Archive or Not?

3.6k · June 10, 2013

Well, here we are and please come in and let your voice be heard!

Since the Walleye been found and its very normal for us human being to take a long hard look at the next longest unfounded cache. But there are some issues.

http://coord.info/GC1259

Since this cache got another needed archived log and here its.

Friends, now that 4.5Lb Walleye has been found, attention will turn to Kougarok as the oldest unfound cache. However, since RyAk DNF'd and hid a replacement cache, I do not believe this should still qualify as a pure unfound cache. From the pics showing a simple GZ with limited hiding spot options, we should all be willing to agree that if RyAk and friends spent an hour "scouring", the container is most certainly not there. Numerous animals are known to scavenge small man-made items for their burrows, nests, dens, etc. This is the most likely scenario.

I respectfully disagree with Mountain Lovers and others wanting to keep the cache active. I believe this cache should be archived until such time that a visit produces the original micro.

Thoughts everyone?

So, what you think folks? Archive or not?

6.1k · June 10, 2013

No.

After a few DNFs, perhaps.

2.7k · June 10, 2013

Cache maintenance seems necessary, ask the CO to verify if it's still there.

If there is no response from the CO, then ARCHIVE IT. According to the one who has been to GZ, it is gone and some geolitter was left behind. That is all anyone else will find.

June 10, 2013

Tricky. I know someone has been there, but they were a newb at the time (still are with only 14 finds and it looks like their viist was after only finding a handful of caches.

I'm not quite a newbie anymore, but I still managed to scour a bench several times before finding the (in this case) very obvious cache. Even now we're finding hides that catch us out, and certainly at 20 hides we were still discovering the different types of containers that could be used.

So really - no offence t RyAK but I do wonder if he simply didn't "see" the cache.........or maybe it was gone and the replacement is gone and it needs archiving....................

<<<climbs off fence and pulls the splinters out>>>

June 10, 2013

How did the cache ever get approved?

jkeener

Member Since: Tuesday, 24 July 2001

Last Visit: Never

Status: Not Validated Member

13.7k · June 10, 2013

I'd like to know why a guy from Florida would think to NA a hide in Alaska.

I realize the cache may have issues, but if you've never been there...

This is all dependant on a guy with 14 finds, saying he didn't find it (and left another -throwdown, kinda).

- What if it is still there?

We've just seen another from the same time frame be found for the first time...

13.7k · June 10, 2013

How did the cache ever get approved?

jkeener

Member Since: Tuesday, 24 July 2001

Last Visit: Never

Status: Not Validated Member

You know how many unvalidated cachers with "never" as their last visit frequent this site's caches?

I sure don't. There's too many to count.

We average a dozen or so on our caches every Summer.

- We know because when we try to ask why their names aren't in the log, we can't get hold of them. Unvalidated email addresses.

Using their phones and never need to enter the site.

Edited June 10, 2013 by cerberus1

June 10, 2013

Personally I would say no. It is remote and the only attempt on it is by a cacher with limited experience. What do we benefit from archiving this cache. It was just demonstrated to us that a cache (by a new cacher) can survive in the wilderness for over a decade. Why presume that this cache has failed? Can't we look to human error first and then move onto the possibility that it is gone? I think closing the door on this cache would be an error in judgement and quite frankly it would only serve to guarantee that an amazing story like the one at GCDFB doesn't happen again.Let Kougarok Live!!

June 10, 2013

Friends, now that 4.5Lb Walleye has been found, attention will turn to Kougarok as the oldest unfound cache. However, since RyAk DNF'd and hid a replacement cache, I do not believe this should still qualify as a pure unfound cache. From the pics showing a simple GZ with limited hiding spot options, we should all be willing to agree that if RyAk and friends spent an hour "scouring", the container is most certainly not there. Numerous animals are known to scavenge small man-made items for their burrows, nests, dens, etc. This is the most likely scenario.

I respectfully disagree with Mountain Lovers and others wanting to keep the cache active. I believe this cache should be archived until such time that a visit produces the original micro.

Thoughts everyone?

My 2 cents:

- I don't put much stock in a DNF log from a new cacher.

- Too many assumptions are being made in the N/A log above. The original cache could very well be there. I don't think anyone is in a position to say otherwise. If an experienced cacher had DNF'd it, I would have reason to wonder a bit more.

- Expecting the CO to go out and check on the cache after just 1 DNF, just to satisfy the curiosity of the vast majority of us who are going to potentially "find" this cache vicariously through another cacher seems a bit much to me.

