Why was this locationless cache grandfathered?

January 9, 2013

It looks to be a place to log your benchmark finds. 14,000 finds but probably only a few hundred different people.

I put a SBA and it was deleted, then the owner sent me a nasty email.

Edited January 9, 2013 by RIclimber

21.9k · January 9, 2013

There are many similar caches; you picked on one of the two or three most popular.

You can assume that, with all the attention paid to grandfathering, locking, etc., that each and every cache like this one was studied years ago and allowed to remain in place as-is.

January 9, 2013

Maybe because it's not listed as a locationless cache.(?)

I doubt they'd archive a popular one like that.

Just let it be.

13.7k · January 9, 2013

Did you attempt any of the 400+ hides on this virtual?

- Not nice to post a SBA if you haven't been there...

I was kinda saving this for another "Let's bring back Virtuals" thread, but...

I thought that it would have been archived by a reviewer long ago, not because of the hundreds of "found" logs on one hide, but that folks are digging in some areas.

In fact, in the hint it reads, "A good Cap hunting kit should include A small whisk, garden trowel and compass ( used as a metal detector).

Some of the logs show this - "Two deep holes had me excavating a lot more soil than I needed to", "Dug down a bit and there it was", "There was a small depression near ground zero, but neither compass, nor screwdriver, nor trowel could find anything but stones and mud" and my favorite, "Chipped it out. Unreadable, chipped up very bad".

3.1k · January 9, 2013

Did you attempt any of the 400+ hides on this virtual?

- Not nice to post a SBA if you haven't been there...

I was kinda saving this for another "Let's bring back Virtuals" thread, but...

I thought that it would have been archived by a reviewer long ago, not because of the hundreds of "found" logs on one hide, but that folks are digging in some areas.

In fact, in the hint it reads, "A good Cap hunting kit should include A small whisk, garden trowel and compass ( used as a metal detector).

Some of the logs show this - "Two deep holes had me excavating a lot more soil than I needed to", "Dug down a bit and there it was", "There was a small depression near ground zero, but neither compass, nor screwdriver, nor trowel could find anything but stones and mud" and my favorite, "Chipped it out. Unreadable, chipped up very bad".

I think the digging is due to finding the cap, not "digging for a cache". Methinks benchmarks are a little different than geocaches.

13.7k · January 9, 2013

I agree - kinda.

As per "Me First" in the Benchmark forums:

6) Misc Tools

There are just a few tools the you will want and/or need to enjoy this hobby.

Of course the first is a GPSr, so you can update the coordinates on "scaled benchmarks". Then a camera (A digital would be nice) will come in handy (NOT required), a rag to wipe off the disk so it can be read, a tape measure and finally a compass. If you get addicted to this hobby you will start adding other things like a shovel and a probe and etc.

- But we're talking about a Virtual geocache really, not benchmarking.

I thought Virtuals were designed so areas around it weren't disturbed and why so many want to "bring them back" for NPS properties and such.

The hunting for a benchmark is a requirement for the find, but one does receive a "smiley" for a geocache - the Virtual.

And this is what's confusing to me.

6.1k · January 9, 2013

- But we're talking about a Virtual geocache really, not benchmarking.

I thought Virtuals were designed so areas around it weren't disturbed and why so many want to "bring them back" for NPS properties and such.

The hunting for a benchmark is a requirement for the find, but one does receive a "smiley" for a geocache - the Virtual.

And this is what's confusing to me.

The reason behind this is that Benchmarks are only allowed in the USA, I believe when they first came in other countries wanted their equivalent of benchmarks but Groundspeak wouldn't set them up, so these virtuals were created as a substitute in other countries.

5.7k · January 9, 2013

- But we're talking about a Virtual geocache really, not benchmarking.

I thought Virtuals were designed so areas around it weren't disturbed and why so many want to "bring them back" for NPS properties and such.

The hunting for a benchmark is a requirement for the find, but one does receive a "smiley" for a geocache - the Virtual.

And this is what's confusing to me.

The reason behind this is that Benchmarks are only allowed in the USA, I believe when they first came in other countries wanted their equivalent of benchmarks but Groundspeak wouldn't set them up, so these virtuals were created as a substitute in other countries.

That's the way that I understand it also, but most importantly I understand that this is Groundspeaks site and they will govern it however they want. I have encountered listings before that get a NA posted on them only to be removed. One is a ownerless missing traditional, so it's not limited to virtuals.

14k · January 9, 2013

There are many similar caches; you picked on one of the two or three most popular.

You can assume that, with all the attention paid to grandfathering, locking, etc., that each and every cache like this one was studied years ago and allowed to remain in place as-is.

Then perhaps the CO should include something on the cache page indicating that Groundspeak has allowed to remain active, rather than sending a nasty email message to someone that has posted a SBA an a cache which they believe violates the guidelines.

