Jump to content

You Can't Do That - Discussion thread.


L0ne.R
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

1. So, you can't dig a hole to place a cache.

 

You also shouldn't dig a hole, fill the hole with cement, leave space for a cache, and then use that dug, cement hole for a cache. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

 

9d1b0493-a85b-43fe-9b4f-89dcd1dfcacf.jpg

 

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional). I.1.3: "Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed."

 

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How? Not really. It could be brought above ground, and the big rock used to cover a cache against the fence post, versus digging a hole at the bend in a rural road.

 

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

 

I think it's fair to out this cache since it is the most famous, most talked about and (and oldest active) cache.....Mingo GC30 http://coord.info/GC30

The first photos in the gallery show a buried in the dirt tubular cache next to the post. Date of photo 09/14/2000.

d3801a8f-1ddf-461e-8903-fb5ae7e692fb_l.jpg

The buried cache guideline went into effect in early 2001.

By 2006 it is still buried in the dirt.

cd461b8f-d380-47eb-a160-984dfa8b8152_l.jpg

In 2007 someone dug the hole some more and inserted a metal tube then placed the container in that metal tube.

0b8e46b1-0df9-469f-896c-7d4968b8135a_l.jpg

 

 

12/20/2012 Sometime in December 2012 someone pours concrete over the Mingo hole.

01/05/2013 But cachers were determined to have a buried cache here and drilled into the concrete to make room for a cache.

661e877a-5883-42a0-9b6a-4decbf20a234_l.jpg

A current photo of Mingo.

cb3eee14-ed7b-473d-9598-a82107f0da92_l.jpg

Does this present a negative perception of geocaching?

 

The concrete may have been poured by a disgruntled cacher or by road workers. But to drill into the concrete to put a cache inside gives the impression that geocachers poured the concrete to play their game and did so with encouragement and approval from the caching community. Geocachers definitely drilled into the concrete to fit the cache.

 

Is Mingo exempt for any form of burying? If it were moved 10 feet, could the cache owner dig a new hole? Could they reinforce the hole with concrete?

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

1. So, you can't dig a hole to place a cache.

 

You also shouldn't dig a hole, fill the hole with cement, leave space for a cache, and then use that dug, cement hole for a cache. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

 

9d1b0493-a85b-43fe-9b4f-89dcd1dfcacf.jpg

 

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional). I.1.3: "Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed."

 

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How? Not really. It could be brought above ground, and the big rock used to cover a cache against the fence post, versus digging a hole at the bend in a rural road.

 

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

 

I think it's fair to out this cache since it is the most famous, most talked about and (and oldest active) cache.....Mingo GC30 http://coord.info/GC30

The first photos in the gallery show a buried in the dirt tubular cache next to the post. Date of photo 09/14/2000.

d3801a8f-1ddf-461e-8903-fb5ae7e692fb_l.jpg

The buried cache guideline went into effect in early 2001.

By 2006 it is still buried in the dirt.

cd461b8f-d380-47eb-a160-984dfa8b8152_l.jpg

In 2007 someone dug the hole some more and inserted a metal tube then placed the container in that metal tube.

0b8e46b1-0df9-469f-896c-7d4968b8135a_l.jpg

 

 

12/20/2012 Sometime in December 2012 someone pours concrete over the Mingo hole.

01/05/2013 But cachers were determined to have a buried cache here and drilled into the concrete to make room for a cache.

661e877a-5883-42a0-9b6a-4decbf20a234_l.jpg

A current photo of Mingo.

cb3eee14-ed7b-473d-9598-a82107f0da92_l.jpg

Does this present a negative perception of geocaching?

 

The concrete may have been poured by a disgruntled cacher or by road workers. But to drill into the concrete to put a cache inside gives the impression that geocachers poured the concrete to play their game and did so with encouragement and approval from the caching community. Geocachers definitely drilled into the concrete to fit the cache.

 

Is Mingo exempt for any form of burying? If it were moved 10 feet, could the cache owner dig a new hole? Could they reinforce the hole with concrete?

 

This is a interesting example. When Mingo was first placed it did not violate the "no buried caches" guideline because that guideline did not exist. Presumably, any caches which were buried prior to the "no buried caches" guideline (which has undergone several text changes over the years) was grandfathered.