- I think that "4.5" just disproved that time doesn't necessarily mean the container will have definitely deteriorated by now.

- I can't wrap my head around what archiving this cache is supposed to do. By archiving it, what are we preserving and/or correcting?

6.5k · June 10, 2013

No. Not until there are a few DNF's, or at least a very serious one from someone who knows what they are doing.

It's not like it's blocking any new caches from getting published. :rolleyes:

its very normal for us human being to take a long hard quick look at the next longest unfounded cache.

This is more how I feel about the situation.

Edited June 10, 2013 by wimseyguy

June 10, 2013

I'd like to know why a guy from Florida would think to NA a hide in Alaska.

I realize the cache may have issues, but if you've never been there...

This is all dependant on a guy with 14 finds, saying he didn't find it (and left another -throwdown, kinda).

- What if it is still there?

We've just seen another from the same time frame be found for the first time...

Not sure I deserve your snarky response. I, like the other 94 folks with Kougarok on their watchlist, are interested in the goings-on of this, the now oldest unfound cache. I seriously doubt all 94 live in Alaska.

Walleye is very different. No one had visited GZ before. Regardless of whether RyAk has only 14 finds, I am confident that if he and 2 other guys searched this boulder for an hour, they most certainly would have found it if it was indeed still there.

7.8k · June 10, 2013

I say no, at least at this time.

I already picked apart the latest NA in the 4.5 lb Walleye thread as not giving any compelling reason for archival. In fact, I haven't yet heard a compelling reason from anyone as to why this needs to be archived.

-The fact that the owner doesn't have any finds doesn't necessarily mean anything. I'm sure we've all found at least a few good caches that were placed by cachers with few or no finds.

-Sure, someone did look for an hour, couldn't find it, and left a throwdown, but are other less-high-profile caches routinely archived on that basis? They sure aren't around my area.

1.4k · June 10, 2013

I'd like to know why a guy from Florida would think to NA a hide in Alaska.

I realize the cache may have issues, but if you've never been there...

This is all dependant on a guy with 14 finds, saying he didn't find it (and left another -throwdown, kinda).

- What if it is still there?

We've just seen another from the same time frame be found for the first time...

Not sure I deserve your snarky response. I, like the other 94 folks with Kougarok on their watchlist, are interested in the goings-on of this, the now oldest unfound cache. I seriously doubt all 94 live in Alaska.

Walleye is very different. No one had visited GZ before. Regardless of whether RyAk has only 14 finds, I am confident that if he and 2 other guys searched this boulder for an hour, they most certainly would have found it if it was indeed still there.

I've spent multiple hours on boulder hides with people who have far more finds than I do, just to learn that we didn't look well enough. If you've never visited a cache site, you have no business logging an NA. Pretty simple in my eyes.

June 10, 2013

Well, I got what I asked for...responses. So far all of you want to keep it active. Cool by me, I simply wanted to express my opinion and solicit others. As far as waiting on "a few more DNFs", that is simply not going to happen in my opinion. Because while it is easy to minimize the DNF of a rookie from in front of a keyboard, someone is unlikely to undertake the costly and time consuming trek required to look for it themselves PRIMARILY due to the DNF.

1.4k · June 10, 2013

Well, I got what I asked for...responses. So far all of you want to keep it active. Cool by me, I simply wanted to express my opinion and solicit others. As far as waiting on "a few more DNFs", that is simply not going to happen in my opinion. Because while it is easy to minimize the DNF of a rookie from in front of a keyboard, someone is unlikely to undertake the costly and time consuming trek required to look for it themselves PRIMARILY due to the DNF.

Just to be clear (which I wasn't in my last post), I have no problem with an archival. If it's not there, it's not there. If the CO isn't active (or real for that matter) then the listing should be archived. I'm not in the camp that says we should disregard the DNF of a new cacher (who has a helicopter!). I'm just saying that unless one has visited the cache site, or made an honest attempt, they have no business posting any sort of log other than a note on the cache page.

3k · June 10, 2013

If the cache was placed a decade ago, was never found, an extensive search turned up nothing, and the CO is long since inactive why put out a replacement container? Should have just been Needs Archived.

If nobody even made it to GZ for 12 years there is no point in having a cache there; it is too remote.

It seems this cache only finally drew attention because it became the oldest unfound cache in the world.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Joshism

2.8k · June 10, 2013

So big question, you travel there and do no find the micro but find the container left by ryak, found it or didn't find it?

Edited June 10, 2013 by Roman!