In fact, as a general guideline, if someone has posted an SBA on a cache because they feel is a guideline violation, and the reviewer or GS determines that it should *not* be archived, the reviewer should ask the CO to add some clarification text on the cache listing, or at the very least post a note in response to the SBA. There's already a reluctance by geocachers to post an SBA in fear that they'll be chastised by the CO or some other geocacher and a cache owner shouldn't be allowed to respond via a PM with a nasty email message to someone doing something that they *should* be doing.

21.9k · January 9, 2013

In fact, as a general guideline, if someone has posted an SBA on a cache because they feel is a guideline violation, and the reviewer or GS determines that it should *not* be archived, the reviewer should ask the CO to add some clarification text on the cache listing, or at the very least post a note in response to the SBA. There's already a reluctance by geocachers to post an SBA in fear that they'll be chastised by the CO or some other geocacher and a cache owner shouldn't be allowed to respond via a PM with a nasty email message to someone doing something that they *should* be doing.

The cache met the guidelines when published, and is grandfathered. There's no requirement to force the CO to alter a page that met the guidelines at time of publication.

From personal experience with similar "find a benchmark" caches in my USA review territory, posting a reviewer note in response to a first "Needs Archived" log did nothing to prevent later "Needs Archived" logs. People don't always read before pulling the trigger.

As for the CO response, we don't know what the email said. "Nasty" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. If the email was sent through Geocaching.com and violated the site ToU, the recipient should forward this message to contact@Groundspeak.com.

6.1k · January 9, 2013

Well some coward has seen fit to post another NA log on it from a sock puppet account (registered 2009, no finds, no forum posts) , quoting the guidelines that they think are being breached, they seem ignorant of the rule forbidding the use of sock puppet accounts

I think everyone should stay out of it, Grounspeak are happy with it, the CO is happy with it, the cachers who log it are happy with it, what's it got to do with anyone else?

And yes, I have logged the UK version of this a few times, and I know it is one of the most popular caches over here with many people travelling the country to find lots of the places where it can be logged.

2.8k · January 9, 2013

And yes, I have logged the UK version of this a few times, and I know it is one of the most popular caches over here with many people travelling the country to find lots of the places where it can be logged.

Since these caches seem to allow a cacher to increase their cache count by 1 for every benchmark found, could something similar be done here in the US?

For example, a "Find a Benchmark Challenge Cache".

Rule 1: You may log this cache online after you have found at least one benchmark and signed the physical log.

Rule 2: Feel free to log this cache online once for every benchmark you find (after signing hte physical log).

Just asking...

2.2k · January 9, 2013

http://coord.info/GC43F3

It looks to be a place to log your benchmark finds. 14,000 finds but probably only a few hundred different people.

I put a SBA and it was deleted, then the owner sent me a nasty email.

It is a place to seek and locate specific benchmarks in the province of Alberta, not just any random benchmark. It is not a Locationless as you ascertain in your thread title nor in your NA log. If that were the case, people could locate any benchmark they want (as long as no one else used it first) and then log a Find. Only benchmarks listed by the CO may be used for Finds.

It is properly listed as a Virtual, albeit a Virtual where the CO can (and does!) change the location on a regular basis. In that regard it is no different than other grandfathered virtual and/or moving caches.

I've proudly logged more than 200 of the caps myself. It's a great cache that has taken me everywhere from the tops of mountains to busy downtown street corners. Don't knock it until you try it.

Needless to say, the local community is less than impressed to see someone who doesn't even appear to have looked for the cache step in and see someone post a NA log -- not once, but twice.

10.2k · January 9, 2013

http://coord.info/GC43F3

It looks to be a place to log your benchmark finds. 14,000 finds but probably only a few hundred different people.

I put a SBA and it was deleted, then the owner sent me a nasty email.

It is a place to seek and locate specific benchmarks in the province of Alberta, not just any random benchmark. It is not a Locationless as you ascertain in your thread title nor in your NA log. If that were the case, people could locate any benchmark they want (as long as no one else used it first) and then log a Find. Only benchmarks listed by the CO may be used for Finds.

It is properly listed as a Virtual, albeit a Virtual where the CO can (and does!) change the location on a regular basis. In that regard it is no different than other grandfathered virtual and/or moving caches.

I've proudly logged more than 200 of the caps myself. It's a great cache that has taken me everywhere from the tops of mountains to busy downtown street corners. Don't knock it until you try it.

Needless to say, the local community is less than impressed to see someone who doesn't even appear to have looked for the cache step in and see someone post a NA log -- not once, but twice.

First of all, 0 find 0 hide "O evil rant" who posted an SBA, The Frog can and does identify sock puppets by IP address, and take action accordingly. There are ways around it of course, but if you didn't know, and didn't take evasive measures, you're most likely busted.