 

I don't think we ever found out who removed the cache and filled in the hole with concrete. Was it done by a disgruntled cacher, road workers (who were doing maintenance nearby at the time), or the farmer which owns the land on the other side of the fence). Does the grandfathered claus allow a cache to be "re-hidden" in a manner that would break existing guidelines?

 

 

Link to comment

<SNIP> Does the grandfathered clause allow a cache to be "re-hidden" in a manner that would break existing guidelines?

That's a good question. When a cache is archived, it can be re-enabled if it passes muster under the current guidelines.

 

I think there *might* have been an archival that was redacted (erased) during the 2011 missing/concrete kurfluffle.

 

Other caches which break the current guidelines have been archived because of the update. "Special" caches (oldest, or what have you) get some extra sentiment attached, and, in my very personal experience, makes for problems with consistent enforcement of the guidelines.

 

I would expect that a cache being replaced (regardless of sentiment) should be in line with the current guidelines.

 

But then we open a pandora's box of discussion about "if the cache has changed, is it the same cache?" Meaning, should a new container, new container size, slight move from the coordinates, etc. be cause for archival and a new listing?

 

I don't think that, so long as the cache hasn't moved more than the requisite distance allowed by a "update coordinates", a cache should be archived if the container or listing changes slightly.

 

It's about location, and proximity. So, if a cache is still at that site (should Groundspeak set a distance guideline for cases like this?), even if you move it from the hole to the fence post, and from a regular to a micro, so long as you update the listing accordingly to reflect actual circumstances found at the cache site, it doesn't matter.

 

For Mingo, there was so much sentimentality that changing the hide was resulting in a lot of heartburn. "It's not the same!" "It's not the oldest cache because it doesn't have the same container..." So somehow it got a pass to go back to being a dug out hole in the ground, now with concrete.

 

Sadly, it sets a bad precedent.

Link to comment

For Mingo, there was so much sentimentality that changing the hide was resulting in a lot of heartburn.

 

This is probably the least appealing thing about geocaching for me...that people get so worked up about a cache that isn't worth the effort...only because it's old. Seems it's only lasted so long because it's in a remote area that nobody wants to go to anyway. I've found over 1200 caches...and probably over 1000 of those are more interesting than Mingo.

Link to comment

For Mingo, there was so much sentimentality that changing the hide was resulting in a lot of heartburn.

 

This is probably the least appealing thing about geocaching for me...that people get so worked up about a cache that isn't worth the effort...only because it's old. Seems it's only lasted so long because it's in a remote area that nobody wants to go to anyway. I've found over 1200 caches...and probably over 1000 of those are more interesting than Mingo.

I hate to say it (or do I), but I agree.

 

I said as much over coffee with some other cachers when I got home from the long, cross-continent trip we took. We happened to be going by GC30, so we pulled off the highway to see what it was all about.

 

Meh. If you gave it a newer hide date and longer GC code, there'd be nothing worth 1500+ favorite points. I wan't impressed. I felt the same way when I came across the oldies in Oregon (GC12 and 17, right?) about their age--but the views and experiences to get there were far more notable than a dusty corner of a gravel road near an arrow-straight Interstate.

 

It is just my opinion, but I see no reason this cache gets that many favorites, when there are many caches out there more notable than simply an old "hidden on" date. But, to each their own. I cache to see interesting places, or to be challenged by an interesting puzzle/hide.

Link to comment

For Mingo, there was so much sentimentality that changing the hide was resulting in a lot of heartburn.

This is probably the least appealing thing about geocaching for me...that people get so worked up about a cache that isn't worth the effort...only because it's old.

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

 

Seems it's only lasted so long because it's in a remote area that nobody wants to go to anyway.

No doubt. That and the fact that anyone that visits Mingo knows it's something special and are unlikely to conclude from Mingo that caches can be buried.

 

The beauty of basing geocaching on guidelines instead of rules is that it leaves the door open for making exceptions when there's enough justification.

Link to comment

For Mingo, there was so much sentimentality that changing the hide was resulting in a lot of heartburn.

This is probably the least appealing thing about geocaching for me...that people get so worked up about a cache that isn't worth the effort...only because it's old.

