Virtually immortal

3.7k · January 12, 2015

Ran across a virtual at Stone Mountain park this weekend where my email to the CO came back undelivered with a message about "permanent failure" and it made me think...how many virtuals out there will live on in pertetuity, never monitored by a CO and basically coasting along unburdened by any real ownership?

I made "note" of it in my log, but since the landmark it was created for still exists and likely will for decades to come, I saw no need to make a real issue out of it. It does, however, seem like COs of virtuals are basically not really responsible for anything at all as long as people are willing to log it for the smilie.

It also made me think of this thread, where the CO is still actively monitoring and making noise about changing the requirement to counter the possibility of "cheating" on his virtual...is it fair to those responsible COs to allow virtuals that have essentially been "set free"? I personally have no desire to rise to the level of "busybody-ship" by trying to get these caches disabled or archived; but aside from GZ being completely changed, is there any reason why you, as a cacher, might do so for a virtual cache? Does it matter to you whether a virtual even HAS a CO...or at least one that cares any more?

January 12, 2015

This is a very good question and I am interested in seeing other responses.

I will say that Virtuals DO get archived if a reviewer finds out that the owner is no longer maintaining it.

Example: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC471D_tiger-paws

People are still logging it though!

Also, I wanted to add the same can be said for Earthcaches. On at least 1 occasion I asked an Earthcache CO if my answer was correct and never got a reply. Maybe he is still active and maybe he ain't.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Zepp914

13.8k · January 12, 2015

Haven't really thought about it much.

Only a handful of COs ever responded on the few we've done.

The few who did seemed to still be enjoying the hobby with upbeat replies.

We just send whatever's needed and move on.

3.7k · January 12, 2015

Haven't really thought about it much.

Only a handful of COs ever responded on the few we've done.

The few who did seemed to still be enjoying the hobby with upbeat replies.

We just send whatever's needed and move on.

Which is generally what I do...until I get a "message undeliverable" email back immediately after sending the answers.

January 12, 2015

The same could be asked about webcams...There are so many out there that are inoperable and people continue to log them with selfies from their phone camera. I did see a virtual get disabled recently because the location it was in is under construction. The CO initiated the disable, so he/she is still watching over it I guess.

I rarely respond to emails I get from my virtual. Unless they are not following instructions and not providing with proper information. I still do check every message and pair them with logs to prevent armchair logging.

Edited January 12, 2015 by Uncle Alaska

7.5k · January 12, 2015

Geocaching works on the honor system, and I don't fret about anyone that's being dishonorable, so I'm not worried about answers not being checked. If cheating becomes a problem for a particular cache, virtual or not, then there are mechanisms for reporting that and for reviewers to deal with it. But discovering that a CO cannot receive answers is not evidence that people are taking advantage of that to file bogus logs.

7.8k · January 12, 2015

The same could be asked about webcams...There are so many out there that are inoperable and people continue to log them with selfies from their phone camera.

It's bit different for webcams. With virtuals like the one J Grouchy described, finders can still fulfill the requirements by going to GZ, getting the necessary information, and sending the answer(s) to the CO. With an inoperable webcam, finders are unable to acquire the necessary information for logging, namely the webcam image.

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with ownerless virtuals, as long as they're being logged properly. Finders can still have the same experience. However, if the answers are no longer available or cachers are abusing the lack of oversight (ie. armchair logging, not posting required photos, etc.), then I start to have a problem with them and they should be archived.

10.1k · January 13, 2015

The same could be asked about webcams...There are so many out there that are inoperable and people continue to log them with selfies from their phone camera.

It's bit different for webcams. With virtuals like the one J Grouchy described, finders can still fulfill the requirements by going to GZ, getting the necessary information, and sending the answer(s) to the CO. With an inoperable webcam, finders are unable to acquire the necessary information for logging, namely the webcam image.