I just quoted Dan because I have argued with him in the past that this is, by definition, a Locationless cache listed as a virtual. In my opinion of course, not his. :laughing: There is a very similar one in the UK, England, more specifically, I believe.

I buy the theory these two caches were allowed to be created in 2002 or whatever because Benchmark hunting was USA only. I also believe they were purposely listed as virtuals despite really being (my opinion again) Locationless masquerading as virtual.

Anyways, they're both beloved grandfathered caches, and I believe there is exactly 0% chance of either one going away.

1.2k · January 9, 2013

I love how the puppet assumes the cache was unarchived by some rouge reviewer based on the new date on the cache page...hilarious!!!

Hello...McFly...the Hide Date can be edited just as the cache page can be edited by the cache owner.

1.2k · January 9, 2013

There are many similar caches; you picked on one of the two or three most popular.

You can assume that, with all the attention paid to grandfathering, locking, etc., that each and every cache like this one was studied years ago and allowed to remain in place as-is.

This...

1.2k · January 9, 2013

In fact, as a general guideline, if someone has posted an SBA on a cache because they feel is a guideline violation, and the reviewer or GS determines that it should *not* be archived, the reviewer should ask the CO to add some clarification text on the cache listing, or at the very least post a note in response to the SBA. There's already a reluctance by geocachers to post an SBA in fear that they'll be chastised by the CO or some other geocacher and a cache owner shouldn't be allowed to respond via a PM with a nasty email message to someone doing something that they *should* be doing.

The cache met the guidelines when published, and is grandfathered. There's no requirement to force the CO to alter a page that met the guidelines at time of publication.

From personal experience with similar "find a benchmark" caches in my USA review territory, posting a reviewer note in response to a first "Needs Archived" log did nothing to prevent later "Needs Archived" logs. People don't always read before pulling the trigger.

As for the CO response, we don't know what the email said. "Nasty" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. If the email was sent through Geocaching.com and violated the site ToU, the recipient should forward this message to contact@Groundspeak.com.

...and this...

:Facepalm: to the puppet that feels the need to rant...

5.7k · January 9, 2013

I thought that it would have been archived by a reviewer long ago, not because of the hundreds of "found" logs on one hide, but that folks are digging in some areas.

I thought Virtuals were designed so areas around it weren't disturbed and why so many want to "bring them back" for NPS properties and such.

You're confusing the issues. You can't dig for geocaches. But brass caps are government survey markers. They are placed by governmental agencies. So, while a landowner can take issue with someone digging up their lawn looking for buried treasure, they don't really have recourse if someone is uncovering a government survey monument. (Edit to add: as long as they're just uncovering the marker itself, and not strip mining the place.)

Canada Lands Surveys Act

Ordnance Survey Act (UK)

Since these caches seem to allow a cacher to increase their cache count by 1 for every benchmark found, could something similar be done here in the US?

For example, a "Find a Benchmark Challenge Cache".

Rule 1: You may log this cache online after you have found at least one benchmark and signed the physical log.

Rule 2: Feel free to log this cache online once for every benchmark you find (after signing hte physical log).

Just asking...

One could. The system allows it. Just like the system allows one to "attend" an event a bajillion times to commemorate "finds" on the temporary caches set out for the event.

Whether one should...different question. I'd say that's why we have the NGS benchmark function, but your mileage may vary.

Edited January 9, 2013 by hzoi

2.8k · January 9, 2013

Since these caches seem to allow a cacher to increase their cache count by 1 for every benchmark found, could something similar be done here in the US?

For example, a "Find a Benchmark Challenge Cache".

Rule 1: You may log this cache online after you have found at least one benchmark and signed the physical log.

Rule 2: Feel free to log this cache online once for every benchmark you find (after signing hte physical log).

Just asking...

One could. The system allows it. Just like the system allows one to "attend" an event a bajillion times to commemorate "finds" on the temporary caches set out for the event.

Whether one should...different question. I'd say that's why we have the NGS benchmark function, but your mileage may vary.

Ah, but teh benchmark function doesn't increase my found count (like the Alberta virtual/locationless cache does).

2.8k · January 9, 2013

You're confusing the issues. You can't dig for geocaches. But brass caps are government survey markers. They are placed by governmental agencies. So, while a landowner can take issue with someone digging up their lawn looking for buried treasure, they don't really have recourse if someone is uncovering a government survey monument.

Canada Lands Surveys Act

Ordnance Survey Act (UK)

Does this allow just anyone to roam around looking for/digging up the markers, even if they are on private property? I know when you go to a specific benchmark page there is the caution:

"Must Read!

Benchmarks may be on private property or in dangerous locations. Obey local laws. By using the services on Geocaching.com you agree to this disclaimer.