June 10, 2013

Just researched the etiquette regarding posting NA. Apologies to the townsfolk. I will not step in that pile again.

6.1k · June 10, 2013

If nobody even made it to GZ for 12 years there is no point in having a cache there; it is too remote.

I very strongly disagree with that. The longer a cache sits, the more interesting it is when found. The more remote, the better.

3.6k · June 10, 2013

If nobody even made it to GZ for 12 years there is no point in having a cache there; it is too remote.

I very strongly disagree with that. The longer a cache sits, the more interesting it is when found. The more remote, the better.

I agree with you there. But the problem is this: its a vacation cache and its very easy to turn it into "virtual." Thats where I am concern about caches that are so remote.

The N/A log is deleted by someone and I am sure it wont get archived at this point.

In real life, no cache at that location will last very long due to people coming up to it to check out the only rock for miles around.

13.7k · June 10, 2013

I'd like to know why a guy from Florida would think to NA a hide in Alaska.

I realize the cache may have issues, but if you've never been there...

This is all dependant on a guy with 14 finds, saying he didn't find it (and left another -throwdown, kinda).

- What if it is still there?

We've just seen another from the same time frame be found for the first time...

Not sure I deserve your snarky response. I, like the other 94 folks with Kougarok on their watchlist, are interested in the goings-on of this, the now oldest unfound cache. I seriously doubt all 94 live in Alaska.

Walleye is very different. No one had visited GZ before. Regardless of whether RyAk has only 14 finds, I am confident that if he and 2 other guys searched this boulder for an hour, they most certainly would have found it if it was indeed still there.

Pardon me, but aren't you the same person who asked for "thoughts"?

This thread opened and I posted here, as I won't be part of a forum on a cache page.

I stated my thoughts (I believe) in a rational, calm way - and that's snarky?

- Snarky might be if someone mentioned arm chairs...

5k · June 10, 2013

How did the cache ever get approved?

jkeener

Member Since: Tuesday, 24 July 2001

Last Visit: Never

Status: Not Validated Member

You know how many unvalidated cachers with "never" as their last visit frequent this site's caches?

I sure don't. There's too many to count.

We average a dozen or so on our caches every Summer.

- We know because when we try to ask why their names aren't in the log, we can't get hold of them. Unvalidated email addresses.

Using their phones and never need to enter the site.

A validated member can become invalidated if their email address starts bouncing the mail back to Groundspeak. I'm guessing that this is the case with this member. It's also possible that their last visit was before the field was created on the profile page.

Entirely different situation than today's smartphone cacher creating an account and never validating it, or visiting the web site.

June 10, 2013

Just researched the etiquette regarding posting NA. Apologies to the townsfolk. I will not step in that pile again.

In my book there is no problem with asking the question here. I think the issue that people have is posting it on the cache page.

I don't see any reason to archive it just because of one DNF. No matter how experienced the cacher is.

Does anyone know which cache comes next on the DNF list ? How about in the lower 48 ?

3.7k · June 10, 2013

No yet, although I'm pretty sure the original container is gone.

There would need to be more DNFs before this one is archived. It would be great if the owner was still active to go check/provide a hint, but it looks like they aren't.

In the meantime, I think someone should go for the conch shell cache.

3.6k · June 10, 2013

I am not in favor of logging a N/A log but there is no guideline against it if you see a real "problem" even you never was at GZ.

I think we should be careful of shooting the messenger when we dont want to hear the truth.

Edited June 10, 2013 by SwineFlew

June 10, 2013

I'd like to know why a guy from Florida would think to NA a hide in Alaska.

I realize the cache may have issues, but if you've never been there...

This is all dependant on a guy with 14 finds, saying he didn't find it (and left another -throwdown, kinda).

- What if it is still there?

We've just seen another from the same time frame be found for the first time...

Not sure I deserve your snarky response. I, like the other 94 folks with Kougarok on their watchlist, are interested in the goings-on of this, the now oldest unfound cache. I seriously doubt all 94 live in Alaska.

Walleye is very different. No one had visited GZ before. Regardless of whether RyAk has only 14 finds, I am confident that if he and 2 other guys searched this boulder for an hour, they most certainly would have found it if it was indeed still there.

Pardon me, but aren't you the same person who asked for "thoughts"?

This thread opened and I posted here, as I won't be part of a forum on a cache page.

I stated my thoughts (I believe) in a rational, calm way - and that's snarky?

- Snarky might be if someone mentioned arm chairs...