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with ownerless virtuals, as long as they're being logged properly. Finders can still have the same experience. However, if the answers are no longer available or cachers are abusing the lack of oversight (ie. armchair logging, not posting required photos, etc.), then I start to have a problem with them and they should be archived.

gimme munny

This one seems to have been missing for about eight months, but people are still logging it. Major construction site. Will probably never return. But people are still logging it!

3.1k · January 13, 2015

The same could be asked about webcams...There are so many out there that are inoperable and people continue to log them with selfies from their phone camera.

It's bit different for webcams. With virtuals like the one J Grouchy described, finders can still fulfill the requirements by going to GZ, getting the necessary information, and sending the answer(s) to the CO. With an inoperable webcam, finders are unable to acquire the necessary information for logging, namely the webcam image.

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with ownerless virtuals, as long as they're being logged properly. Finders can still have the same experience. However, if the answers are no longer available or cachers are abusing the lack of oversight (ie. armchair logging, not posting required photos, etc.), then I start to have a problem with them and they should be archived.

gimme munny

This one seems to have been missing for about eight months, but people are still logging it. Major construction site. Will probably never return. But people are still logging it!

So who's gonna be first to log a NA?

1.7k · January 13, 2015

This is a very good question and I am interested in seeing other responses.

I will say that Virtuals DO get archived if a reviewer finds out that the owner is no longer maintaining it.

Example: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC471D_tiger-paws

People are still logging it though!

Also, I wanted to add the same can be said for Earthcaches. On at least 1 occasion I asked an Earthcache CO if my answer was correct and never got a reply. Maybe he is still active and maybe he ain't.

Hmmm. Maintenance on a Virtual?

Does not going there count?

January 13, 2015

This is a very good question and I am interested in seeing other responses.

I will say that Virtuals DO get archived if a reviewer finds out that the owner is no longer maintaining it.

Example: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC471D_tiger-paws

People are still logging it though!

Also, I wanted to add the same can be said for Earthcaches. On at least 1 occasion I asked an Earthcache CO if my answer was correct and never got a reply. Maybe he is still active and maybe he ain't.

Hmmm. Maintenance on a Virtual?

Does not going there count?

Looking at the logs someone logged a Needs Archived on this when their email bounced. My guess this one would still be active if it were not for that.

6.1k · January 13, 2015

I don't think bounced emails is enough for a virtual or a webcam to go away. However if it is not there anymore, it's asinine to keep it active. There are plenty of examples (such as the one posted in Japan) of people who log things without finding anything. Obsessive compulsive logging seems to be a disease that only locking the listing can cure.

2.8k · January 13, 2015

I don't think bounced emails is enough for a virtual or a webcam to go away. However if it is not there anymore, it's asinine to keep it active. There are plenty of examples (such as the one posted in Japan) of people who log things without finding anything. Obsessive compulsive logging seems to be a disease that only locking the listing can cure.

But in another thread, an unresponsive owner is enough to start the process. If the owner cannot be contacted, isn't it the same thing?

January 13, 2015

A nice historical virtual that I was sad to see go.

In this case a New Hampshire cache received an NA from a Montana reviewer!

13.8k · January 13, 2015

A nice historical virtual that I was sad to see go.

In this case a New Hampshire cache received an NA from a Montana reviewer!

I agree it's sad to see these go.

- But logs show the Montana Reviewer looked at it (and others), in conversation elsewhere about armchair logging, noticed it had maintenance issues too and placed the NA.

When we have Reviewers publishing caches in Countries they don't reside, I don't see the issue.

It was archived by a NH Reviewer when the CO failed to respond.

The CO was still active during that time...

6.1k · January 13, 2015

I don't think bounced emails is enough for a virtual or a webcam to go away. However if it is not there anymore, it's asinine to keep it active. There are plenty of examples (such as the one posted in Japan) of people who log things without finding anything. Obsessive compulsive logging seems to be a disease that only locking the listing can cure.

But in another thread, an unresponsive owner is enough to start the process. If the owner cannot be contacted, isn't it the same thing?

With a DNF, yes.

1.5k · January 13, 2015

I don't think bounced emails is enough for a virtual or a webcam to go away.....

