarding physical visits to the cache site.

 

Then I am not a responsible cache owner and I should not be allowed to own any. With few exceptions, I do not visit my caches until I am informed that it is necessary to do so.

[knowschad]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

That's the big question isn't it?

 

I'm active to the point that I read my email cache notifications almost every day and if an issue is reported, I post a response on my cache page almost instantly. Then, I follow up on the problem in a timely manner. I could easily decide that if you are not doing the same, you are not active, or you are not active enough.

 

Obviously it wouldn't be fair to hold everyone to that standard. Not every one has made geocaching an integral part of their lives like some of us, and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to own a cache. Groundspeak has maintenance guidelines and I think that they expect cache owners to at least be active to the point that they meet those guidelines. Groundspeak also allows someone else to maintain your cache as long as you are active in the process.

 

I think that except for the period where the out of town reviewer stepped in, the CO has remained active enough to meet these guidelines.

 

See my previous post regarding physical visits to the cache site.

 

Then I am not a responsible cache owner and I should not be allowed to own any. With few exceptions, I do not visit my caches until I am informed that it is necessary to do so.

 

Hey, I'm only quoting the guidelines. But I think you failed to read what I posted. I'll repost it:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

 

Kansas Stasher, from all appearances, is not doing that even when there has been a problem reported. To my mind, that is not being an active cache owner. If it only happened once, I wouldn't be saying this, but it seems to be a pattern.

[+SwineFlew]

All this over a cache. Yes it's the oldest surviving cache but each time it's fixed it gets destroyed within a month. If it means so much then we need to find a way to make it indestructible. maybe rig it so the lid has to be opened a certain way or a exploding die-pack goes off lol. a camera could be well hidden somewhere without being seen. Any trees nearby that the camera could be mounted to or geocachers take turns standing guard to protect it.

Take a good look at google map and street map and come back to me about putting a hidden camera in the area.

[+Castle Mischief]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

He logged in and disabled the cache himself, as well as oversaw the other full restorations of the cache, which shows an active interest.

 

Define "oversaw".

 

Were you there at the time? I have visions of him standing over the cache with his hands on his hips, nodding, giving pointers, as well as sage advice, all the while regaling a lively crowd of devoted watchers with tales of the cache's history.

 

That's a nice vision. Hold on to that.

[7rxc]

 

http://www.geocachin...guidelines.aspx

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

 

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by. Just that the CO is responsible for making sure they happen. Thus this paragraph:

 

"Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while traveling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan. This plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems, and might include the username of a local cacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache listing. This should include contact information of the maintainer. The note will auto-delete on publication."

 

Also Cache Owner activity probably does not have anything to do with being an active cacher. There are many people who like to place caches but not find them. I've read many accounts of this on the forums and a seen a few in person. Just as there are those who don't hide any, but do hunt for them (and maintain for others, and I mean as in an arrangement, not throw downs) when they can.

 

On another tack not related to this posting:

 

In my earlier post about this one, I knew that a NEW cache could follow archival subject to current guidelines, but my concern was with whether reviewers would mark a vandalized area as 'untenable by a cache' to avoid future problems.

 

Sorry for not making that clear to those responding. Also apologize for posting in this reply instead of a second posting, but I seem to be computer limited this month.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Castle Mischief]

Is completely ignoring messages from a reviewer considered being "active"?

[+Don_J]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

That's the big question isn't it?

 

I'm active to the point that I read my email cache notifications almost every day and if an issue is reported, I post a response on my cache page almost instantly. Then, I follow up on the problem in a timely manner. I could easily decide that if you are not doing the same, you are not active, or you are not active enough.

 

Obviously it wouldn't be fair to hold everyone to that standard. Not every one has made geocaching an integral part of their lives like some of us, and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to own a cache. Groundspeak has maintenance guidelines and I think that they expect cache owners to at least be active to the point that they meet those guidelines. Groundspeak also allows someone else to maintain your cache as long as you are active in the process.

 

I think that except for the period where the out of town reviewer stepped in, the CO has remained active enough to meet these guidelines.

 

See my previous post regarding physical visits to the cache site.

 

Then I am not a responsible cache owner and I should not be allowed to own any. With few exceptions, I do not visit my caches until I am informed that it is necessary to do so.

 

Hey, I'm only quoting the guidelines. But I think you failed to read what I posted. I'll repost it:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

 

Kansas Stasher, from all appearances, is not doing that even when there has been a problem reported. To my mind, that is not being an active cache owner. If it only happened once, I wouldn't be saying this, but it seems to be a pattern.