14k · January 9, 2013

In fact, as a general guideline, if someone has posted an SBA on a cache because they feel is a guideline violation, and the reviewer or GS determines that it should *not* be archived, the reviewer should ask the CO to add some clarification text on the cache listing, or at the very least post a note in response to the SBA. There's already a reluctance by geocachers to post an SBA in fear that they'll be chastised by the CO or some other geocacher and a cache owner shouldn't be allowed to respond via a PM with a nasty email message to someone doing something that they *should* be doing.

The cache met the guidelines when published, and is grandfathered. There's no requirement to force the CO to alter a page that met the guidelines at time of publication.

From personal experience with similar "find a benchmark" caches in my USA review territory, posting a reviewer note in response to a first "Needs Archived" log did nothing to prevent later "Needs Archived" logs. People don't always read before pulling the trigger.

As for the CO response, we don't know what the email said. "Nasty" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. If the email was sent through Geocaching.com and violated the site ToU, the recipient should forward this message to contact@Groundspeak.com.

I wasn't suggesting that the CO be required to alter their page, but only that there reviewer suggest (in a similar manner that you might suggest the use of attributes) adding something to the page to at least to to stem the tide on future SBA requests. If a CO is allowed to delete a SBA log and never posts a log or adds anything to the cache page how is someone not familiar with the history of a cache going to know if what appears to be a issue with the cache was resolved?

I have no idea what the content of the email that the OP received included either but it's obvious that some people get emotionally attached to some caches (enough to refer to someone that posts an SBA as a coward) and that posting an SBA on a cache is going to incur the wrath from those that know the history of a cache. As a result, a responsible geocacher that has read and understands the guidelines is doing the "right thing" by posting an SBA if it appears to be justified, and withholding information about the history of cache is likely result in a greater reluctance in geocachers posting a SBA when it *is* warrented.

10.2k · January 9, 2013

Since these caches seem to allow a cacher to increase their cache count by 1 for every benchmark found, could something similar be done here in the US?

For example, a "Find a Benchmark Challenge Cache".

Rule 1: You may log this cache online after you have found at least one benchmark and signed the physical log.

Rule 2: Feel free to log this cache online once for every benchmark you find (after signing hte physical log).

Just asking...

One could. The system allows it. Just like the system allows one to "attend" an event a bajillion times to commemorate "finds" on the temporary caches set out for the event.

Whether one should...different question. I'd say that's why we have the NGS benchmark function, but your mileage may vary.

Ah, but teh benchmark function doesn't increase my found count (like the Alberta virtual/locationless cache does).

If we consider it a locationless, there were indeed several locationless that allowed "repeat finds". I don't rememeber the name of it, but the locationless that was essentially "find a waterfall" allowed repeat finds for every waterfall you visited. Yes, lame I know. That's probably why it and all locationless are history.

January 9, 2013

"O Evil Rant" anagrams to "A Nit Lover".

5.7k · January 9, 2013

Since these caches seem to allow a cacher to increase their cache count by 1 for every benchmark found, could something similar be done here in the US?

For example, a "Find a Benchmark Challenge Cache".

Rule 1: You may log this cache online after you have found at least one benchmark and signed the physical log.

Rule 2: Feel free to log this cache online once for every benchmark you find (after signing hte physical log).

Just asking...

One could. The system allows it. Just like the system allows one to "attend" an event a bajillion times to commemorate "finds" on the temporary caches set out for the event.

Whether one should...different question. I'd say that's why we have the NGS benchmark function, but your mileage may vary.

Ah, but teh benchmark function doesn't increase my found count (like the Alberta virtual/locationless cache does).

Aye, that's the rub. I know how important numbers are to you, so feel free to create your own benchmark challenge cache and log it as many times as you like. :laughing:

You're confusing the issues. You can't dig for geocaches. But brass caps are government survey markers. They are placed by governmental agencies. So, while a landowner can take issue with someone digging up their lawn looking for buried treasure, they don't really have recourse if someone is uncovering a government survey monument.

Canada Lands Surveys Act

Ordnance Survey Act (UK)

Does this allow just anyone to roam around looking for/digging up the markers, even if they are on private property? I know when you go to a specific benchmark page there is the caution:

"Must Read!

Benchmarks may be on private property or in dangerous locations. Obey local laws. By using the services on Geocaching.com you agree to this disclaimer.

You get the devil's advocate award for today. See my edit above, added for this very reason. For more details, I'll refer you to a Canadian or British attorney.

4.4k · January 9, 2013

A cheap way to pad numbers eh?

A lot of those caps are in hard-to-reach places like mountaintops. (And we have real mountains here in Alberta.) So depending on which caps you choose, well, there are easier ways to rack up the numbers.