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

 

 

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response.

Link to comment

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response.

Since you're not willing to discuss your position, I have no choice but to guess, but I gather you don't think the people revere Mingo for the same reasons people revere artifacts in a museum? It strikes me as exactly the same thing. As you might say, "only because it's old."

Link to comment

For Mingo, there was so much sentimentality that changing the hide was resulting in a lot of heartburn.

This is probably the least appealing thing about geocaching for me...that people get so worked up about a cache that isn't worth the effort...only because it's old.

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

 

This is more like a pilgrimage site. A shrine to an old GC#. The original cache is long gone. But it once occupied that piece of dirt at the side of the road.

Link to comment
This is more like a pilgrimage site. A shrine to an old GC#. The original cache is long gone. But it once occupied that piece of dirt at the side of the road.
That's a good analogy.

 

I enjoy visiting small local museums, where various historical items are displayed, and their historical significance is explained. But that isn't what Mingo is.

Link to comment

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response.

Since you're not willing to discuss your position, I have no choice but to guess, but I gather you don't think the people revere Mingo for the same reasons people revere artifacts in a museum? It strikes me as exactly the same thing. As you might say, "only because it's old."

 

You "gather" correctly. People don't "revere" Mingo...they want that little square on their grid filled...and the +1 on their find count. It has zero to do with the cache itself.

 

Making the comparison to historically significant artifacts and the museums they are housed in is ludicrous.

Link to comment

1. So, you can't dig a hole to place a cache.

 

You also shouldn't dig a hole, fill the hole with cement, leave space for a cache, and then use that dug, cement hole for a cache. :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:

 

9d1b0493-a85b-43fe-9b4f-89dcd1dfcacf.jpg

 

 

2. What guideline does it break? Link to the guideline (optional). I.1.3: "Geocaches are never buried, neither partially nor completely.

If one has to dig or create a hole in the ground when placing or finding a geocache, it is not allowed."

 

 

3. Can the cache be re-worked to follow the guidelines? How? Not really. It could be brought above ground, and the big rock used to cover a cache against the fence post, versus digging a hole at the bend in a rural road.

 

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

 

I think it's fair to out this cache since it is the most famous, most talked about and (and oldest active) cache.....Mingo GC30 http://coord.info/GC30

The first photos in the gallery show a buried in the dirt tubular cache next to the post. Date of photo 09/14/2000.

d3801a8f-1ddf-461e-8903-fb5ae7e692fb_l.jpg

The buried cache guideline went into effect in early 2001.

By 2006 it is still buried in the dirt.

cd461b8f-d380-47eb-a160-984dfa8b8152_l.jpg

In 2007 someone dug the hole some more and inserted a metal tube then placed the container in that metal tube.

0b8e46b1-0df9-469f-896c-7d4968b8135a_l.jpg

 

 

12/20/2012 Sometime in December 2012 someone pours concrete over the Mingo hole.

01/05/2013 But cachers were determined to have a buried cache here and drilled into the concrete to make room for a cache.

661e877a-5883-42a0-9b6a-4decbf20a234_l.jpg

A current photo of Mingo.

cb3eee14-ed7b-473d-9598-a82107f0da92_l.jpg

Does this present a negative perception of geocaching?

 

The concrete may have been poured by a disgruntled cacher or by road workers. But to drill into the concrete to put a cache inside gives the impression that geocachers poured the concrete to play their game and did so with encouragement and approval from the caching community. Geocachers definitely drilled into the concrete to fit the cache.

 

Is Mingo exempt for any form of burying? If it were moved 10 feet, could the cache owner dig a new hole? Could they reinforce the hole with concrete?

 

This is a interesting example. When Mingo was first placed it did not violate the "no buried caches" guideline because that guideline did not exist. Presumably, any caches which were buried prior to the "no buried caches" guideline (which has undergone several text changes over the years) was grandfathered.

 

I don't think we ever found out who removed the cache and filled in the hole with concrete. Was it done by a disgruntled cacher, road workers (who were doing maintenance nearby at the time), or the farmer which owns the land on the other side of the fence). Does the grandfathered claus allow a cache to be "re-hidden" in a manner that would break existing guidelines?