 

I actually agree with you. But for the sake of argument, can you hold him to a higher standard than anyone else? As long as I have a maintenance plan that satisfies my local reviewer, I need never visit any of my caches. I'm not going to go back and review every log, but how long has the cache ever lingered without any input from the CO? I've only been following the thing a little over a year, so I only know of last year when the out of town reviewer got involved.

 

Around here, I have a month after the reviewer drops a note on my cache and disables it. If I don't respond in any way, I'm considered to be inactive and my cache will be archived. If I post a note, the reviewer will work with me, even if my plan to have someone else replace my cache for me. As long as this CO meets this limited level of activity, the reviewers do not see an issue and the cache continues.

[knowschad]

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

 

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

 

Just that the CO is responsible for making sure they happen. Thus this paragraph:

 

"Because of the effort required to maintain a geocache, please place physical caches in your usual caching area and not while traveling. Caches placed during travel will likely not be published unless you are able to provide an acceptable maintenance plan. This plan must allow for a quick response to reported problems, and might include the username of a local cacher who will handle maintenance issues in your absence. Alternatively you might train a local person to maintain the cache. Document your maintenance plan in a Note to Reviewer on your cache listing. This should include contact information of the maintainer. The note will auto-delete on publication."

 

 

Well, first of all, you and I both know that that wording is there to address vacation caches, and we also both know how problematic that is in real life. Let's not kid ourselves.

 

Moreover, who is the designated proxy for MIngo? Was that person's name given to the reviewer by Kansas Stasher? Your quoted section of the guideline goes even further to nix the idea of cache maintenance being performed by random cache visitors.

 

Also Cache Owner activity probably does not have anything to do with being an active cacher. There are many people who like to place caches but not find them.

 

I totally agree with that statement. But I don't think that really applies in this situation.

[knowschad]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

That's the big question isn't it?

 

I'm active to the point that I read my email cache notifications almost every day and if an issue is reported, I post a response on my cache page almost instantly. Then, I follow up on the problem in a timely manner. I could easily decide that if you are not doing the same, you are not active, or you are not active enough.

 

Obviously it wouldn't be fair to hold everyone to that standard. Not every one has made geocaching an integral part of their lives like some of us, and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to own a cache. Groundspeak has maintenance guidelines and I think that they expect cache owners to at least be active to the point that they meet those guidelines. Groundspeak also allows someone else to maintain your cache as long as you are active in the process.

 

I think that except for the period where the out of town reviewer stepped in, the CO has remained active enough to meet these guidelines.

 

See my previous post regarding physical visits to the cache site.

 

Then I am not a responsible cache owner and I should not be allowed to own any. With few exceptions, I do not visit my caches until I am informed that it is necessary to do so.

 

Hey, I'm only quoting the guidelines. But I think you failed to read what I posted. I'll repost it:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

 

Kansas Stasher, from all appearances, is not doing that even when there has been a problem reported. To my mind, that is not being an active cache owner. If it only happened once, I wouldn't be saying this, but it seems to be a pattern.

 

I actually agree with you. But for the sake of argument, can you hold him to a higher standard than anyone else? As long as I have a maintenance plan that satisfies my local reviewer, I need never visit any of my caches. I'm not going to go back and review every log, but how long has the cache ever lingered without any input from the CO? I've only been following the thing a little over a year, so I only know of last year when the out of town reviewer got involved.

 

Around here, I have a month after the reviewer drops a note on my cache and disables it. If I don't respond in any way, I'm considered to be inactive and my cache will be archived. If I post a note, the reviewer will work with me, even if my plan to have someone else replace my cache for me. As long as this CO meets this limited level of activity, the reviewers do not see an issue and the cache continues.

 

Sitting in your home, waiting and hoping that somebody else will fix up your cache is not cache mainenance. I don't think that is holding somebody to a different standard. Having somebody replace it for you, and hoping somebody will replace it for you are two totally different actions.

[+Don_J]

 

Moreover, who is the designated proxy for MIngo? Was that person's name given to the reviewer by Kansas Stasher? Your quoted section of the guideline goes even further to nix the idea of cache maintenance being performed by random cache visitors.

 

 

According to Keystone in thread started yesterday, Groundspeak's policy is that this is none of our business. It's between the CO and his local reviewer. As far as random cache visitors, when one dropped the micro, a reviewer did get involved, causing even more controversy.

 

The problem is is that these guideline are usually ignored, and they are ignored wholesale on the new power trails, so people get the idea that it is acceptable everywhere. I don't think that any reviewer considers "someone is bound to show up soon and replace it for me" as a valid maintenance plan.