If a NA is logged for bounced emails, it is enough to archive a virt or webcam.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#grandfatheredtypes

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.

6.1k · January 13, 2015

I don't think bounced emails is enough for a virtual or a webcam to go away.....

If a NA is logged for bounced emails, it is enough to archive a virt or webcam.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#grandfatheredtypes

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.

Yeah, it was just my opinion. I could probably quickly locate 50 virts with nonresponsive owners, but they don't need to go away anytime soon either.

8.3k · January 13, 2015

I don't think bounced emails is enough for a virtual or a webcam to go away.....

If a NA is logged for bounced emails, it is enough to archive a virt or webcam.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#grandfatheredtypes

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.

Yeah, it was just my opinion. I could probably quickly locate 50 virts with nonresponsive owners, but they don't need to go away anytime soon either.

There is a difference between a non-responsive owner and one that is absent or one with a disabled email. When I send the answers for a virtual I don't expect a reply unless my answer is wrong and I'm being told I can't log. But occasionally I get a chatty reply from the CO.

1.5k · January 15, 2015

...how many virtuals out there will live on in pertetuity, never monitored by a CO and basically coasting along unburdened by any real ownership?

I expect it will take some time, but slowly, the ownerless, boxless caches will go away. More quickly for those where both the object and the cache owner are gone.

Some cachers will log NA if they get an email failure message, even if the virt object is still available. I've seen a couple of such logs.

Other NA where the virt object, webcam, earthcache access is gone. Sure can take a while for someone to complain, instead of logging Found it! on the place the webcam, historical marker, whatever USED to be. Lots of confusion on webcams, many seem to think it's a photo op, selfie is fine. But the log type is "webcam photo taken". No webcam, no cache.

(I reported an Earthcache to the publishing Geoaware when there was no access to the coords any more, hadn't been for over 2 years - people logging finds on the end of the road about a quarter of a mile from Earthcache coords :blink: )

4.6k · January 15, 2015

Other NA where the virt object, webcam, earthcache access is gone. Sure can take a while for someone to complain, instead of logging Found it! on the place the webcam, historical marker, whatever USED to be. Lots of confusion on webcams, many seem to think it's a photo op, selfie is fine. But the log type is "webcam photo taken". No webcam, no cache.

My bold.

That'll be the thou shalt be branded a cache cop and cast into the flames mentality winning out

10.2k · January 15, 2015

Other NA where the virt object, webcam, earthcache access is gone. Sure can take a while for someone to complain, instead of logging Found it! on the place the webcam, historical marker, whatever USED to be. Lots of confusion on webcams, many seem to think it's a photo op, selfie is fine. But the log type is "webcam photo taken". No webcam, no cache.

My bold.

That'll be the thou shalt be branded a cache cop and cast into the flames mentality winning out

I have been a cache cop on several occasions. But I think people are muchless likely to do it on a Grandfathered virtual. That was pretty cold man, someone dropping an NA on that virtual in Washington, D.C. as linked to in post #2. The Yuckster wouldn't have said a word, most especially not "publicly", with the NA log.

6.1k · January 16, 2015

Looks like the popo locked down the cache in post #2, and archived the invisible Japanese one in #8. Good job guys!

3.6k · January 16, 2015

I don't remember the name or waypoint number of the webcam but there is an Airport in I think it is Sweden or Denmark. You have to stand in a certain spot that is not available most of the time. So instead cachers are posting pictures of their plane tickets in front of the flight marquee just to prove they were there.

4.6k · January 16, 2015

Other NA where the virt object, webcam, earthcache access is gone. Sure can take a while for someone to complain, instead of logging Found it! on the place the webcam, historical marker, whatever USED to be. Lots of confusion on webcams, many seem to think it's a photo op, selfie is fine. But the log type is "webcam photo taken". No webcam, no cache.

My bold.

