Grandfathered?

[+SwineFlew]

On another thread, it comes to my attention that there is a cache that may be breaking the guideline. I dont want to hijack that thread since the topic is about something else.

 

So, this thread is to talk about that cache and how the guideline said its allowed.

 

I see that cache as a "virtual".

 

What you guys think?

[4wheelin_fool]

and post a photo online to receive credit.

 

It's an ALR that encourages people to graffiti a wall. If it IS legal, it still sets a bad precedence by encouraging defacement and not being archived with all of the other ALRs that were never grandfathered.

 

Sounds like a cool cache, however.

Edited November 20, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[Keystone]

The cache is grandfathered as it met the listing guidelines in effect when it was published. I published a similar cache design in my own review territory. Neither would be published today.

 

The archived reviewer notes also indicate that the cache owner was cooperating with the local land manager for cache placements in that area.

 

So, yawn.

[+nthacker66]

and post a photo online to receive credit.

 

It's an ALR that encourages people to graffiti a wall. If it IS legal, it still sets a bad precedence by encouraging defacement and not being archived with all of the other ALRs that were never grandfathered.

 

Sounds like a cool cache, however.

 

As I said in another thread AND as keystone pointed it, it is grandfathered - the final is an area that is meant for this kind of activity.

[+SwineFlew]

The cache is grandfathered as it met the listing guidelines in effect when it was published. I published a similar cache design in my own review territory. Neither would be published today.

 

The archived reviewer notes also indicate that the cache owner was cooperating with the local land manager for cache placements in that area.

 

So, yawn.

Thank you...

[+niraD]

grand·fa·ther /ˈgran(d)ˌfäT͟Hər/ Verb: Exempt (someone or something) from a new law or regulation.

 

Grandfathering existing caches has been the norm when the guidelines have changed. The ALR ban a few years ago was notable in part because it DID NOT grandfather existing caches. In contrast, the recent changes to the rules for Challenge Caches (e.g., prohibiting restrictions on counting past finds) followed the more typical practice of grandfathering existing caches.

 

As others have pointed out, this old cache (hidden 2003-11-22) is grandfathered. There are a number of old caches from that period that are grandfathered. Don't worry about them.

[+Lieblweb]

It's 9 years old (since 2003) and has 138 log entries. There's only 1 NM log and that's due to the changes on a mural that didn't reflect on the cache page.

 

If there was a problem with its legality, it would've been archived a long time ago (from complaints and/or NA logs).

 

The CO should list some information in the cache description about the 'legalities' of the location. Perhaps the township (?) set forth an area for people to add their own art as part of 'art culture awareness' (etc). I really don't know.... Neat idea and I like it.

 

This cache isn't any different than any other cache. You have to use your own judgement whether or not you want to participate. Grandfathered in....Probably, yes.

[4wheelin_fool]

The ALR ban a few years ago was notable in part because it DID NOT grandfather existing caches.

 

The defacement requirement on this cache has been grandfathered, but the ALR requirement to upload a photo should have been eliminated when the rest of the ALRs were forced to change the verbiage on their cache pages.

 

Perhaps, it is being given preferential treatment and doted after rather endearingly. It that case the proper term would rather be Grandmothered.

Edited November 20, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+nthacker66]

It's 9 years old (since 2003) and has 138 log entries. There's only 1 NM log and that's due to the changes on a mural that didn't reflect on the cache page.

 

If there was a problem with its legality, it would've been archived a long time ago (from complaints and/or NA logs).

 

The CO should list some information in the cache description about the 'legalities' of the location. Perhaps the township (?) set forth an area for people to add their own art as part of 'art culture awareness' (etc). I really don't know.... Neat idea and I like it.

 

This cache isn't any different than any other cache. You have to use your own judgement whether or not you want to participate. Grandfathered in....Probably, yes.

 

Giving such information would give away the final location. Most locals to this area understand when they see the final location. If you are really THAT interested in it but have no intentions of ever finding it and sware to secrecy, I will describe the ntue of the final location in private - again it is not a grand secret anyway, but it is more then legal, it is encouraged.

[+nthacker66]

The ALR ban a few years ago was notable in part because it DID NOT grandfather existing caches.

 

The defacement requirement on this cache has been grandfathered, but the ALR requirement to upload a photo should have been eliminated when the rest of the ALRs were forced to change the verbiage on their cache pages.

I know the CO somewhat and i doubt he would nix a log if there was no pic but a big prt of the fun after finding and signing the "log" os snapping a pic of your signage and uploading it - since when did caching become all about the rules and less about the fun of the sport itself?

 

Sheesh, some people need to get over it!

 

But you all gave me a very good idea for a new cache - "A tribute to the cache police" - each aspect of it will challange a cacher to determine if a stage is skirting the guidelines or not and the final will have honorary cache police badges

Edited November 20, 2012 by nthacker66

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's 9 years old (since 2003) and has 138 log entries. There's only 1 NM log and that's due to the changes on a mural that didn't reflect on the cache page.

 

If there was a problem with its legality, it would've been archived a long time ago (from complaints and/or NA logs).

 

The CO should list some information in the cache description about the 'legalities' of the location. Perhaps the township (?) set forth an area for people to add their own art as part of 'art culture awareness' (etc). I really don't know.... Neat idea and I like it.

 

This cache isn't any different than any other cache. You have to use your own judgement whether or not you want to participate. Grandfathered in....Probably, yes.

 

Giving such information would give away the final location. Most locals to this area understand when they see the final location.

 

With a picture of the "signed log" in every online log, I'm surprised that there aren't more locals that have figured out final location without visiting ever stage.

[+SwineFlew]

The ALR ban a few years ago was notable in part because it DID NOT grandfather existing caches.

 

The defacement requirement on this cache has been grandfathered, but the ALR requirement to upload a photo should have been eliminated when the rest of the ALRs were forced to change the verbiage on their cache pages.

 

Perhaps, it is being given preferential treatment and doted after rather endearingly. It that case the proper term would rather be Grandmothered.

 

AMEN!

[+nthacker66]

It's 9 years old (since 2003) and has 138 log entries. There's only 1 NM log and that's due to the changes on a mural that didn't reflect on the cache page.

 

If there was a problem with its legality, it would've been archived a long time ago (from complaints and/or NA logs).

 

The CO should list some information in the cache description about the 'legalities' of the location. Perhaps the township (?) set forth an area for people to add their own art as part of 'art culture awareness' (etc). I really don't know.... Neat idea and I like it.

 

This cache isn't any different than any other cache. You have to use your own judgement whether or not you want to participate. Grandfathered in....Probably, yes.

 

Giving such information would give away the final location. Most locals to this area understand when they see the final location.

 

With a picture of the "signed log" in every online log, I'm surprised that there aren't more locals that have figured out final location without visiting ever stage.

While I am sure there are, it would take away form the fun of this cache itself. I did it and loved it, poitning out locations and art work I found very interesting and never really noticed before. To me, this is what caching should be - the adventure and experience of it. That is the "treasure" - not just signing a soggy piece of paper and logging it online.

[Mr.Yuck]

and post a photo online to receive credit.

 

It's an ALR that encourages people to graffiti a wall. If it IS legal, it still sets a bad precedence by encouraging defacement and not being archived with all of the other ALRs that were never grandfathered.

 

Sounds like a cool cache, however.

 

As I said in another thread AND as keystone pointed it, it is grandfathered - the final is an area that is meant for this kind of activity.

 

I found a spoiler log that doesn't tell you exactly where the "end cache" is, but it gives the average GeoCop forum reader like myself more than enough information to figure it out. It is indeed legal to post grafitti there.