 

With all of the attention that this cache gets it is hard to believe that the local reviewer doesn't know what is going on and has a handle on it. According to Groundspeak, whatever is going on between the the reviewer and the CO is not our business. For all we know, there could be constant daily communication between the two and a plan in place to remedy the situation. Or, there could be no communication at all and the shoe is about to drop. All we can do is speculate.

[+Don_J]

The cache owner is active. If someone wants to help him out that's his business, not the peanut gallery's.

Define "active".

 

That's the big question isn't it?

 

I'm active to the point that I read my email cache notifications almost every day and if an issue is reported, I post a response on my cache page almost instantly. Then, I follow up on the problem in a timely manner. I could easily decide that if you are not doing the same, you are not active, or you are not active enough.

 

Obviously it wouldn't be fair to hold everyone to that standard. Not every one has made geocaching an integral part of their lives like some of us, and that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to own a cache. Groundspeak has maintenance guidelines and I think that they expect cache owners to at least be active to the point that they meet those guidelines. Groundspeak also allows someone else to maintain your cache as long as you are active in the process.

 

I think that except for the period where the out of town reviewer stepped in, the CO has remained active enough to meet these guidelines.

 

See my previous post regarding physical visits to the cache site.

 

Then I am not a responsible cache owner and I should not be allowed to own any. With few exceptions, I do not visit my caches until I am informed that it is necessary to do so.

 

Hey, I'm only quoting the guidelines. But I think you failed to read what I posted. I'll repost it:

 

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log.

 

Kansas Stasher, from all appearances, is not doing that even when there has been a problem reported. To my mind, that is not being an active cache owner. If it only happened once, I wouldn't be saying this, but it seems to be a pattern.

 

I actually agree with you. But for the sake of argument, can you hold him to a higher standard than anyone else? As long as I have a maintenance plan that satisfies my local reviewer, I need never visit any of my caches. I'm not going to go back and review every log, but how long has the cache ever lingered without any input from the CO? I've only been following the thing a little over a year, so I only know of last year when the out of town reviewer got involved.

 

Around here, I have a month after the reviewer drops a note on my cache and disables it. If I don't respond in any way, I'm considered to be inactive and my cache will be archived. If I post a note, the reviewer will work with me, even if my plan to have someone else replace my cache for me. As long as this CO meets this limited level of activity, the reviewers do not see an issue and the cache continues.

 

Sitting in your home, waiting and hoping that somebody else will fix up your cache is not cache mainenance. I don't think that is holding somebody to a different standard. Having somebody replace it for you, and hoping somebody will replace it for you are two totally different actions.

 

That is not what I said, and I don't think that this is happening here. When it did happen, a reviewer stepped in and said "no".

 

Someone cleared the hole and placed an identical cache, full of swag and labeled with the cache ID. This was not some random person that dropped a throwdown. Since they choose to remain anonymous, no one here knows what the relationship between them and the CO is, except for maybe the reviewer.

 

Let me ask you this. If, God forbid, I was involved in an accident tomorrow that left me paraplegic. Should all of my hiking caches be archived because I will never be able to visit them again? If I can show the reviewer that I have a reliable, able bodied volunteer that will visit and maintain my caches as needed, should they be allowed to continue? Or are they only allowed to continue if I disclose my intentions on the forum and get permission from a bunch of people that seem to have control issues?

[knowschad]

Moreover, who is the designated proxy for MIngo? Was that person's name given to the reviewer by Kansas Stasher? Your quoted section of the guideline goes even further to nix the idea of cache maintenance being performed by random cache visitors.

 

 

According to Keystone in thread started yesterday, Groundspeak's policy is that this is none of our business. It's between the CO and his local reviewer. As far as random cache visitors, when one dropped the micro, a reviewer did get involved, causing even more controversy.

 

The problem is is that these guideline are usually ignored, and they are ignored wholesale on the new power trails, so people get the idea that it is acceptable everywhere. I don't think that any reviewer considers "someone is bound to show up soon and replace it for me" as a valid maintenance plan.

 

With all of the attention that this cache gets it is hard to believe that the local reviewer doesn't know what is going on and has a handle on it. According to Groundspeak, whatever is going on between the the reviewer and the CO is not our business. For all we know, there could be constant daily communication between the two and a plan in place to remedy the situation. Or, there could be no communication at all and the shoe is about to drop. All we can do is speculate.

 

We have almost 250 posts regarding this situation. I don't know why you would wait until now to mention that it is none of our business. Yes, all any of us are doing is speculating.