 

It wasn't done by a disgruntled cacher or road workers.

Edited by ottieolsen
Link to comment

I thought posting spoiler photos online was against the guidelines.

Pretty sure those photos are straight out of the logs on the cache page.

 

At the end of the day it pretty much boils down to whether or not the CO chooses to delete the photo. I've seen a lot of caches where the CO posted spoiler photos, with circles and arrows, showing exactly where the cache is hidden. IMHO, the "no spoiler photos" clause give a CO the right to delete any photos deems to be a spoiler just as a CO may delete any log if the physical log was not signed. User accounts have been closed down due to excessive arm chair logging, and presumably the "no spoiler photos" guideline could be used as a justification to close down the account of someone that excessively posted spoiler photos.

 

 

Link to comment

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response.

Since you're not willing to discuss your position, I have no choice but to guess, but I gather you don't think the people revere Mingo for the same reasons people revere artifacts in a museum? It strikes me as exactly the same thing. As you might say, "only because it's old."

 

I find shrines odd sometimes. Like when they bulldoze a farm to put up a suburban housing development, then put up a little plaque honoring the farm they bulldozed, I find it rather sad.

Link to comment

Using the museum analogy...

What if the museum displayed only somewhat-similar recreations of the original historical artifacts? Would it carry the same meaning? Personally, I don't feel it would.

 

Unfortunately, due to the fervor which seems to surround this wayward little hole in the ground in Kansas, I believe Mingo will remain the oldest active cache forever. No matter how many times the container goes missing, there will be someone who will jump in and replace it. I suspect even if KansasStasher archived it, the outcry would result in it being unarchived and adopted.

 

...all over a random spot in Kansas where an old cache used to be hidden years ago.

Link to comment
Posted Today, 11:24 AM

 

snapback.pngNeverSummer, on 06 October 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

 

snapback.pngJ Grouchy, on 06 October 2015 - 06:57 AM, said:

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

First...whatever. It's a colloquialism for what you're looking at in the picture, and I have no idea what kind of aggregate the cache placer used to make the concrete. For all we know, they poured in cement and they used the surrounding dirt for aggregate to make the form. :anibad:

 

Second...You know what cache this is, don't you? When you know the history of it, it all comes together. Either way, that's not the point. You can't dig to place or find a cache.

 

First, the name matters. Your talking to an architect here...if I started talking about "cement floors", nobody would take me seriously.

 

As for this cache, why would I have known? I don't really make it a point of researching caches around the nation...even well-known ones.

 

Even knowing (which I didn't at first until someone told me), it makes no difference. It doesn't look like digging is taking place to find it. Looks pretty exposed to me. If a hole exists, I see no issue with making use of it. If the hole would not exist without the cache in place, that is one thing...but making use of a reinforced void in the ground does not, in my opinion, violate the guidelines.

.

 

In this example (the Mingo example) the hole was not pre-existing. Initially the ground was probably augered (as opposed to shoveled out) to make a round hole for the container. But that was in 2000, pre no digging guideline, which took effect early 2001. At one point it was covered in concrete to prevent people from placing a cache there. Then a geocacher drilled into the concrete to fit a container. Drilling into the concrete violates the guidelines.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
Posted Today, 11:24 AM

 

snapback.pngNeverSummer, on 06 October 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

 

snapback.pngJ Grouchy, on 06 October 2015 - 06:57 AM, said:

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

First...whatever. It's a colloquialism for what you're looking at in the picture, and I have no idea what kind of aggregate the cache placer used to make the concrete. For all we know, they poured in cement and they used the surrounding dirt for aggregate to make the form. :anibad:

 

Second...You know what cache this is, don't you? When you know the history of it, it all comes together. Either way, that's not the point. You can't dig to place or find a cache.

 

First, the name matters. Your talking to an architect here...if I started talking about "cement floors", nobody would take me seriously.

 

As for this cache, why would I have known? I don't really make it a point of researching caches around the nation...even well-known ones.

 

Even knowing (which I didn't at first until someone told me), it makes no difference. It doesn't look like digging is taking place to find it. Looks pretty exposed to me. If a hole exists, I see no issue with making use of it. If the hole would not exist without the cache in place, that is one thing...but making use of a reinforced void in the ground does not, in my opinion, violate the guidelines.