Thoughts, yes. Honestly, I was simply taken aback by the sarcastic tenor evident in your "I would like to know why some guy..." comment. Regardless, I am a big boy and have moved on.

14k · June 10, 2013

How did the cache ever get approved?

jkeener

Member Since: Tuesday, 24 July 2001

Last Visit: Never

Status: Not Validated Member

You know how many unvalidated cachers with "never" as their last visit frequent this site's caches?

I sure don't. There's too many to count.

We average a dozen or so on our caches every Summer.

- We know because when we try to ask why their names aren't in the log, we can't get hold of them. Unvalidated email addresses.

Using their phones and never need to enter the site.

A validated member can become invalidated if their email address starts bouncing the mail back to Groundspeak. I'm guessing that this is the case with this member. It's also possible that their last visit was before the field was created on the profile page.

That would be my guess. In 2001 there was almost certainly no notion of a validated/unvalidated member and there probably wasn't a "last visit" field in the database. Rather than populate some arbitrary date in that field the system probably just prints out "never" if the field was never populated. On the other hand, it wouldn't take very long to write some code which looked for users for which the last visit field was empty and set it to the "member since" date.

3.3k · June 10, 2013

Well, here we are and please come in and let your voice be heard!

Since the Walleye been found and its very normal for us human being to take a long hard look at the next longest unfounded cache. But there are some issues.

http://coord.info/GC1259

Since this cache got another needed archived log and here its.

Friends, now that 4.5Lb Walleye has been found, attention will turn to Kougarok as the oldest unfound cache. However, since RyAk DNF'd and hid a replacement cache, I do not believe this should still qualify as a pure unfound cache. From the pics showing a simple GZ with limited hiding spot options, we should all be willing to agree that if RyAk and friends spent an hour "scouring", the container is most certainly not there. Numerous animals are known to scavenge small man-made items for their burrows, nests, dens, etc. This is the most likely scenario.

I respectfully disagree with Mountain Lovers and others wanting to keep the cache active. I believe this cache should be archived until such time that a visit produces the original micro.

Thoughts everyone?

So, what you think folks? Archive or not?

This is not a game like the Olympics where rigid rules apply. It someone wants to seek it, fine. What does the find "mean"? That's not the issue - the challenge of the hunt is what it's about.

By the way, my theory is that the prop-wash from the helicopter known to have landed near GZ blew away the micro. Just one more downside of placing micros!

3.3k · June 10, 2013

If nobody even made it to GZ for 12 years there is no point in having a cache there; it is too remote.

I very strongly disagree with that. The longer a cache sits, the more interesting it is when found. The more remote, the better.

True, in a way. The journey and quest for "4.5" was fascinating. The cache itself was average.

But, yes, "too remote" is not a valid criticism. It's sometimes just coincidence when a cache will be found. If a single cacher in Fort Albany with a motorboat had wanted to seek it out, it could have been found anytime, perhaps even by going there and back in a long day, or by camping out near GZ, in a two-day round trip. That could have been done years ago. But maybe caching is not a major hobby in Fort Albany.

7.8k · June 10, 2013

If nobody even made it to GZ for 12 years there is no point in having a cache there; it is too remote.

<sarcasm>In that case, I guess someone needs to call up Richard Garriott to tell him Groundspeak will be archiving "Rainbow Hydrothermal Vents" and "International Space Station" because they're too hard to get to. If he wants to submit more caches in the future, he should make them easier to get to.</sarcasm>

9.3k · June 11, 2013

I have a set of standards I apply when the notion of an NA comes to mind.

First, assuming we're not talking some egregious guideline violation, a cache should meet three criteria:

1 ) The cache should be in significant distress.

2 ) The owner is either MIA or uninterested in fixing it.

3 ) The local community is unwilling to unofficially adopt it.

With these met, I'll add a caveat:

NAs should only be posted by someone with current experience with conditions at GZ.

Armchair NAs are worthy only of scorn.

Note: This is naught but one old, fat, cripples opinion.

June 11, 2013

I'm not sure about archival. It's not like this cache is in the way of anything except a level of status. However, I do have a few questions.

1. An early log makes mention and shows photos of a fire. Cooked cache?

2. How do we know the coordinates are right? Remember the 2 millionth cache?

3. How experienced should a cacher be to be considered a viable judge of "missing"? Would three years and 600 finds be enough?

10.1k · June 11, 2013

I have a set of standards I apply when the notion of an NA comes to mind.