That'll be the thou shalt be branded a cache cop and cast into the flames mentality winning out

I have been a cache cop on several occasions. But I think people are muchless likely to do it on a Grandfathered virtual. That was pretty cold man, someone dropping an NA on that virtual in Washington, D.C. as linked to in post #2. The Yuckster wouldn't have said a word, most especially not "publicly", with the NA log.

And it looks like people are still logging it even now! :blink:

I guess people just love the magic of fairy tales <_<

14k · January 16, 2015

I don't remember the name or waypoint number of the webcam but there is an Airport in I think it is Sweden or Denmark. You have to stand in a certain spot that is not available most of the time. So instead cachers are posting pictures of their plane tickets in front of the flight marquee just to prove they were there.

There is a web cam in Zurich at the airport. You have to be in the international terminal (which requires a shuttle from the domestic terminal) to get to it. There's also a virtual in Frankfurt that *does* require you to take a picture in front of a specific gate number. I've done both of them. There are many airports in Denmark but I didn't see a webcam at the airport in Copenhagen.

January 16, 2015

The webcam caches aren't about just being there. It's all about getting yourself on the webcam's image and that isn't so easy to do!

4.6k · January 16, 2015

The webcam caches aren't about just being there. It's all about getting yourself on the webcam's image and that isn't so easy to do!

Nah - it's about getting the smiley, the icon on your profile and qualifying for some challenge caches. Facts - we don't need no facts! They's just for puritans and cache cops

14k · January 16, 2015

The webcam caches aren't about just being there. It's all about getting yourself on the webcam's image and that isn't so easy to do!

Especially when the webcam is down. The last one I did was at the Alamo in San Antonio. It was one where it doesn't display the image in real time but takes a snapshot every 15 minutes or so. I had just missed the previous snapshot so *had* to talk to wife on the phone for about 12 minutes before she saw me in the image, saved it off, then emailed it to me so that I could log it when I got back to my hotel. Talking to me wife was easy. Dealing with the humidity of San Antonio in August, not so much.

January 18, 2015

The webcam caches aren't about just being there. It's all about getting yourself on the webcam's image and that isn't so easy to do!

Especially when the webcam is down. The last one I did was at the Alamo in San Antonio. It was one where it doesn't display the image in real time but takes a snapshot every 15 minutes or so. I had just missed the previous snapshot so *had* to talk to wife on the phone for about 12 minutes before she saw me in the image, saved it off, then emailed it to me so that I could log it when I got back to my hotel. Talking to me wife was easy. Dealing with the humidity of San Antonio in August, not so much.

Oh what a coincidence! I'm in San Antonio now and really wanted to do the webcam Alamo cache but it said it was offline. I hope that it will work tomorrow morning!

Edit: will the webcam image work if I try to use the lino on my phone?

Edited January 18, 2015 by crazypig88

3.6k · January 19, 2015

Here is one that has been missing since the beginning of last year and there was suppose to be a rock with writing on it. But now cachers are logging just a rock that was close by the missing one. Virtual

13.8k · January 19, 2015

Might be interesting to watch that one, see how far the Reviewer will allow the CO to "devise a clever scheme to revive this cache, since the memorial stone has, alas, gone missing!"

4.6k · January 19, 2015

Here is one that has been missing since the beginning of last year and there was suppose to be a rock with writing on it. But now cachers are logging just a rock that was close by the missing one. Virtual

I especially love how the cacher posting the NA on the basis that what should be there to find wasn't - made sure to claim the find first. People - they never cease to amaze me :rolleyes:

3.7k · January 19, 2015

Here is one that has been missing since the beginning of last year and there was suppose to be a rock with writing on it. But now cachers are logging just a rock that was close by the missing one. Virtual

I especially love how the cacher posting the NA on the basis that what should be there to find wasn't - made sure to claim the find first. People - they never cease to amaze me

Well...not only that, but it appears the CO is going to do something to "replace" it:

Will try to get out to the Park soon and devise a clever scheme to revive this cache, since the memorial stone has, alas, gone missing!

That one should throw up all sorts of warning bells with the reviewer.