.

 

In this example (the Mingo example) the hole was not pre-existing. Initially the ground was probably augered (as opposed to shoveled out) to make a round hole for the container. But that was in 2000, pre no digging guideline, which took effect early 2001. At one point it was covered in concrete to prevent people from placing a cache there. Then a geocacher drilled into the concrete to fit a container. Drilling into the concrete violates the guidelines.

 

But your comment talked about digging to find the cache, which is what I was responding to. I agree it should not be there to begin with, but in general if the hole exists and would exist whether or not a cache was there, I see no problem with putting one there.

Link to comment
Posted Today, 11:24 AM

 

snapback.pngNeverSummer, on 06 October 2015 - 08:39 AM, said:

 

snapback.pngJ Grouchy, on 06 October 2015 - 06:57 AM, said:

 

First...it's CONCRETE. Cement is a component of concrete. Common error people make that drives me bonkers.

 

Second...how do you know the CO dug the hole and poured the concrete instead of just taking advantage of what may just be a post footing where the post was removed at some point?

First...whatever. It's a colloquialism for what you're looking at in the picture, and I have no idea what kind of aggregate the cache placer used to make the concrete. For all we know, they poured in cement and they used the surrounding dirt for aggregate to make the form. :anibad:

 

Second...You know what cache this is, don't you? When you know the history of it, it all comes together. Either way, that's not the point. You can't dig to place or find a cache.

 

First, the name matters. Your talking to an architect here...if I started talking about "cement floors", nobody would take me seriously.

 

As for this cache, why would I have known? I don't really make it a point of researching caches around the nation...even well-known ones.

 

Even knowing (which I didn't at first until someone told me), it makes no difference. It doesn't look like digging is taking place to find it. Looks pretty exposed to me. If a hole exists, I see no issue with making use of it. If the hole would not exist without the cache in place, that is one thing...but making use of a reinforced void in the ground does not, in my opinion, violate the guidelines.

.

 

In this example (the Mingo example) the hole was not pre-existing. Initially the ground was probably augered (as opposed to shoveled out) to make a round hole for the container. But that was in 2000, pre no digging guideline, which took effect early 2001. At one point it was covered in concrete to prevent people from placing a cache there. Then a geocacher drilled into the concrete to fit a container. Drilling into the concrete violates the guidelines.

 

But your comment talked about digging to find the cache, which is what I was responding to. I agree it should not be there to begin with, but in general if the hole exists and would exist whether or not a cache was there, I see no problem with putting one there.

 

In therein lies an issue. The "no buried caches" guideline does exist to stop geocachers from digging holes. It's to reduce the among land managers a perception that the game of geocaching allows "buried geocaches. A land manager, upon discovery of a container in a hole, may not make a distinction on whether or not the hole was pre-exsiting. They're just going to see a hole in the ground of the land that they manage, and associate that hole with the game of geocaching. Just don't do it.

 

 

Link to comment

Using the museum analogy...

What if the museum displayed only somewhat-similar recreations of the original historical artifacts? Would it carry the same meaning? Personally, I don't feel it would.

I've been to a museum where they showed a functioning recreation of the Wright's original airplane. I felt it carried meaning. Not the same meaning as the actual Wright plane, but perhaps a meaning no less important.

 

The pilgrimage and shrine analogies also work since they convey the same idea that things and places can be important for reasons beyond the reality of their physical history.

Link to comment

How many Mingos have there been?

Is it a throwdown?

What has happened to all the log books with 4000+ signatures?

Does the CO maintain it?

 

Maybe I'm a cynic but I can't see the devotion to this cache if it's not the original in its original state and maintained continually by the CO.

Link to comment

You know, this whole set of threads would carry a lot more weight with me if it had been started by somebody who had, you know, actually hidden a cache.

 

I've seen some cache owners with hundreds of hides, but I don't think I'd look for advice on how to hide a cache from someone that tossed 300 film cans in a bush every 600' along a rural road.

 

Of course, it's also possible that Lone.R uses a separate account for hiding caches.

 

 

Link to comment

You know, this whole set of threads would carry a lot more weight with me if it had been started by somebody who had, you know, actually hidden a cache.