PS: Having corresponded a fair bit with the CO over the years, I'd have to guess his response was more "diplomatic" than "nasty".

Edited January 9, 2013 by Viajero Perdido

3.8k · January 9, 2013

You're confusing the issues. You can't dig for geocaches. But brass caps are government survey markers. They are placed by governmental agencies. So, while a landowner can take issue with someone digging up their lawn looking for buried treasure, they don't really have recourse if someone is uncovering a government survey monument.

Canada Lands Surveys Act

Ordnance Survey Act (UK)

Does this allow just anyone to roam around looking for/digging up the markers, even if they are on private property? I know when you go to a specific benchmark page there is the caution:

"Must Read!

Benchmarks may be on private property or in dangerous locations. Obey local laws. By using the services on Geocaching.com you agree to this disclaimer.

No the CO does more condone trespassing. In fact I have seen one of the locations changed because it was on private property. Also our law states that reasonable access to survey markers is allowed. That is you can, for example go onto sometimes lawn. or driveway. However anything that may cause damage such as driving through crops our opening a gate with animals escaping is not allowed. Our at least that's the intent of the rules, just not the wording.

As for being more than one smiley there are people who log it once and will write notes every other time.

6.1k · January 9, 2013

It appears to be a silly side game which has nothing or very little to do with geocaching, but I don't understand all of the drama on the page, or why it should be suddenly archived as it is not hurting anything or anyone.

4.4k · January 9, 2013

In the eccentric family that even includes containerless geology lessons, it fits right in.

Sort of.

3.7k · January 9, 2013

Groundspeak must have decided it had merit. I think posting the Needs Archived was rude.

7.3k · January 9, 2013

In addition to the drama happening on the cache page for GC43F3 (which I have copied and saved), there's been some other action on other Alberta caches by RIclimber:

GCN09W Cypress Hills Massif Earthcache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=88db63f6-a6d0-4039-9e93-782d9f34b347

RIclimber
[Premium Member]

[Caches Found] 2572

Needs Archived

01/08/2013

Please archive. This cacher is an a****** and should be banned.

GC12444 Branch Out

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=df09ea3e-46f4-4c78-8751-198bd32b8a44

RIclimber
[Premium Member]

[Caches Found] 2572

Needs Archived

01/08/2013

Cache needs maintenance. Cache owner is unwilling to look after his caches because he's too busy playing Cache Police.

B.

1.4k · January 9, 2013

As a result, a responsible geocacher that has read and understands...

This seems to be the problem, anyone reading the "Brass Cap Cache" cache page would understand it was a Moving Virtual. A short tour of the cache placers profile would reveal a moving traditional and moving multi, all maintained, all found regularly by people in the province of Alberta (and the city of Calgary).

To get RIClimber's attention I placed a similar SBA on one of RIClimbers virtual caches (I was really just pretending to be as smart as he appears to be, I do understand that Virtual Caches are grandfathered)

His response revealed a lack of character that I didn't find remarkable given his SBA on a cache where he never looked for it, took no time to figure out the history, no time to digest the basics, no time to read or understand and simply ran off at the piehole.

It isn't that hard to figure out.

In response to my naively placed SBA (I didn't do anything else, just placed an SBA that demonstrated the same simplemindedness as RIClimbers SBA demonstrated.

Here is the link to my SBA Please archive this cache

No evil intent, just another simple person who cannot read, right...

Here is the response from RIClimber Cache looks to be missing even though he never looked for the cache. Can you imagine if an SBA was posted on every cache that a geocacher couldn't find? This cache is a long walk, it wasn't found once. He even has the gall to say "looks to be missing" when he never looked at all.

Then this one Cache needs maintenance but the cache doesn't need maintenance. I just haven't cleared the Needs Maintenance attribute. The Needs Maintenance entry evens points out that log book is dry. The cache gets wet all the time because it is placed in a location where water gathers. Those who have found the cache know that it gets wet so the logbook is inside a double container, cachers put stuff in the outer container, it gets wet, I always wonder what they suppose the double container is for?

Notice how RIClimber is getting a little more ignorant with each SBA he is posting. That should tell you something about his character.

Then this one... Cacher is an a****** and should be banned. This was all in response to my SBA log on his cache.

Clearly RICLimber has issues that extend a lot farther than his SBA log on the Brass Cap Cache.

His defense seems to be that the cache he found thousands of miles away from home, the cache that he didn't look for, the cache he thought had been unarchived nine days ago was the recipient of an honest SBA log posted by a responsible cacher, you know what... "cows do too".

RIClimber is the type of geocacher who drives people away from this activity. The attrition rate for geocaching is far higher than it should be because their are cachers like RIClimber who fail to understand that this activity is about having fun, it isn't a PGA competition, if you feel like kicking the ball back onto the fairway, go ahead, no one should care except a CO and if they care they will let you know.