First, assuming we're not talking some egregious guideline violation, a cache should meet three criteria:

1 ) The cache should be in significant distress.

2 ) The owner is either MIA or uninterested in fixing it.

3 ) The local community is unwilling to unofficially adopt it.

With these met, I'll add a caveat:

NAs should only be posted by someone with current experience with conditions at GZ.

Armchair NAs are worthy only of scorn.

Note: This is naught but one old, fat, cripples opinion.

There are, of course, exceptions. I was looking at caches a few thousand miles away, and saw that a cache page now stated something like: "Cache has been missing for a few years. Too far away for us to maintain. So, post a photo to claim this cache." I pointed this out to the reviewer, and the 'cache' was archived. So, your statement is not entirely true.

13.7k · June 11, 2013

If nobody even made it to GZ for 12 years there is no point in having a cache there; it is too remote.

Sometimes it's not all about the find...

Walleye has brought a new interest in hides that folks thought were once improbable, if not impossible to grab after all these years.

Do you realize how many watched with anticipation every move those guys made?

How many of those watchers do you think are capable of such an trek?

- Few I bet, but they were glued to the set.

Many just shrugged and assumed they're no longer there. Now, not so sure...

Caches like A-Team mentioned give people something to think, dream and sometimes laugh about. Hope.

Like a jig saw puzzle of what-ifs, it allows people to play, "If I could, I'd..." figuring out the planning in their heads.

Didn't you ever want to go somewhere or do something that you know you'd probably never get the chance to do?

Still think about it though, right?

You can go to the bottom of the Ocean, into Space and yeah, a deserted patch of field that, depending on Season, is God-awful to get to.

-If not by the strength of your legs, then maybe, for awhile, as a thought in your head.

1.7k · June 11, 2013

Archive or not? Probably not, but caches do get archived for a lot less. Typically it doesn't need to take 5, 7, 10+ years of CO inactivity and a DNF for a cache to be archived, so I suspect this one hasn't and won't be simply because of some significance that has randomly landed on it, namely it heading towards and then becoming the oldest active unfound cache.

Now, what's the *next* oldest active unfound cache...?

Edited June 11, 2013 by funkymunkyzone

4.5k · June 11, 2013

I haven't went up to look for this cache but i would say that it needs to be archived. After reading the logs, it just seems easy for me to figure out. There's the one confession of not being able to find the original cache and then leaving a throwdown. That part is a bit iffy but does add to the case. The clincher for me came in 2011 when the reviewer asked for the CO to check on things. From what i can see in the logs, that didn't happen. That cache listing needed to go away a month or two after that reviewer note.

June 11, 2013

If nobody even made it to GZ for 12 years there is no point in having a cache there; it is too remote.

I very strongly disagree with that. The longer a cache sits, the more interesting it is when found. The more remote, the better.

I agree 4wheelin. Makes it interesting and MUCH more exciting for the one who is FTF. Sucks when people put throwdowns around. Just because U didn't find it does NOT mean it isn't there anymore....

1.7k · June 11, 2013

Of course if anyone was really keen to check with the cache owner the status, or not, of the cache, maybe even offer to adopt it, they could track down the cache owner. In less than 2 minutes of easy searching, you can find the company they own and their LinkedIn page.

6.1k · June 11, 2013

Of course if anyone was really keen to check with the cache owner the status, or not, of the cache, maybe even offer to adopt it, they could track down the cache owner. In less than 2 minutes of easy searching, you can find the company they own and their LinkedIn page.

Yes, but what happens if the cache owner should magically reappear and announce that the throwdown is fine? It is his cache after all.

Suddenly would all of the judgmental puritans declare it to be evil in some form, and try to have it subsequently put to death with a NA log?

Quite honestly it would seem ludicrous for anyone to post a NA on any other cache with only a single DNF and declare it missing, and especially from someone with a handful of finds. But that is what is happening here. Around here three DNFs causes a cache to become disabled from the reviewer. A month later without any owner activity triggers archival. In a few cases it is then discovered to be there all along...

Edited June 11, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

5k · June 11, 2013

I have a set of standards I apply when the notion of an NA comes to mind.

First, assuming we're not talking some egregious guideline violation, a cache should meet three criteria:

1 ) The cache should be in significant distress.

2 ) The owner is either MIA or uninterested in fixing it.

3 ) The local community is unwilling to unofficially adopt it.

With these met, I'll add a caveat:

NAs should only be posted by someone with current experience with conditions at GZ.

Armchair NAs are worthy only of scorn.

Note: This is naught but one old, fat, cripples opinion.