I fail to see the connection between following the game's guideines, and whether or not someone has hidden a cache.

 

If you can find a cache that breaks the guidelines, it was hidden by someone who broke the guidelines. (And that's what the NM/NA logs are for! Yahoo!)

Link to comment

You know, this whole set of threads would carry a lot more weight with me if it had been started by somebody who had, you know, actually hidden a cache.

 

I've seen some cache owners with hundreds of hides, but I don't think I'd look for advice on how to hide a cache from someone that tossed 300 film cans in a bush every 600' along a rural road.

 

Of course, it's also possible that Lone.R uses a separate account for hiding caches.

 

 

And I agree that someone who does not hide caches can care quite strongly about the game and the perception that defacement (and perceived defacement) can do. And also how the attitude of finders, it seems the majority of finders, has become frankly disappointing and a little shocking that they approve and applaud defacement screwed/drilled to trees, fences, utility poles, digging, etc.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

For Mingo, there was so much sentimentality that changing the hide was resulting in a lot of heartburn.

This is probably the least appealing thing about geocaching for me...that people get so worked up about a cache that isn't worth the effort...only because it's old.

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

 

 

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response.

 

Yet you responded.. :ph34r:

Link to comment

You know, this whole set of threads would carry a lot more weight with me if it had been started by somebody who had, you know, actually hidden a cache.

 

I agree with just about everything you post but stalking a cacher and then trolling about it is so lame.

 

Stalking? Trolling? I can't even begin to comprehend what you are talking about.

 

It seems to me that when one starts a thread in which one purports to show people the "right" way to do certain cache hides, it would help if one had actually implemented some of those "right" ways oneself. As a result, I decided to see if that was the case for the OP in that thread. In about 1 minute, I discovered that the OP has zero hides, which (IMO) means that he/she is not qualified to preach to others on the topic.

 

You may feel free to disagree with me, but accusing me of stalking is well beyond the pale.

Link to comment

You know, this whole set of threads would carry a lot more weight with me if it had been started by somebody who had, you know, actually hidden a cache.

 

I agree with just about everything you post but stalking a cacher and then trolling about it is so lame.

 

Stalking? Trolling? I can't even begin to comprehend what you are talking about.

 

It seems to me that when one starts a thread in which one purports to show people the "right" way to do certain cache hides, it would help if one had actually implemented some of those "right" ways oneself. As a result, I decided to see if that was the case for the OP in that thread. In about 1 minute, I discovered that the OP has zero hides, which (IMO) means that he/she is not qualified to preach to others on the topic.

 

You may feel free to disagree with me, but accusing me of stalking is well beyond the pale.

 

Why does one need to hide a geocache in order to recognize a guideline violation?

Link to comment
Why does one need to hide a geocache in order to recognize a guideline violation?

 

Re-read what I wrote, this time for comprehension.

 

I did not say that someone who has not hidden a cache cannot recognize a guideline violation; rather, I said that someone who has not hidden a cache has, IMO, (and read this part carefully):

 

no standing to preach to others about how to fix guideline violations.

 

Once again, you are free to disagree but please do not mischaracterize my statements.

Link to comment

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response.

Since you're not willing to discuss your position, I have no choice but to guess, but I gather you don't think the people revere Mingo for the same reasons people revere artifacts in a museum? It strikes me as exactly the same thing. As you might say, "only because it's old."

 

You "gather" correctly. People don't "revere" Mingo...they want that little square on their grid filled...and the +1 on their find count. It has zero to do with the cache itself.

 

Making the comparison to historically significant artifacts and the museums they are housed in is ludicrous.

Nope, not ludicrous. People who are deeply into *any* interest or activity are often attracted to the old, historical artifacts. There are old, broken clay bowls in some archeological museums. Instrinsically, *as bowls,* they are worthless junk. However, as artifacts of an old civilization, they are priceless.

 

Mingo might not score high in favorite points *purely as a cache.* People drive hundreds of miles to see it (they've posted in the forums) because of its historic significance. So yes, some people *do* revere Mingo.

Edited by wmpastor
Link to comment

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response.