I have no problem with his infatuation with his profile start date or his use of an evil twin sockpuppet who unabashedly admires his greatness. I do object to his defense that the SBA log he posted was responsible or informed, a responsible geocacher reads and understands.

Here is the email I received from the evil twin sockpuppet account "O Evil Rant" defending RIClimber, the fact that he sounds like RIClimber is just coincidence and the insults, what can I say, he is an evil sockpuppet account so I expect him to be evil.

You have a problem with virtual caches on geocaching.com?

I suggest you re-read their very own rules about virtual caches. But in case you can't read English I'll send you the relevant section:

"II.2.10:

Virtual and Webcam Caches have been grandfathered.

Virtual caches and webcam caches are no longer available as options for new listings on Geocaching.com. Caches of these types that existed prior to November 2005, often referred to as grandfathered caches, are exceptions to this rule and may still be active. New listings similar to these cache types can be created as waymarks at Waymarking.com.

If you currently own a virtual or webcam cache, you must maintain the cache listing and logs, respond to inquiries from cachers, and must check the physical location periodically. Abandoned caches will likely be archived by Groundspeak. Grandfathered caches will not be unarchived."

Just what there do you not understand? Jonathan maintains each and every one of his caches. He answers all email that needs a reply. That virtual cache has existed in geocaching since the year you started, and if you can't tell time, 2003 comes before November 2005. Just because you never hid a Virtual of your own and only now realize that you can't ever do so should not make you want to shut down others. P.S. If Groundspeak determines that you have 'requested archiving' for many caches for no reason they will shut down your account before they shut down any virtual that you suggest unjustly needs anything. If anything, the virtual cache that deleted your logs should be shut down because it's not a virtual. Get a life.

3.6k · January 9, 2013

I smell alot of arm chair logging on that cache. LOL...

Archived it. I dont care.

To the OP:

Logging a need archived log will only make you look bad even you are "right".

Geocaching is to have fun and if you arent having fun, you are doing it wrong.

3.6k · January 9, 2013

There are many similar caches; you picked on one of the two or three most popular.

You can assume that, with all the attention paid to grandfathering, locking, etc., that each and every cache like this one was studied years ago and allowed to remain in place as-is.

Why GS just placed a note on the cache page that its cleared by them?

January 9, 2013

In addition to the drama happening on the cache page for GC43F3 (which I have copied and saved), there's been some other action on other Alberta caches by RIclimber:

GCN09W Cypress Hills Massif Earthcache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=88db63f6-a6d0-4039-9e93-782d9f34b347

RIclimber
[Premium Member]

[Caches Found] 2572

Needs Archived

01/08/2013

Please archive. This cacher is an a****** and should be banned.

GC12444 Branch Out

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=df09ea3e-46f4-4c78-8751-198bd32b8a44

RIclimber
[Premium Member]

[Caches Found] 2572

Needs Archived

01/08/2013

Cache needs maintenance. Cache owner is unwilling to look after his caches because he's too busy playing Cache Police.

B.

You forgot the needless SBA on my cache from this user.

Location: Massachusetts, United States
wavector requested JFK Virtual (Virtual Cache) to be archived at 1/8/2013

Log Date: 1/8/2013

Please archive this cache, looks like a Virtual and they are not allowed

And calling me a "Self-centered boor, lacking introspection, lacking manners, infected with smilies."

January 9, 2013

:blink:

I'm embarrassed for my hobby. I hope some nice long vacations get handed out.

14k · January 9, 2013

I'm embarrassed for my hobby. I hope some nice long vacations get handed out.

+1

1.2k · January 9, 2013

There are many similar caches; you picked on one of the two or three most popular.

You can assume that, with all the attention paid to grandfathering, locking, etc., that each and every cache like this one was studied years ago and allowed to remain in place as-is.

This post right here solved the whole issue...seriously...the OP asked and the question was answered...time to move on...the whole drama taking place (took place) on the cache page is uncalled for...

1.2k · January 9, 2013

I'm embarrassed for my hobby. I hope some nice long vacations get handed out.

+1

Same here...

I just don't understand how people can make misunderstandings into a grande conspiracy...Groundspeak knows of the cache...and they have decided to leave it be...'nuf said...whether one agrees with it or not...'nuf said...

1.4k · January 9, 2013

And calling me a "Self-centered boor, lacking introspection, lacking manners, infected with smilies."

I never called you any of those things in these forums but thanks for accurately posting my remarks made elsewhere.

Now it seems that the CO of the Brass Cap Cache has pointed out that you have misquoted his email and it is clear to everyone in Alberta who knows outforthehunt that your character is even more questionable than the evident factors that I pointed out. In fact since outforthehunt has placed caches in other countries there might even be a few international visitors who are not too impressed with your character. Are you a fan of Lenny Bruce or something?