[knowschad]

Let me ask you this. If, God forbid, I was involved in an accident tomorrow that left me paraplegic. Should all of my hiking caches be archived because I will never be able to visit them again? If I can show the reviewer that I have a reliable, able bodied volunteer that will visit and maintain my caches as needed, should they be allowed to continue? Or are they only allowed to continue if I disclose my intentions on the forum and get permission from a bunch of people that seem to have control issues?

 

Hyperbole. No, I would not expect that, and true, that could be the very situation with Mingo and Kansas Stasher, and possibly the reviewer is aware of that. But I doubt it, and I'm pretty sure you don't think that is the case here, either.

 

In addition, we speculators don't have any reason to believe there is a " reliable, able bodied volunteer" at work here, either. There have been several replacements by visiting cachers, not just the micro that had the reviewer involved. *Possibly* the cache owner was actively involved in those replacments, but if so, there isn't any indication of that.

[+Don_J]

Moreover, who is the designated proxy for MIngo? Was that person's name given to the reviewer by Kansas Stasher? Your quoted section of the guideline goes even further to nix the idea of cache maintenance being performed by random cache visitors.

 

 

According to Keystone in thread started yesterday, Groundspeak's policy is that this is none of our business. It's between the CO and his local reviewer. As far as random cache visitors, when one dropped the micro, a reviewer did get involved, causing even more controversy.

 

The problem is is that these guideline are usually ignored, and they are ignored wholesale on the new power trails, so people get the idea that it is acceptable everywhere. I don't think that any reviewer considers "someone is bound to show up soon and replace it for me" as a valid maintenance plan.

 

With all of the attention that this cache gets it is hard to believe that the local reviewer doesn't know what is going on and has a handle on it. According to Groundspeak, whatever is going on between the the reviewer and the CO is not our business. For all we know, there could be constant daily communication between the two and a plan in place to remedy the situation. Or, there could be no communication at all and the shoe is about to drop. All we can do is speculate.

 

We have almost 250 posts regarding this situation. I don't know why you would wait until now to mention that it is none of our business. Yes, all any of us are doing is speculating.

 

Because I didn't know that it was Groundspeak's policy until yesterday. I personally think that it would be a good idea to have the plan outlined on the cache page, if such a plan exists, but Groundspeak doesn't agree require it.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Don_J

[4wheelin_fool]

Well, it appears that I have to find a general contractor/handyman on the Kansas Craigslist site AGAIN.

 

This time it also looks like I'll have to have him forge the Kansas Stasher's handle on the bucket. :sigh:

Edited December 20, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[Clan Riffster]

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

 

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

What it does not say, (and it not says it quite emphatically), is who the person making the visits must be. It tells me that I am the person responsible for occasional visits to my cache. If I call up BillyBobNosePicker and ask them to pop by my cache, then I have satisfied that condition, as I have ensured my cache gets a visit.

[+hzoi]

If I call up BillyBobNosePicker and ask them to pop by my cache, then I have satisfied that condition, as I have ensured my cache gets a visit.

Man, that BillyBob sure gets around.

[knowschad]

The quoted section says nothing about who the visits would be performed by.

 

Sure it does. You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache. Sounds pretty clear to me.

What it does not say, (and it not says it quite emphatically), is who the person making the visits must be. It tells me that I am the person responsible for occasional visits to my cache. If I call up BillyBobNosePicker and ask them to pop by my cache, then I have satisfied that condition, as I have ensured my cache gets a visit.

Yes, if you call Billybob up, you are taking responsibility that your cache gets visited. Sitting back at your computer, hoping that somebody will do your maintenance for you is a whole 'nuther story, especially when it happens repeatedly.

[knowschad]

12/21/12

This cache has been on my must do list for a long time. I was bummed to see that it had been muggled. So I came prepared with a new container and log book. But of course it was to big for the correct cache placement. So off to the nearest town with a walmart to get a smaller container and log book. I also picked up a tool to clean out the hole that the cache hides in.

 

This cache is now back in business to be found. All it needs is for the owner to enable it again.

 

Here we go again!

[+Don_J]

12/21/12

This cache has been on my must do list for a long time. I was bummed to see that it had been muggled. So I came prepared with a new container and log book. But of course it was to big for the correct cache placement. So off to the nearest town with a walmart to get a smaller container and log book. I also picked up a tool to clean out the hole that the cache hides in.

 

This cache is now back in business to be found. All it needs is for the owner to enable it again.

 

Here we go again!

 

Well, that kind of settles that. If this is his maintenance plan, then I totally agree that it is unacceptable. What's funny is the disable log. "Getting tired of this". Tired of what? Having to post a log and then wait anxiously to see if someone goes to Walmart and buys a container for you?