Since you're not willing to discuss your position, I have no choice but to guess, but I gather you don't think the people revere Mingo for the same reasons people revere artifacts in a museum? It strikes me as exactly the same thing. As you might say, "only because it's old."

 

You "gather" correctly. People don't "revere" Mingo...they want that little square on their grid filled...and the +1 on their find count. It has zero to do with the cache itself.

 

Making the comparison to historically significant artifacts and the museums they are housed in is ludicrous.

Nope, not ludicrous. People who are deeply into *any* interest or activity are often attracted to the old, historical artifacts. There are old, broken clay bowls in some archeological museums. Instrinsically, *as bowls,* they are worthless junk. However, as artifacts of an old civilization, they are priceless.

 

Mingo might not score high in favorite points *purely as a cache.* People drive hundreds of miles to see it (they've posted in the forums) because of its historic significance. So yes, some people *do* revere Mingo.

 

No. They revere what it can give them. Don't mistake selfishness for reverence. If the cache was archived, there would be no plaque installed in its honor. There would be pilgrimages made to this holiest of sites.

Nope...folks would just move on to the next oldest cache.

Link to comment

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response.

Since you're not willing to discuss your position, I have no choice but to guess, but I gather you don't think the people revere Mingo for the same reasons people revere artifacts in a museum? It strikes me as exactly the same thing. As you might say, "only because it's old."

 

You "gather" correctly. People don't "revere" Mingo...they want that little square on their grid filled...and the +1 on their find count. It has zero to do with the cache itself.

 

Making the comparison to historically significant artifacts and the museums they are housed in is ludicrous.

Nope, not ludicrous. People who are deeply into *any* interest or activity are often attracted to the old, historical artifacts. There are old, broken clay bowls in some archeological museums. Instrinsically, *as bowls,* they are worthless junk. However, as artifacts of an old civilization, they are priceless.

 

Mingo might not score high in favorite points *purely as a cache.* People drive hundreds of miles to see it (they've posted in the forums) because of its historic significance. So yes, some people *do* revere Mingo.

 

No. They revere what it can give them. Don't mistake selfishness for reverence. If the cache was archived, there would be no plaque installed in its honor. There would be pilgrimages made to this holiest of sites.

Nope...folks would just move on to the next oldest cache.

 

It amazes me that you can perfectly describe reverence and then claim that it is not reverence.

Link to comment

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response.

Since you're not willing to discuss your position, I have no choice but to guess, but I gather you don't think the people revere Mingo for the same reasons people revere artifacts in a museum? It strikes me as exactly the same thing. As you might say, "only because it's old."

 

You "gather" correctly. People don't "revere" Mingo...they want that little square on their grid filled...and the +1 on their find count. It has zero to do with the cache itself.

 

Making the comparison to historically significant artifacts and the museums they are housed in is ludicrous.

Nope, not ludicrous. People who are deeply into *any* interest or activity are often attracted to the old, historical artifacts. There are old, broken clay bowls in some archeological museums. Instrinsically, *as bowls,* they are worthless junk. However, as artifacts of an old civilization, they are priceless.

 

Mingo might not score high in favorite points *purely as a cache.* People drive hundreds of miles to see it (they've posted in the forums) because of its historic significance. So yes, some people *do* revere Mingo.

 

No. They revere what it can give them. Don't mistake selfishness for reverence. If the cache was archived, there would be no plaque installed in its honor. There would be pilgrimages made to this holiest of sites.

Nope...folks would just move on to the next oldest cache.

 

It amazes me that you can perfectly describe reverence and then claim that it is not reverence.

 

It is not. People do not respect and honor the cache. They want only the special recognition that logging it gives them (statistical data). It's a difference between honoring the thing itself and honoring what Geocaching.com awards them for typing onto a specific webpage.

 

Anyone revering ANY geocache honestly has some troubling issues they need to work through.

Link to comment

I assume you find museums unappealing and puzzling for the same reasons.

I'm sorry...but that comment is too ridiculous to even justify a response.

Since you're not willing to discuss your position, I have no choice but to guess, but I gather you don't think the people revere Mingo for the same reasons people revere artifacts in a museum? It strikes me as exactly the same thing. As you might say, "only because it's old."