Whoa there sunshine

There must be a rule somewhere

I haven't told any lies.

I am not sure how geocachers act in your neck of the woods but bragging about our "stones" and misrepresenting facts are not big selling points.

So why did you react that way to my SBA?

Did you think that you were demonstrating good manners?

A little introspection and you would have been fine, you might have just deleted my log and sent me an email saying "What is your problem, stay off my cache page", did that ever occur to you?

Were you having fun?

1.2k · January 9, 2013

nonaeroterraqueous requested Why was this locationless cache grandfathered? to be archived

Clearly, this thread is not being properly maintained. Forum guidelines are possibly being broken with this thread placement.

4.1k · January 10, 2013

I'm embarrassed for my hobby. I hope some nice long vacations get handed out.

I agree, but it does remind me that vacation time is coming and in looking at some of the pictures from the web page, I am beginning to think that a trip to Alberta to find this cache would be a great vacation. This year, we hope to be watching darts at Blackpool. But next year! I trust this cache will still be active then.

Edited January 10, 2013 by geodarts

January 10, 2013

WOW. Immaturity abounds. And I teach high school. Grow up people.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Clarinetqueen

6.1k · January 10, 2013

Poor form on both sides, the public airing of grievances from Festivus should be over and done with by now.

it does remind me that vacation time is coming and in looking at some of

Edited January 10, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

7.8k · January 10, 2013

nonaeroterraqueous requested Why was this locationless cache grandfathered? to be archived

Clearly, this thread is not being properly maintained. Forum guidelines are possibly being broken with this thread placement.

+1

IBTL, cuz I know it's gonna happen any post now.

I'm also saddened that reviewers in two countries have been dragged into this nonsense. Each NA log notifies a reviewer. They're busy enough as it is, and now they have some frivolous and unnecessary logs cluttering up their inboxes. If you absolutely must make off-topic logs on each other's caches, make them notes, okay?

I hope we've all learned a lesson here: Before making accusations, make sure you know the whole story.

January 10, 2013

And calling me a "Self-centered boor, lacking introspection, lacking manners, infected with smilies."

I never called you any of those things in these forums but thanks for accurately posting my remarks made elsewhere.

Now it seems that the CO of the Brass Cap Cache has pointed out that you have misquoted his email and it is clear to everyone in Alberta who knows outforthehunt that your character is even more questionable than the evident factors that I pointed out. In fact since outforthehunt has placed caches in other countries there might even be a few international visitors who are not too impressed with your character. Are you a fan of Lenny Bruce or something?

Whoa there sunshine

There must be a rule somewhere

I haven't told any lies.

I am not sure how geocachers act in your neck of the woods but bragging about our "stones" and misrepresenting facts are not big selling points.

So why did you react that way to my SBA?

Did you think that you were demonstrating good manners?

A little introspection and you would have been fine, you might have just deleted my log and sent me an email saying "What is your problem, stay off my cache page", did that ever occur to you?

Were you having fun?

Why did you post a SBA on my cache in the first place? What did you think would happen?

I'm not sorry I posted the single SBA on a cache that looked like it had been changed from the time it was grandfathered. I AM sorry I didn't use a Sockpuppet!

I posted a screenshot of the email. I was then called a liar and photoshopper.

Every moving cache I've seen has a statement in the description that the reviewers have grandfathered the cache, last I knew this one did not.

I'm not going to stop posting SBA logs on caches I think need another look from the local reviewer, but from now on I will not use my real account. Congratulations. You just proved Sockpuppet accounts really are needed. As this thread had become a flame war, I will lock it tomorrow morning my time. That way you can't say I just wanted to get the last word in.

7.8k · January 10, 2013

I'm not going to stop posting SBA logs on caches I think need another look from the local reviewer, but from now on I will not use my real account.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with logging NAs on caches under your personal account, as long as the NA is justified. I, and several others in my area, do so regularly, and haven't had any problems. The two NA logs mentioned above by Pup Patrol are nowhere near justified, and only serve to interfere with the work of the local reviewer(s). If you feel you need to use a sockpuppet to do something, it probably means you're going about it the wrong way. Whenever you're considering logging an NA, do your research. You did some in this case, but failed to gather the whole story on a cache that clearly (to me) probably has a lot to the story. Some examples of methods you could have used to gather more information on this cache before logging an NA include:

-Contacting the CO or someone who has logged it several times

-Posting in a regional forum or even this forum

-Asking questions via a note on the cache listing

Only once you know (not just think you know, but know) the story behind a cache like this can you post an informed NA log. You've now seen what can happen when you don't do your due diligence, and I sincerely hope you post informed and justified NA logs on problem caches in the future. Just make sure you can stand behind your statements with such confidence that you can use your personal account. A well-formed NA coming from an experienced cacher carries a lot more weight than one from a sockpuppet. If you feel the need to use a sockpuppet, it means you're not saying things right, need to do more research, or just shouldn't be logging the NA.