There are, of course, exceptions. I was looking at caches a few thousand miles away, and saw that a cache page now stated something like: "Cache has been missing for a few years. Too far away for us to maintain. So, post a photo to claim this cache." I pointed this out to the reviewer, and the 'cache' was archived. So, your statement is not entirely true.

More than once I've seen a disabled log from a part time cacher that says, "Cache is missing and won't be replaced", or, "Closing down this spot for good". After they don't respond to my email, I post a NA log. Of course, these are caches in my area. I wouldn't even consider it on a cache thousands of miles away unless I actually looked for it. I would feel like I was meddling if I did that.

9.3k · June 11, 2013

I have a set of standards I apply when the notion of an NA comes to mind.

First, assuming we're not talking some egregious guideline violation, a cache should meet three criteria:

1 ) The cache should be in significant distress.

2 ) The owner is either MIA or uninterested in fixing it.

3 ) The local community is unwilling to unofficially adopt it.

With these met, I'll add a caveat:

NAs should only be posted by someone with current experience with conditions at GZ.

Armchair NAs are worthy only of scorn.

Note: This is naught but one old, fat, cripples opinion.

There are, of course, exceptions. I was looking at caches a few thousand miles away, and saw that a cache page now stated something like: "Cache has been missing for a few years. Too far away for us to maintain. So, post a photo to claim this cache." I pointed this out to the reviewer, and the 'cache' was archived. So, your statement is not entirely true.

No statement is entirely true. Ever.

Including that one.

1.7k · June 11, 2013

Of course if anyone was really keen to check with the cache owner the status, or not, of the cache, maybe even offer to adopt it, they could track down the cache owner. In less than 2 minutes of easy searching, you can find the company they own and their LinkedIn page.

Yes, but what happens if the cache owner should magically reappear and announce that the throwdown is fine? It is his cache after all.

I'm confused. Were you 100% responding to me?

Not that I am advocating that dozens of people should stalk, contact and hassle the cache owner.... but tracking down the cache owner and asking them about their cache and perhaps even asking to adopt it means the cache owner would be involved and know/approve everything happening with their cache. It is, as you say, their cache after all, so whatever they want to happen to it is up to them.

By extension, if they think the "throwdown" is fine then so be it. Everyone will have their opinion, but generally, what the cache owner does, within the guidelines, is up to them...

Edited June 12, 2013 by funkymunkyzone

1.7k · June 12, 2013

Quite honestly it would seem ludicrous for anyone to post a NA on any other cache with only a single DNF and declare it missing, and especially from someone with a handful of finds.

And yet I've seen it happen in the past on other caches even when there were no DNFs and no one has even been to the coordinates.

But I do agree with you.

7.9k · June 12, 2013

It should have been archived two years ago.

If the owner suddenly surfaces, it could be un-archived or re-submitted.

I 'get it' that this is the oldest unfound cache, and I understand the attraction...but active caches need active owners...and this cache doesn't currently have one.

3.6k · July 13, 2013

If this were any other cache with a CO with 0 finds, not active and no validated email and the only cacher who was actually there couldn't find it and replaced it without the COs permission, then what would be the next move?

It being replaced doesn't really validate this to being the oldest unfound cache container, just the oldest unfound cache site.

Edited July 13, 2013 by jellis

3.6k · June 1, 2014

Bump... Someone hit the N/A button. <_<

http://coord.info/GLECTTJR

Lets just pull the plug and have a funeral. :unsure:

I am more on the side that something need to be done about it... sweeping it under the rug won't solve the problem.

Allowing "throw down" is just like allowing people to take a selfie for a webcam cache.

3.7k · June 1, 2014

I still think there should be more DNFs before its archived. It's possible it's buried under the grass. I found one like that the other day. It was tucked under the grass and hard to spot. If I didn't have a specific hint, I might not have found it. After 12 years, this is certainly possible.

2.8k · June 1, 2014

I also believe if you haven't been at GZ you have no right determining the fate of the cache, one DNF by a new cacher means nothing.

I figure $2K to get there, unfortunately although I have been pondering going I spent way past my budget travelling in the past year and I know my wife would not let me go any time soon, maybe 2016, 2017 but if you all want to sponsor me I'd be out the door yesterday.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Roman!

3.7k · June 1, 2014

I'll chip in 50 cents.

2.8k · June 1, 2014

I'll chip in 50 cents.

That won't cut it, at. Maybe 100 active forum members that's $20 each.

Archive or Not?

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