 

You "gather" correctly. People don't "revere" Mingo...they want that little square on their grid filled...and the +1 on their find count. It has zero to do with the cache itself.

 

Making the comparison to historically significant artifacts and the museums they are housed in is ludicrous.

Nope, not ludicrous. People who are deeply into *any* interest or activity are often attracted to the old, historical artifacts. There are old, broken clay bowls in some archeological museums. Instrinsically, *as bowls,* they are worthless junk. However, as artifacts of an old civilization, they are priceless.

 

Mingo might not score high in favorite points *purely as a cache.* People drive hundreds of miles to see it (they've posted in the forums) because of its historic significance. So yes, some people *do* revere Mingo.

 

No. They revere what it can give them. Don't mistake selfishness for reverence. If the cache was archived, there would be no plaque installed in its honor. There would be pilgrimages made to this holiest of sites.

Nope...folks would just move on to the next oldest cache.

 

It amazes me that you can perfectly describe reverence and then claim that it is not reverence.

 

It is not. People do not respect and honor the cache. They want only the special recognition that logging it gives them (statistical data). It's a difference between honoring the thing itself and honoring what Geocaching.com awards them for typing onto a specific webpage.

 

Anyone revering ANY geocache honestly has some troubling issues they need to work through.

 

Troubling issues? Seriously?

 

I don't see how finding Mingo would show up on our stats page unless one includes externally generated stats which might have 1 line which lists the "Oldest cache found". For me I would like to find it just to have the knowledge that I found the oldest active cache in the world. I don't need a souvenir, special icon, any thing added to my stats page to help me remember that.

 

 

Link to comment

It is not. People do not respect and honor the cache. They want only the special recognition that logging it gives them (statistical data). It's a difference between honoring the thing itself and honoring what Geocaching.com awards them for typing onto a specific webpage.

 

You mean like finding an earthcache on Sunday, not for the earthcache but for the souvenir?

 

Do people respect and honor the many LPC's?

Link to comment

No. They revere what it can give them.

I do not accept your cynicism as data. I'd have to see data that actually shows that most people visiting Mingo are doing it only for the grid square. I'm sure most people like getting the grid square, sure, but I contest that that's the only reason or even the main reason for visiting. If I had that square, I'd be proud of it because it reflected that I visited Mingo, not the other way around as you so self righteously assume.

Link to comment

So is it agreed that Mingo, as it is, breaks guidelines and if planted today would be archived when reported to a reviewer?

 

If it was placed today it would be in a pre-existing hole :P

 

This doesn't look like a pre-existing hole to me. It looks like a hole that the original CO dug that's been filled with concrete and then drilled out to hold a geocache container.

 

9d1b0493-a85b-43fe-9b4f-89dcd1dfcacf.jpg

 

 

Link to comment

If it was placed today it would be in a pre-existing hole :P

This doesn't look like a pre-existing hole to me. It looks like a hole that the original CO dug that's been filled with concrete and then drilled out to hold a geocache container.

I believe the joke was that if someone planted a new cache today, it would be a preexisting hole because of the actions of the previous CO (or whoever).

Link to comment

So is it agreed that Mingo, as it is, breaks guidelines and if planted today would be archived when reported to a reviewer?

So is it agreed that Mingo, as it is, breaks guidelines and if planted today would might be archived when reported to a reviewer?

 

Not trying to make a career of editing your posts, but that might be easier to swallow for some. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Why does one need to hide a geocache in order to recognize a guideline violation?

 

Re-read what I wrote, this time for comprehension.

 

I did not say that someone who has not hidden a cache cannot recognize a guideline violation; rather, I said that someone who has not hidden a cache has, IMO, (and read this part carefully):

 

no standing to preach to others about how to fix guideline violations.

 

Once again, you are free to disagree but please do not mischaracterize my statements.

 

I appreciate your concerns for my literacy, but my reading comprehension is just fine.

 

I still don't see:

 

1) Whether or not someone has hidden a cache has anything to do with this thread.

2) How one can be so certain as to another's hiding history based upon the lack of hides on a primary account when many people hide caches under alternate accounts.

 

I feel some just don't like having violations pointed out and find it easier to insult others rather than allow the discussion to continue unadulterated.

Link to comment

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 4
×
×
  • Create New...