Jump to content

Mill's End Park vandalized

user13371

By user13371
in General geocaching topics

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

user13371

+user13371

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

My first thought was NOT geocachers - but I couldn't rule it out. A slightly more likely GC related possibility is that someone ELSE saw geocachers rummaging around in this 2 ft median strip (calling it a park is a local gag) and wanted to see what they were after. The most likely is just some random vandals who wouldn't know a cache if it bit them on the ash.

 

I just logged into GC.com proper and posted a NM - hope the CO checks on this one.

Edited by user13371
cache_test_dummies

+cache_test_dummies

Posted
Posted

I don't know who pulled out the tree, but it seems that many geocachers (by their own admission in the cache page logs) have been vandalizing the park by signing rocks.

 

Others are just treating the cache as a virtual. Which it really kinda is, from what I can tell.

sparklefingers

+sparklefingers

Posted
Posted

I don't know who pulled out the tree, but it seems that many geocachers (by their own admission in the cache page logs) have been vandalizing the park by signing rocks.

 

Others are just treating the cache as a virtual. Which it really kinda is, from what I can tell.

Wow I didn't see that lol. I just looked at the smiley face and date. I so need to go to bed now lol.

user13371

+user13371

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Last found 3/3 had a DNF before that. When was park vandalised?

News reports it simpliy as "last week" -- which could mean the more recent "find" was someone treating it as a virtual or just bluffed.

 

I didn't treat it as a virtual back when I logged it. I visited 3 times and did not log until I found and signed. There really is (was?) a container and log there.

Edited by user13371
lamoracke

+lamoracke

Posted
Posted

I remember coming here for a virtual cache, perhaps that was part of the confusion, they think its a virtual here and not just a traditional cache. Either way, I seriously doubt a geocacher would pull up a tree, but cacher or not, its vandalism. Sure has a ton of logs that go way back admitting to not finding the physical cache.

user13371

+user13371

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
Why would you log a Needs Maintenance if you haven't visited see if it is okay?

Because in a two-foot median strip, landscaping work of ANY kind is likely to sweep away the cache - which as I recall was about the size of a cigarette butt.

 

I any case, I noticed there was already a NM flag the CO hadn't cleared yet. I just added the news story as a log.

Edited by user13371
murrayegger

+murrayegger

Posted
Posted
Why would you log a Needs Maintenance if you haven't visited see if it is okay?

Because in a two-foot median strip, landscaping work of ANY kind is likely to sweep away the cache - which as I recall was about the size of a cigarette butt.

 

I any case, I noticed there was already a NM flag the CO hadn't cleared yet. I just added the news story as a log.

 

Sorry, it just bugs me to assume that a cache needs maintenance if you haven't gone and physically checked. I see a reviewer has stepped in more about the photo logs than the actual maintenance issue.

 

I've only seeen pictures of the site, you've been there.

J the Goat

+J the Goat

Posted
Posted

Wow, the excuses some people will use to claim a smiley. Admittedly not finding the cache, but logging a find anyway.

 

For the record, there's nothing wrong with a needs maintainence log, especially given the vandalism. Maybe the CO didn't read the article. It does nothing but bring it to the CO's attention. Glad the reviewer is trying to put the kibosh on the virtual logging.

 

That park needs an ammo can...

NeverSummer

+NeverSummer

Posted
Posted
Why would you log a Needs Maintenance if you haven't visited see if it is okay?

Because in a two-foot median strip, landscaping work of ANY kind is likely to sweep away the cache - which as I recall was about the size of a cigarette butt.

 

I any case, I noticed there was already a NM flag the CO hadn't cleared yet. I just added the news story as a log.

 

Sorry, it just bugs me to assume that a cache needs maintenance if you haven't gone and physically checked. I see a reviewer has stepped in more about the photo logs than the actual maintenance issue.

 

I've only seeen pictures of the site, you've been there.

If they live in the area, have the context of the find, add in a sprinkle of news about the area around GZ being damaged, a dash of knowing that the tiny site got an arborist's landscape update, the DNFs and the virtual logs make a strong case that the owner should check on it. You may not like it, but a NM really is warranted in a case where you become aware that GZ has been altered significantly.

 

Plus, the owner hasn't logged in for a while, and I have it on good authority that the Reviewer knows what is up and was capable of using their judgement to use the information at hand to disable the cache.

Spunkie92

+Spunkie92

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't surprise me if the cache is completely gone. Maybe the leprechauns that inhabit the park took it? It's also a pretty busy area of town. If the reviewer has been tipped off and the CO hasn't handled it in a decent ammount of time, I'm sure the reviewer will take care of if.

 

Keep Portland Weird (I suppose?) I'm honestly surprised it hasn't happened before now. After living there for 19 years you'd think it would have happened before now.

user13371

+user13371

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Sorry, , it just bugs me to assume that a cache needs maintenance if you haven't gone and physically checked. I see a reviewer has stepped in more about the photo logs than the actual maintenance issue.

Sorry you feel that way. As you say, the reviewer has stepped in and asked for a check -- which seems very reasonable for the combination of fake logs AND recent work done on this patch of earth.

murrayegger

+murrayegger

Posted
Posted
Sorry, , it just bugs me to assume that a cache needs maintenance if you haven't gone and physically checked. I see a reviewer has stepped in more about the photo logs than the actual maintenance issue.

Sorry you feel that way. As you say, the reviewer has stepped in and asked for a check -- which seems very reasonable for the combination of fake logs AND recent work done on this patch of earth.

 

I can see now that this isn't what I thought it was.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...