7.5k · January 19, 2015

Here is one that has been missing since the beginning of last year and there was suppose to be a rock with writing on it. But now cachers are logging just a rock that was close by the missing one. Virtual

I especially love how the cacher posting the NA on the basis that what should be there to find wasn't - made sure to claim the find first. People - they never cease to amaze me

He did, in fact, satisfy the logging requirements even though the stone is no longer there, so I see no reason he shouldn't log the find even though he considered the virtual no longer viable. The requirement is the answer or a picture "at the spot". The missing stone doesn't have to be in the picture. The only problem is that, as I recall, a virtual has to provide an alternative to a picture, so the cache might be in trouble, but it can still be logged.

4.6k · January 20, 2015

Here is one that has been missing since the beginning of last year and there was suppose to be a rock with writing on it. But now cachers are logging just a rock that was close by the missing one. Virtual

I especially love how the cacher posting the NA on the basis that what should be there to find wasn't - made sure to claim the find first. People - they never cease to amaze me

He did, in fact, satisfy the logging requirements even though the stone is no longer there, so I see no reason he shouldn't log the find even though he considered the virtual no longer viable. The requirement is the answer or a picture "at the spot". The missing stone doesn't have to be in the picture. The only problem is that, as I recall, a virtual has to provide an alternative to a picture, so the cache might be in trouble, but it can still be logged.

I had noticed that a photo would do.

Fair comment.

Still lame in a sort of I'm logging this - even though the actual object of the cache isn't there any more but I MUST prevent others from logging this even though the actual object of the cache isn't there any more sort of way though, isn't it?

2.1k · January 20, 2015

The webcam caches aren't about just being there. It's all about getting yourself on the webcam's image and that isn't so easy to do!

Especially when the webcam is down. The last one I did was at the Alamo in San Antonio. It was one where it doesn't display the image in real time but takes a snapshot every 15 minutes or so. I had just missed the previous snapshot so *had* to talk to wife on the phone for about 12 minutes before she saw me in the image, saved it off, then emailed it to me so that I could log it when I got back to my hotel. Talking to me wife was easy. Dealing with the humidity of San Antonio in August, not so much.

We have a little image capture thingie which captures images in regular intervals once we start it. Only costs minimal data usage abroad, and we get the photo.

7.5k · January 20, 2015

Still lame in a sort of I'm logging this - even though the actual object of the cache isn't there any more but I MUST prevent others from logging this even though the actual object of the cache isn't there any more sort of way though, isn't it?

Yes, I concede this is a valid point, but, on the other hand, the initial reaction to this example was entirely negative -- for example, I'm pretty sure the initial comment about the found/NA combination was negative about logging the find while agree with the call for archive -- so the case for archival is clear. I can't really fault -- let along call "lame" -- the cacher that saw both sides of the issue, although I admit I wouldn't have called for archival on a cache I'd just successfully logged.

6.1k · January 20, 2015

Still lame in a sort of I'm logging this - even though the actual object of the cache isn't there any more but I MUST prevent others from logging this even though the actual object of the cache isn't there any more sort of way though, isn't it?

Yes, I concede this is a valid point, but, on the other hand, the initial reaction to this example was entirely negative -- for example, I'm pretty sure the initial comment about the found/NA combination was negative about logging the find while agree with the call for archive -- so the case for archival is clear. I can't really fault -- let along call "lame" -- the cacher that saw both sides of the issue, although I admit I wouldn't have called for archival on a cache I'd just successfully logged.

They did fulfill the requirements and may not have noticed beforehand that the target was missing. Being lured out to a spot for no valid reason is more than enough reason to both log it, and request it's archival. Yes, they are preventing others from making the same mistake.

7.5k · January 20, 2015

Still lame in a sort of I'm logging this - even though the actual object of the cache isn't there any more but I MUST prevent others from logging this even though the actual object of the cache isn't there any more sort of way though, isn't it?