3.3k · January 10, 2013

I'm not going to stop posting SBA logs on caches I think need another look from the local reviewer, but from now on I will not use my real account.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with logging NAs on caches under your personal account, as long as the NA is justified. I, and several others in my area, do so regularly, and haven't had any problems. The two NA logs mentioned above by Pup Patrol are nowhere near justified, and only serve to interfere with the work of the local reviewer(s). If you feel you need to use a sockpuppet to do something, it probably means you're going about it the wrong way. Whenever you're considering logging an NA, do your research. You did some in this case, but failed to gather the whole story on a cache that clearly (to me) probably has a lot to the story. Some examples of methods you could have used to gather more information on this cache before logging an NA include:

-Contacting the CO or someone who has logged it several times

-Posting in a regional forum or even this forum

-Asking questions via a note on the cache listing

Only once you know (not just think you know, but know) the story behind a cache like this can you post an informed NA log. You've now seen what can happen when you don't do your due diligence, and I sincerely hope you post informed and justified NA logs on problem caches in the future. Just make sure you can stand behind your statements with such confidence that you can use your personal account. A well-formed NA coming from an experienced cacher carries a lot more weight than one from a sockpuppet. If you feel the need to use a sockpuppet, it means you're not saying things right, need to do more research, or just shouldn't be logging the NA.

Well said!

3.7k · January 10, 2013

I'm not going to stop posting SBA logs on caches I think need another look from the local reviewer, but from now on I will not use my real account.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with logging NAs on caches under your personal account, as long as the NA is justified. I, and several others in my area, do so regularly, and haven't had any problems. The two NA logs mentioned above by Pup Patrol are nowhere near justified, and only serve to interfere with the work of the local reviewer(s). If you feel you need to use a sockpuppet to do something, it probably means you're going about it the wrong way. Whenever you're considering logging an NA, do your research. You did some in this case, but failed to gather the whole story on a cache that clearly (to me) probably has a lot to the story. Some examples of methods you could have used to gather more information on this cache before logging an NA include:

-Contacting the CO or someone who has logged it several times

-Posting in a regional forum or even this forum

-Asking questions via a note on the cache listing

Only once you know (not just think you know, but know) the story behind a cache like this can you post an informed NA log. You've now seen what can happen when you don't do your due diligence, and I sincerely hope you post informed and justified NA logs on problem caches in the future. Just make sure you can stand behind your statements with such confidence that you can use your personal account. A well-formed NA coming from an experienced cacher carries a lot more weight than one from a sockpuppet. If you feel the need to use a sockpuppet, it means you're not saying things right, need to do more research, or just shouldn't be logging the NA.

+100

3.8k · January 10, 2013

Why did you post a SBA on my cache in the first place? What did you think would happen?

I'm not sorry I posted the single SBA on a cache that looked like it had been changed from the time it was grandfathered. I AM sorry I didn't use a Sockpuppet!

I'm not going to stop posting SBA logs on caches I think need another look from the local reviewer, but from now on I will not use my real account. Congratulations. You just proved Sockpuppet accounts really are needed. As this thread had become a flame war, I will lock it tomorrow morning my time. That way you can't say I just wanted to get the last word in.

Looking at the cache page it would be clear what this cache was/is. One of the Mods on here even knew what this cache was. This type of cache-by it's very nature changes. There should be no need to leave a note to explain the cache is grandfathered. It's clear in the Guidelines, and on the forums that these types of caches have been grandfathered as there was no additional reviewing to determine if they should or shouldn't be.

There is also no reason to place a NE log on a cache that you didn't(Or I don't remember seeing where you did) attempt to find. There is also no need for grandfathered caches to be reviewed again-that's what grandfathered means. This cache was passed reviewed when virtuals were allowed so it is OK now.

I was out of line and I apologise for that, in my earlier post, I was just a bit ticked off when you went after Wayvector and the CO. Although I don't blame you for the additional NA logs on Wayvector's caches, it wasn't the best thing to do. Neither was my response.

Edited January 11, 2013 by T.D.M.22

5.7k · January 10, 2013

Inconceivable how y'all are acting here.

Before anyone gets permabanned, maybe some voluntary forum vacations are in order.

The cache isn't getting archived, but some of your accounts might be if you keep this up.

Lock up your computers for a couple days, go outside and find a cache. Or a benchmark or a brass cap, for that matter. (edit: sp)

Edited January 10, 2013 by hzoi

Why was this locationless cache grandfathered?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment