I just placed a 911 call on GC6F514

5.7k · April 9, 2016

The cache linked to certainly has a funny description going on there. Wouldn't think a reviewer would publish something like that so i'd say the CO changed it after it was published. But at the same time, i can't imagine why a 911 call would have been made on it.

The NA posted by the OP surely got the reviewers attention.

April 9, 2016

The cache linked to certainly has a funny description going on there. Wouldn't think a reviewer would publish something like that so i'd say the CO changed it after it was published. But at the same time, i can't imagine why a 911 call would have been made on it.

The NA posted by the OP surely got the reviewers attention.

Looks like the reviewer took good cate of that NA ?

5.7k · April 9, 2016

The cache linked to certainly has a funny description going on there. Wouldn't think a reviewer would publish something like that so i'd say the CO changed it after it was published. But at the same time, i can't imagine why a 911 call would have been made on it.

The NA posted by the OP surely got the reviewers attention.

Looks like the reviewer took good cate of that NA ?

Do you mean that the reviewer ignored the NA posted by the OP? Looks like 19 of us have that cache on our watchlist. :laughing:

1.4k · April 9, 2016

I will agree that the description is odd...but have you ever looked at some of the cache descriptions out there? Or some of the crazy puzzles. Or some of the descriptions on your own hides. I know we have some weird ones out there. There are other caches all around it. I am awaiting the FTF to see what they think of it. Posting a NA is a bit over the top. Calling 911 is way over.

9.1k · April 9, 2016

Again, keep in mind there is no field puzzle attribute and it's a traditional. Even if there's a 'trick', the listing shouldn't imply that there's no actual cache there, which it does. As neat as the container may be, it should be a straight-forward find, and someone finding it shouldn't have to take along a container and log in order to 'find' it. The listing as it stands has problems.

April 9, 2016

The cache linked to certainly has a funny description going on there. Wouldn't think a reviewer would publish something like that so i'd say the CO changed it after it was published. But at the same time, i can't imagine why a 911 call would have been made on it.

The NA posted by the OP surely got the reviewers attention.

Looks like the reviewer took good cate of that NA ?

Do you mean that the reviewer ignored the NA posted by the OP? Looks like 19 of us have that cache on our watchlist.

Can it be considered ignoring if they pressed the delete button on it though :laughing:

April 9, 2016

Funny how often the CO bounces back and forth from Europe to Texas. I wonder if they are accidentally logging the wrong caches on some of those.

3.6k · April 9, 2016

Surprised that the CO didn't mention that this is really close to an airstrip too!

CO and his missus are a really scary looking couple

Google is your best friend. I saw that as well...but I search before I speak...

Yea... Nothing there.

next time... search it up. I am very aware of those "type" of airport. <_<

I got a very good feeling the reviewer looked into it as well or very aware of those "airport"...

Again everybody...there is NOTHING here and the OP was just walking on the ceiling.

Just stop beating the dead horse.

5.7k · April 9, 2016

The cache linked to certainly has a funny description going on there. Wouldn't think a reviewer would publish something like that so i'd say the CO changed it after it was published. But at the same time, i can't imagine why a 911 call would have been made on it.

The NA posted by the OP surely got the reviewers attention.

Looks like the reviewer took good cate of that NA ?

Do you mean that the reviewer ignored the NA posted by the OP? Looks like 19 of us have that cache on our watchlist.

Can it be considered ignoring if they pressed the delete button on it though

No, but the reviewer has not archived the cache and it is still published, so I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.

It does not appear to be a bad area either, and the CO states on the cache page "THIS IS WHERE WE TAKE THE GRAND KIDS FISHING AND CAMPING."

I believe the issue here is with the OP and a bad case of paranoia, maybe a bad case or two of Shiner on top of it. :anibad:

April 9, 2016

Again, keep in mind there is no field puzzle attribute and it's a traditional. Even if there's a 'trick', the listing shouldn't imply that there's no actual cache there, which it does.

Why not? Where in the guidelines does it say that descriptions cannot be misleading, confusing, irrelevant, or missing altogether? I've seen plenty of cache descriptions that were more than a little bit cryptic, with the whole point being "ignore the description and go look for the cache."

As neat as the container may be, it should be a straight-forward find, and someone finding it shouldn't have to take along a container and log in order to 'find' it. The listing as it stands has problems.

Because the listing says you might need to take along a container does not mean you do. Descriptions do not have to be accurate.

2k · April 9, 2016

this is not a trap.

9.1k · April 9, 2016

Because the listing says you might need to take along a container does not mean you do. Descriptions do not have to be accurate.

No, they don't. As I said earlier, "may not" might have been a way around to get the cache published without a container. I suppose we'll find out once someone goes to find it. If they don't take a container, and there is no container, then what? NM or NA. If they take a container, then what? Will the description update? Will followup visitors also think they have to take a container?

Of course, all of this is after the fact - so yes, it may have been published merely because "may" doesn't mean there is no container, nor that if you don't take a container you won't find a logsheet to find.

Nonetheless, a Traditional cache must have a physical container at the posted coordinates, and not require people to take a "throwdown" in order to log it found. Since there's no field puzzle, and it's listed as a Trad, then I hope that there is a container at the posted coordinates and the CO is just being very confusing.

9.1k · April 9, 2016

this is not a trap.

15.4k · April 9, 2016

"IT COULD BE KINDA EASY OR DIFFICULT I MAY HAVE FORGOT TO TAKE A CACHE WITH ME PLEASE TAKE ANOTHER WITH YOU FOR YOU"

I agree the cache page shouldn't have text like this suggesting there isn't actually a container present and essentially encouraging throwdowns.

Or maybe it's a "clever" hint that seekers will find it easier to retrieve a "rain-gauge" cache if they bring a container that can be used to transport water to the cache site.

4.8k · April 9, 2016

Looks like 19 of us have that cache on our watchlist.

I'm hoping we go Mega before the FTF.

April 9, 2016

Boy I wish I lived closer. I see it is still up for grabs. The OP seem to be fairly inexperienced. But I do thank him/her for giving me something entertaining to read while I eat dinner.

April 9, 2016

The cache linked to certainly has a funny description going on there. Wouldn't think a reviewer would publish something like that so i'd say the CO changed it after it was published. But at the same time, i can't imagine why a 911 call would have been made on it.

The NA posted by the OP surely got the reviewers attention.

Looks like the reviewer took good cate of that NA ?

Do you mean that the reviewer ignored the NA posted by the OP? Looks like 19 of us have that cache on our watchlist.

Can it be considered ignoring if they pressed the delete button on it though

No, but the reviewer has not archived the cache and it is still published, so I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.

The NA and associated logs from op are gone.

5.7k · April 10, 2016

The cache linked to certainly has a funny description going on there. Wouldn't think a reviewer would publish something like that so i'd say the CO changed it after it was published. But at the same time, i can't imagine why a 911 call would have been made on it.

The NA posted by the OP surely got the reviewers attention.

Looks like the reviewer took good cate of that NA ?

Do you mean that the reviewer ignored the NA posted by the OP? Looks like 19 of us have that cache on our watchlist.

Can it be considered ignoring if they pressed the delete button on it though

No, but the reviewer has not archived the cache and it is still published, so I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly.

The NA and associated logs from op are gone.

Yes, but was that removed by the reviewer or the OP? :unsure:

4.2k · April 10, 2016

"IT COULD BE KINDA EASY OR DIFFICULT I MAY HAVE FORGOT TO TAKE A CACHE WITH ME PLEASE TAKE ANOTHER WITH YOU FOR YOU"

I agree the cache page shouldn't have text like this suggesting there isn't actually a container present and essentially encouraging throwdowns.

Or maybe it's a "clever" hint that seekers will find it easier to retrieve a "rain-gauge" cache if they bring a container that can be used to transport water to the cache site.

Judging by the other descriptions placed by the CO, I would be surprised if there was anything clever about this one. But if you go there, and do not find anything, do you leave a throwdown or assume that there was something clever that you could not find?

1.4k · April 10, 2016

I wish someone would go check it out!

April 10, 2016

Funny how often the CO bounces back and forth from Europe to Texas. I wonder if they are accidentally logging the wrong caches on some of those.

Could be it's a team, for instance husband caching in Europe and wife in Texas at the same time.

So I don't see anything weird there, but the cache page is. I wouldn't go to this cache, although the CO has many finds, this one seems to be made by someone new, maybe another family member? If not, it's still not very appealing.

Next to the strange description (we can just guess what is meant), there are strange attributes. He takes grand kids to this place, but a "no kids" attribute? Is the hike shorter than 1 km or between 1 and 10 km? If a boat was really required I would expect a higher amount of stars at the terrain level. For me that are enough reasons not to attempt to find this cache.

April 10, 2016

Maybe we have a new author who wants to write another novel about geocaching and dastardly crimes of passion and such forth setting up scenario to check responses!

4.5k · April 10, 2016

Because the listing says you might need to take along a container does not mean you do. Descriptions do not have to be accurate.

No, they don't. As I said earlier, "may not" might have been a way around to get the cache published without a container. I suppose we'll find out once someone goes to find it. If they don't take a container, and there is no container, then what? NM or NA. If they take a container, then what? Will the description update? Will followup visitors also think they have to take a container?

Of course, all of this is after the fact - so yes, it may have been published merely because "may" doesn't mean there is no container, nor that if you don't take a container you won't find a logsheet to find.

Nonetheless, a Traditional cache must have a physical container at the posted coordinates, and not require people to take a "throwdown" in order to log it found. Since there's no field puzzle, and it's listed as a Trad, then I hope that there is a container at the posted coordinates and the CO is just being very confusing.

The problem is that the cache description is implying that a container may not be in place and that a throwdown may be needed. If the CO's write up is sincere, then i'd bet his reviewer would ask questions before publishing it. But, if the CO has a container in place, and his reviewer knows this, then everything is fine even though it might be misleading for us finders.

4.8k · April 10, 2016

I noticed the CO turned the Listing into a PMO. With 30+ watchers on what appears to be one out of 300 odd caches in a power trail, I'd be suspicious too. Probably thinks he's being stalked, and I wouldn't blame him for feeling so

19k · April 10, 2016

This is a really weird thread.

You noticed that too, huh?

19k · April 10, 2016

We haven't heard from the OP in a couple of days. Think we should call 911?

5.7k · April 11, 2016

I noticed the CO turned the Listing into a PMO. With 30+ watchers on what appears to be one out of 300 odd caches in a power trail, I'd be suspicious too. Probably thinks he's being stalked, and I wouldn't blame him for feeling so

Cyber stalking is one thing, but a local posting strange stuff on my cache page and here in the forums? I would feel concerned too. :unsure:

3.5k · April 11, 2016

And now there's a throwdown cache in the area.

4.5k · April 11, 2016

And now there's a throwdown cache in the area.

Also, it sounds like the new throwdown is about 90 feet away from the listed coordinates,, sheesh!

1.4k · April 11, 2016

OK maybe this cache is messed up?

April 11, 2016

OK maybe this cache is messed up?

It was, but not anymore . Although the attributes aren't correct yet...

The cache page was right, there was no cache. But exactly as the CO requested on the cache page, someone put one there (well close to it). Now the CO has adjusted the coordinates and as a thank you the cacher who placed the cache gets the honors of a FTF (although he didn't want a FTF).

In the mean time the CO spent time on adding and removing photos to the gallery of the cache, which must be more important than placing an actual cache.

Summary: there was no need for a 911 call since there was nothing at the coordinates, no CO, no cache, it was not even a suitable location for a cache.

Edited April 11, 2016 by irisisleuk

3.1k · April 11, 2016

Summary: there was no need for a 911 call since there was nothing at the coordinates, no CO, no cache, it was not even a suitable location for a cache.

Cunning new power trail strategy: create cache listings every 550 ft (a little room for error), give each cache page a vague description encouraging throwdowns, place no containers yourself, adjust listing once a throwdown is in place.

I hope the local reviewer is aware of the shenanigans that have taken place and will be watching future hides by this CO like a hawk.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Joshism

9.1k · April 11, 2016

Hate to say it but... nah, won't say it.

:tired:

It was, but not anymore . Although the attributes aren't correct yet...

The cache page was right, there was no cache. But exactly as the CO requested on the cache page, someone put one there (well close to it). Now the CO has adjusted the coordinates and as a thank you the cacher who placed the cache gets the honors of a FTF (although he didn't want a FTF).

And sadly, as you say, now there is a cache there; and despite some inaccuracies, the cache is valid.

However if the CO doesn't intend to maintain the cache himself (wasn't even willing to place it himself), then there could be future problems.

April 11, 2016

Just curious is anyone knows what the picture of the wildfire in the gallery is about. The CO posted it as if it has some relevance and even mentions it in the updated cache description, but I must be missing something. This cache/CO just keeps getting stranger.

7.4k · April 11, 2016

Just curious is anyone knows what the picture of the wildfire in the gallery is about. The CO posted it as if it has some relevance and even mentions it in the updated cache description, but I must be missing something. This cache/CO just keeps getting stranger.

Wildfire? Better call 911 just in case.

3.6k · April 11, 2016

My observation on this cache is they visit this spot many times and probably every time they leave a cache. This time they forgot to leave one when they published it. (I many times I forget the logsheet) So they were worried about the FTF cachers finding nothing and complain. They sound like they were pleading for help to get a cache out there quickly. I wouldn't have taken that approach though. I would have contacted a nearest cacher who may have found the other caches nearby and send them a message directly. The OP did over react a bit. And I would never call 911 without getting the details first. Nothing in the write up sounds like it needed 911. and the write up will change probably since it has been taken care of by a local.

Edited April 11, 2016 by jellis

7.3k · April 11, 2016

I think the apparent paranoia of the opening post is likely based on poster's misunderstanding of notifications.

OP was assuming that the cache owner deliberately set up a new cache notification to be sent after dark thirty.

Everyone else reading the the thread intrinsically understood that the notification timing was a function of when reviewer had time to read and publish caches.

3.7k · April 11, 2016

I obviously missed quite a bit here...but right now there are zero "finds" on the cache page, one "note" and one updated coordinates log. It's a grammatically-challenged description and the timeline is pretty confusing. Anyone want to explain this whole thing in plain English?

April 11, 2016

I obviously missed quite a bit here...but right now there are zero "finds" on the cache page, one "note" and one updated coordinates log. It's a grammatically-challenged description and the timeline is pretty confusing. Anyone want to explain this whole thing in plain English?

Based on the cache description, the fact that the reviewer published the listing after dark, and on claimed personal knowledge of the area, the OP assumed the CO was trying to find a victim for some crime. They (without looking for the cache) posted a Needs Archive and then proceeeded to call the local police about the alleged intended crime.

I think most of us feel that while the cache description is a little odd, some substance created an extreme overreaction on the part of the OP.

An important factor is that the CO has more hides than the OP has finds.

Someone (reviewer or OP)? Has removed the NA and at least one note from the log.

Edited April 11, 2016 by AustinMN

April 11, 2016

We need to establish some ground rules for community cache placement. For example, if I were to hide a tag that has an existing traditional cache's coordinates stamped on it, and write a note on the existing cache page stating that the coordinates should now be changed to the location of the tag that I just hid, can I claim FTF on this new multicache?

April 11, 2016

I...I just don't know what to say. :blink: <_<

3.7k · April 11, 2016

We need to establish some ground rules for community cache placement. For example, if I were to hide a tag that has an existing traditional cache's coordinates stamped on it, and write a note on the existing cache page stating that the coordinates should now be changed to the location of the tag that I just hid, can I claim FTF on this new multicache?

What on earth...?

What is "community cache placement"?

6k · April 11, 2016

This thread is a little surreal, but let's keep on topic, please.

April 11, 2016

Did we ever find out if the description was changed after publishing?

:lostsignal:

9.1k · April 11, 2016

West Texas Reviewer has now disabled the listing with an explanation.

3.6k · April 11, 2016

I believe the coords listed originally was parking coords and the cacher who is placing the cache for the CO was trying to figure out where the CO meant to put it and find a suitable spot. Coords change was where the cache probably would have been placed.

5.7k · April 11, 2016

We need to establish some ground rules for community cache placement. For example, if I were to hide a tag that has an existing traditional cache's coordinates stamped on it, and write a note on the existing cache page stating that the coordinates should now be changed to the location of the tag that I just hid, can I claim FTF on this new multicache?

What on earth...?

What is "community cache placement"?

A throwdown?

4.5k · April 11, 2016

I have to say that this is interesting. The cache owner himself has claimed a find on the cache too.

This one thread has kept me entertained for sure!

9.1k · April 11, 2016

Two finds. On his own cache. And the text doesn't even make sense. :drama:

7.8k · April 11, 2016

I think the CO has been using the same substances as the OP.

fox777 found Fox-299-2

Monday, 11 April 2016

IT WAS FOUND YESTERDAY

fox777 found Fox-299-2

Monday, 11 April 2016

ITS GONE

...and then they archived it. What a train wreck all around.

I just placed a 911 call on GC6F514

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