Yes, I concede this is a valid point, but, on the other hand, the initial reaction to this example was entirely negative -- for example, I'm pretty sure the initial comment about the found/NA combination was negative about logging the find while agree with the call for archive -- so the case for archival is clear. I can't really fault -- let along call "lame" -- the cacher that saw both sides of the issue, although I admit I wouldn't have called for archival on a cache I'd just successfully logged.

They did fulfill the requirements and may not have noticed beforehand that the target was missing. Being lured out to a spot for no valid reason is more than enough reason to both log it, and request it's archival. Yes, they are preventing others from making the same mistake.

+1

4.6k · January 20, 2015

Being lured out to a spot for no valid reason is more than enough reason to both log it, and request it's archival. Yes, they are preventing others from making the same mistake.

How were they lured out to the spot for no valid reason?

As you've pointed out - they were guaranteed a smiley despite the fact that the basis of the cache itself wasn't even there :rolleyes:

3.7k · January 20, 2015

I'm still more troubled by the possibility of the CO going out and somehow "replacing" the original artifact/landmark...basically creating a new virtual (and perhaps defacing or negatively impacting the area). It should be archived immediately on that basis alone.

Edited January 20, 2015 by J Grouchy

6.1k · January 20, 2015

Being lured out to a spot for no valid reason is more than enough reason to both log it, and request it's archival. Yes, they are preventing others from making the same mistake.

How were they lured out to the spot for no valid reason?

As you've pointed out - they were guaranteed a smiley despite the fact that the basis of the cache itself wasn't even there

If the basis of the cache is not there, why would there be any valid reason to visit? Getting a smiley ? :rolleyes:

If the cache needs to be archived, it never has anything to do with the person posting the NA, although many hurt people would like you to think so. Either people are logging something that doesn't exist, or the property is posted, or the CO has done something incorrectly.

Here's what happens frequently. Someone posts an NA without finding the cache. The owner gets indignant and says that since they didn't find it, they don't have any basis to know if it needs to be archived or not. Then the cacher goes out, finds it, and posts another NA. Next, someone chastises them for claiming a find and trying to prevent others from doing the same. It's not rocket science, either it needs archived or not. The finder has nothing to do with it.

Geez. You would think that posting these NAs are similar to the act of walking into a preschool a few weeks before Christmas and announcing that Santa was beheaded. :rolleyes:

Edited January 20, 2015 by 4wheelin_fool

6.1k · January 20, 2015

I'm still more troubled by the possibility of the CO going out and somehow "replacing" the original artifact/landmark...basically creating a new virtual (and perhaps defacing or negatively impacting the area). It should be archived immediately on that basis alone.

I would expect that they are either asking the park about its replacement, or fixing it with their knowledge.

3.7k · January 20, 2015

I'm still more troubled by the possibility of the CO going out and somehow "replacing" the original artifact/landmark...basically creating a new virtual (and perhaps defacing or negatively impacting the area). It should be archived immediately on that basis alone.

I would expect that they are either asking the park about its replacement, or fixing it with their knowledge.

Their note doesn't really give me reason to "expect" that:

Will try to get out to the Park soon and devise a clever scheme to revive this cache, since the memorial stone has, alas, gone missing!

How does "devise a clever scheme" translate to "work with the Park to have this stone replaced"?

4.6k · January 20, 2015

Being lured out to a spot for no valid reason is more than enough reason to both log it, and request it's archival. Yes, they are preventing others from making the same mistake.

How were they lured out to the spot for no valid reason?

As you've pointed out - they were guaranteed a smiley despite the fact that the basis of the cache itself wasn't even there

If the basis of the cache is not there, why would there be any valid reason to visit? Getting a smiley ?

Well yes, it certainly seems so for a number of logs.

If the cache needs to be archived, it never has anything to do with the person posting the NA, although many hurt people would like you to think so. Either people are logging something that doesn't exist, or the property is posted, or the CO has done something incorrectly.

I agree - logging something that doesn't exist is pointless - and certainly a good reason to archive a cache based on the existence of the thing that no longer exists. Personally though I wouldn't log something that didn't exist before posting an NA on it on the basis that it doesn't exist and there being nothing there to log.

Here's what happens frequently. Someone posts an NA without finding the cache. The owner gets indignant and says that since they didn't find it, they don't have any basis to know if it needs to be archived or not. Then the cacher goes out, finds it, and posts another NA. Next, someone chastises them for claiming a find and trying to prevent others from doing the same. It's not rocket science, either it needs archived or not. The finder has nothing to do with it.

Yes - it needs archiving. There was nothing to find.

Geez. You would think that posting these NAs are similar to the act of walking into a preschool a few weeks before Christmas and announcing that Santa was beheaded.

I assume you're suggesting that I have some issue with the archival of a virtual which no longer exists. I don't.

6.1k · January 21, 2015

I'm still more troubled by the possibility of the CO going out and somehow "replacing" the original artifact/landmark...basically creating a new virtual (and perhaps defacing or negatively impacting the area). It should be archived immediately on that basis alone.

I would expect that they are either asking the park about its replacement, or fixing it with their knowledge.

Their note doesn't really give me reason to "expect" that:

Will try to get out to the Park soon and devise a clever scheme to revive this cache, since the memorial stone has, alas, gone missing!

How does "devise a clever scheme" translate to "work with the Park to have this stone replaced"?

Let's see. There's places that will create a custom metal sign for $30. Contact the park manager and offer to donate the sign and materials to replace it. Sounds like a clever scheme to me, along with being vague, as to not give away any more info. They could also locate another marker nearby and use that if it exists. With 500 finds, and in a National Park, there's not too much they can get away with without someone noticing.

3.7k · January 21, 2015

I'm still more troubled by the possibility of the CO going out and somehow "replacing" the original artifact/landmark...basically creating a new virtual (and perhaps defacing or negatively impacting the area). It should be archived immediately on that basis alone.

I would expect that they are either asking the park about its replacement, or fixing it with their knowledge.

Their note doesn't really give me reason to "expect" that:

Will try to get out to the Park soon and devise a clever scheme to revive this cache, since the memorial stone has, alas, gone missing!

How does "devise a clever scheme" translate to "work with the Park to have this stone replaced"?

Let's see. There's places that will create a custom metal sign for $30. Contact the park manager and offer to donate the sign and materials to replace it. Sounds like a clever scheme to me, along with being vague, as to not give away any more info. They could also locate another marker nearby and use that if it exists. With 500 finds, and in a National Park, there's not too much they can get away with without someone noticing.

Guess we all have our own definition of "clever"...

Both of those ideas seem more like additional reasons to archive it, in my opinion. Neither is what the original virtual was about, which basically makes it a different cache.

14k · January 21, 2015

I'm still more troubled by the possibility of the CO going out and somehow "replacing" the original artifact/landmark...basically creating a new virtual (and perhaps defacing or negatively impacting the area). It should be archived immediately on that basis alone.

I would expect that they are either asking the park about its replacement, or fixing it with their knowledge.

Their note doesn't really give me reason to "expect" that:

Will try to get out to the Park soon and devise a clever scheme to revive this cache, since the memorial stone has, alas, gone missing!

How does "devise a clever scheme" translate to "work with the Park to have this stone replaced"?

Let's see. There's places that will create a custom metal sign for $30. Contact the park manager and offer to donate the sign and materials to replace it. Sounds like a clever scheme to me, along with being vague, as to not give away any more info. They could also locate another marker nearby and use that if it exists. With 500 finds, and in a National Park, there's not too much they can get away with without someone noticing.

Guess we all have our own definition of "clever"...

Both of those ideas seem more like additional reasons to archive it, in my opinion. Neither is what the original virtual was about, which basically makes it a different cache.

The way I read it, the original virtual wasn't about the rock with a plaque on it. It was about an event that took place at the location. The rock, and the plaque were used to identify the location and, for the purposes of the cache to provide proof that one visited the location.

I did an earthcache once that was basically just a rock (an erratic). It was just a bit bigger than the one in the photos. It was at the entrance of a parking lot and painted yellow.

Virtually immortal

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation