Jump to content

https://coord.info/GCB416 OPERATION HIGH DESERT ADVENTURE being archived ?


mars888
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

Temporarily Disable Listing 08/05/2016

As sad as it may seem, it may be time to let this one go. It appears that this difficult Virtual is a target for a few folks to post invalid log entries in order to qualify for a few Challenge Listings out there. The cache owner appears to have been inactive for quite some time, and I'm reluctant to take on the task of checking Log Entries. I've talked it over with one community member and they tend to agree.

 

If other folks on the Watchlist (or otherwise), have some strong opinions on the subject, please don't post Notes on this Listing, as that will only provoke me to Archive it sooner rather than later. Please take all discussions to the regular Forum, and I'd be happy to monitor it there.

 

Giving the traditional 30 days before Archiving.

 

Regards,

Nomex

Northern California Volunteer Reviewer

Link to comment

Temporarily Disable Listing 08/05/2016

As sad as it may seem, it may be time to let this one go. It appears that this difficult Virtual is a target for a few folks to post invalid log entries in order to qualify for a few Challenge Listings out there. The cache owner appears to have been inactive for quite some time, and I'm reluctant to take on the task of checking Log Entries. I've talked it over with one community member and they tend to agree.

 

If other folks on the Watchlist (or otherwise), have some strong opinions on the subject, please don't post Notes on this Listing, as that will only provoke me to Archive it sooner rather than later. Please take all discussions to the regular Forum, and I'd be happy to monitor it there.

 

Giving the traditional 30 days before Archiving.

 

Regards,

Nomex

Northern California Volunteer Reviewer

You appear to live 3,000 miles away from the cache site. Why the interest?

Link to comment

https://coord.info/GCB416

 

Archive

02/21/2003

 

ARCHIVED AT REQUEST OF ADMIN. NCFLYERS.

 

THIS CACHE ALSO WAS A 'ONE TIME'FIND.

TEAM KFWB GPS

 

Did you take a look at the CO's other cache hides? Seems like there's been a lot of drama over the years. Why poke at it now?

 

The cache was archived by the CO 13 years ago! How can it be in jeopardy of being archived now? Seems like a good chunk of the story has been removed from the cache listing.

 

Interesting, maybe. Beyond that? Meh.

 

B.

Link to comment

I just looked at the cache page. It is not archived. It has been disabled by reviewer.

The one who started this thread may have been wanting to go. But the drama on the page has peaked the interest of the local reviewer. Soon he will archive it.

Seems there has been a lot of armchair logging.

Link to comment

I have a trip planned there this coming November. Last year on 08/28/2015 I posted my qualifications for 'stage 1' of this virtual and will be visiting 'stage 2' in a few months. It really sucks that this might get archived, but I'm going regardless - there is now a multi and an earth cache there as well...

 

So, I contacted all of the ghost loggers, explained what is going on and politely asked them to either delete their log or change it to a note. I'm happy to report that so far one of the logs has already been changed from a 'Found it' to a 'Write note'. Maybe if more fake logs get changed Nomex will reconsider archiving it?

 

-- w00fel

Edited by w00fel
Link to comment

We do not want this cache archived. It is an adventure, one we want to do when we are in the area. It is a virtual, therefore does not and should not need maintenance. We also like old time caches. True there are "arm chair" logs (the most recent has been retracted), but we can live with that as it seems to be part of this game/hobby/lifestyle/pastime/obsession. The CO purposely kept this one active even though they no longer geocache. As long as we don't rant on the cache page, it will not come to the attention of the reviewers. Those of us who know what it takes to complete this cache realize the ones who really did it and congrats to them. To the arm chair loggers and the ghost loggers you only hurt yourself and caches shouldn't be archived because of you, then you would "win". Thanks for the opportunity to respond. Jahoadi and John cute_animated.gif

Edited by jahoadi and john
Link to comment

Different virtual with similar name. I looked at his profile.He had two plus many other types of hides. All now archived but this one.

 

The title of this thread is "https://coord.info/GCB416 OPERATION HIGH DESERT ADVENTURE being archived?"

 

One never concerns oneself with the "name" of a cache. It's the unique GC code that counts.

 

https://coord.info/GCB416

 

TEAM KFWB GPS

Archive

02/21/2003

 

ARCHIVED AT REQUEST OF ADMIN. NCFLYERS.

 

THIS CACHE ALSO WAS A 'ONE TIME'FIND.

TEAM KFWB GPS

 

B.

Link to comment

Pup Patrol, I don't quite get either of your posts(especially the second one) but possibly you are referring to the original archiving by the CO. The way I read the old logs, after archiving it, the CO had second thoughts and decided to keep two caches active. One is the topic of this discussion and the other was eventually archived because the location of it was closed buy the government. unsure.gif

Link to comment

I totally agree with John. It would be a shame to archive this because of the cheaters. We often say that,"They are only cheating themselves." But in this case they are cheating those of us us have aspired to this cache over the years. Please keep it active.

Randy

Link to comment

Pup Patrol, I don't quite get either of your posts(especially the second one) but possibly you are referring to the original archiving by the CO. The way I read the old logs, after archiving it, the CO had second thoughts and decided to keep two caches active. One is the topic of this discussion and the other was eventually archived because the location of it was closed buy the government. unsure.gif

PP's second post was probably a duplicate post, and was edited to save space/reduce confusion.

Link to comment

We do not want this cache archived. It is an adventure, one we want to do when we are in the area. It is a virtual, therefore does not and shoud not need maintenance.

Actually, all caches, including virtual caches, require maintenance. From the Groundspeak guidelines:

 

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.

Link to comment

Isn't it possible for someone to adopt this? The only maintenance would be answering questions with people struggling with the requirements, and deleting armchair loggers. Seems like we need a way to do allow adoptions when the CO has become inactive over a period of time.

Nope. Groundspeak doesn't allow the adoption of grandfathered caches (like virtual caches). From the Help Center:

 

Grandfathered geocache types cannot be transferred to a new owner. Neither the adoption tool on the website nor Groundspeak will be able to make the transfer for Virtual, Webcam or Locationless geocaches.

Link to comment

We do not want this cache archived. It is an adventure, one we want to do when we are in the area. It is a virtual, therefore does not and shoud not need maintenance.

Actually, all caches, including virtual caches, require maintenance. From the Groundspeak guidelines:

 

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.

+1 Yep.

Link to comment

As someone who has attempted to get to stage 2 and failed - as I posted - and who has completed stage 1 (although I have not posted that info) I would like to see this cache remain active. It is a unique and challenging cache, stage 2 of which is in a very scenic and historic area. Yes, it does bother me that there are some arm chair finds logged, but I would rather put up with those (quietly) than have this cache archived.

If it does remain active I can't say for sure that I will be back for another attempt, but I'm still considering it. And in anycase would enjoy reading about other's attempts at this one, whether successful or not.

Link to comment

As someone who has attempted to get to stage 2 and failed - as I posted - and who has completed stage 1 (although I have not posted that info) I would like to see this cache remain active. It is a unique and challenging cache, stage 2 of which is in a very scenic and historic area. Yes, it does bother me that there are some arm chair finds logged, but I would rather put up with those (quietly) than have this cache archived.

If it does remain active I can't say for sure that I will be back for another attempt, but I'm still considering it. And in anycase would enjoy reading about other's attempts at this one, whether successful or not.

 

Good to hear, we hope you can finish it.

Link to comment

We do not want this cache archived. It is an adventure, one we want to do when we are in the area. It is a virtual, therefore does not and should not need maintenance.

Actually, all caches, including virtual caches, require maintenance. From the Groundspeak guidelines:

 

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.

+1 Yep.

 

Of course both of you are correct. I would hate to see this particular cache archived because of that.

Link to comment

Different virtual with similar name. I looked at his profile.He had two plus many other types of hides. All now archived but this one.

 

The title of this thread is "https://coord.info/GCB416 OPERATION HIGH DESERT ADVENTURE being archived?"

 

One never concerns oneself with the "name" of a cache. It's the unique GC code that counts.

 

https://coord.info/GCB416

 

TEAM KFWB GPS

Archive

02/21/2003

 

ARCHIVED AT REQUEST OF ADMIN. NCFLYERS.

 

THIS CACHE ALSO WAS A 'ONE TIME'FIND.

TEAM KFWB GPS

 

B.

 

Feb/21/2003 CO archives at request of "admin" as noted above.

Feb/21/2003 Curious George says it's back up

Mar/01/2003 CO states cache to be unarchived (on note in photo). CO was obviously prompt with reward payment.

Link to comment

We do not want this cache archived. It is an adventure, one we want to do when we are in the area. It is a virtual, therefore does not and should not need maintenance.

Actually, all caches, including virtual caches, require maintenance. From the Groundspeak guidelines:

 

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.

+1 Yep.

 

Of course both of you are correct. I would hate to see this particular cache archived because of that.

I think most would agree with you, but I'd bet that no one would want to be in the position of deciding which caches get archived either.

Forum threads comparing one over another would stay interesting though. :)

By making a point of no cache is beyond the guidelines, it kinda remains fair for all.

Link to comment

This is sad. What IS it with people wanting a cache archived? Are they angry they went on an adventure and weren't able to find a Tupperware container while on that adventure? Do they want to "get even with the [person]" that "made" them go out wasting their time looking for something that is not there? Look at the BIG picture... You got outside and got some exercise, fresh air, maybe saw some really cool scenery, some wildlife, packed some nice memories into your brain...

 

While the posting of a "Find" on any cache that you didn't actually find is lame and pathetic, whether it be a physical or a virtual, what you should realize is that this is JUST A SILLY GAME! Who cares who posts finds on a virtual they didn't actually complete as required? It simply doesn't matter. That is the decision of the individual who will live with their conscience. All that happens when you archive a cache is that it is no longer viewable by anyone other than those who posted or saved it on a watch list. Those that might have seen it and want to actually enjoy the adventure of this particular cache, or view the stories and photos posted to it, will never see it once it's archived.

 

A virtual like this one, by nature, is NO MAINTENANCE. The owner can leave Geocaching and never return, but the great opportunity to go out on a grand adventure like this can remain indefinitely, for anyone who sees this cache on the site and decides they want to try it. It's not hurting anyone. It's just "there" for all armchair cachers to read about and enjoy vicariously through those who have left their photos and stories, or to actually go do it themselves.

 

Way back when we did this one and collected the original cash prize as the first to complete, there was talk of archiving it "since there was no longer a prize". Oh brother! Give me a break! Since when is it a requirement for a virtual to have a cash prize to remain? Insanity.

 

There are those in the geocaching community that seem to believe this is serious business, and points are being earned to become the "Grand Master Geocacher" or something. Jeeez! People! Bragging rights and thinking yourselves as better than anyone else by the number and difficulty of the caches you have found is totally lame and childish. Again... IT's JUST A SILLY GAME! Play it whatever way you feel happy with, and ignore those who play it differently, or in a way you don't like. No one gets hurt. We stopped posting finds years ago because of this very reason. It was getting crazy with all the seriousness and the accusations of supposed "cheating" going around. We find caches and post notes or photos if we feel the cache brought us to something cool or interesting, but never feel that we gotta make sure everyone knows "we found it". But that's just us. Others feel it important to make sure everyone knows every step they take and every cache they find. Some even seem to like putting others down for not playing the game the same as them. Whatever. To each, their own. Just don't spoil the game for those who play it different than you by insisting removal of a cache because someone posts they found it without fulfilling the cache page requirements. The owner can delete their find, if they choose. It's NOT anyone else's business or obligation to do so. If the cache owner is no longer active to do this, what harm is it causing to let jokers post a find? Archiving for that reason only hurts those who may have seen this virtual and decided to go do it. It hurts the people who actually did it and will no longer be able to share their experiences with the geocaching community in the posts they left.

 

To us, archiving a virtual like this one is like erasing a part of geocaching history. Just throw it out and forget it ever existed. New-comers to Geocaching will never know, and will be content in finding their 1/1 caches every .1 mile along a city part path, or reaching out their car window to find a cache under a lamp post cover in a mall parking lot.

Edited by Keystone
Removed potty language. Don't use potty language.
Link to comment
A virtual like this one, by nature, is NO MAINTENANCE. The owner can leave Geocaching and never return, but the great opportunity to go out on a grand adventure like this can remain indefinitely, for anyone who sees this cache on the site and decides they want to try...

If you read the couple posts above yours, and as a Virtual cache owner, you know that's not true.

Some of you guys are awesome. I sure wouldn't want the extra burden that virtual, web cam, and moving cache owners have to go through in MAINTAINING their cache pages to keep them. :)

 

I still go adventures where archived virtuals used to be.

The location hasn't changed...

Link to comment
A virtual like this one, by nature, is NO MAINTENANCE. The owner can leave Geocaching and never return, but the great opportunity to go out on a grand adventure like this can remain indefinitely, for anyone who sees this cache on the site and decides they want to try...

If you read the couple posts above yours, and as a Virtual cache owner, you know that's not true.

Some of you guys are awesome. I sure wouldn't want the extra burden that virtual, web cam, and moving cache owners have to go through in MAINTAINING their cache pages to keep them. :)

 

I still go adventures where archived virtuals used to be.

The location hasn't changed...

It might also be worthwhile noting that there is also is a Traditional and an Earthcache (BLM land if I recall, and most District Offices are pretty relaxed about the permission aspects) in the vicinity (roughly speaking) of the Final location now. Cache history is easily maintained by providing a link to the original, which got folks thinking about this area in the first place.

Link to comment

Multi and Earthcache actually. I placed them both. The BLM does not allow Traditional caches in the wilderness area. I had to be checked out by several department representatives before I got the EC published to make sure I was not disturbing any historical sites, native sites, or sensitive wildlife areas. It took a bit of discussion back and forth.

 

I posted a Needs Archive a while back on OHDA and stand by that. There have also been numerous appeals to the CO to maintain it. They were also asked to adopt it out. (There was a time when you could on virtuals.) No response, so they obviously do not care about the cache anymore. The cache needs to be archived. The history is there to look at, even with the archive. You can still access the pages, you just can't find it on searches anymore if it is archived.

 

I also raised concern with the reviewer after the latest lame find. The guys story is pretty sketchy. He logged many, many other caches across California and the west without meeting various requirements. Looks very much like an arm chair cacher from his log history. Just on my caches and OHDA he went to Whitney, Pinnacles, and Beveridge all in one day??? Not even with a helicopter! Others may disagree, but armchair finds on caches like OHDA irk me. I my opinion, it takes away something on caches like this that have to be hard earned.

 

Both of those newer caches take you into the same area as the original OHDA. The multi was intended to mirror the Beveridge part of the OHDA2 cache that was archived because parts of it were in a restricted Death Valley area. The challenge of exploring this beautiful area still exists for those that want to attempt it. I have been into Beveridge three times now and back into the Inyo Crest many other times in places other than Beveridge. It is one of the most rugged, tough, and yet beautiful areas I have had the pleasure to put a pair of boots into. I put the two new caches out there exactly because I saw OHDA2 get archived. I wanted others to be aware and come to the area still. Abandoned virtuals are always sketchy.

Link to comment

CKayaks are one of the true "finders" of this cache and for me it is a bummer that I disagree with them. I don't think it hurts anyone to keep it active. It is an old cache and I understand there are other caches to take us to the area but they aren't virtual and aren't as old. We ignore arm chair logs on traditional and other types of caches, we can ignore them for this one. Just don't watch this cache and you won't have to worry about it! rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

I too have completed caches that are archived &/or no longer there, But they are harder to find.

I find this discussion more thoughtful then earlier similar threads, thanks for the ideas.

I would second Kevin & Susan's comment at this time " It hurts the people who actually did it and will no longer be able to share their experiences with the geocaching community in the posts they left."

Link to comment

My position is this--if the CO won't maintain it and delete bogus logs, archive it. Those logs sharing an actual experience will be buried by the bogus logs in the end, anyway. I subscribe to the view that no cache is sacred--if it's not maintained and the CO is gone, archive it.

Link to comment

Cache maintenance includes not only maintenance on an physical container, but also maintenance on the cache page, deleting bogus logs etc. It is not the job of the reviewer to do either. Since the CO is long gone and thus the cache is clearly is not being maintained, the cache should be archived IMO. I don't see it any different than if the container was cracked and the log moldy. Time to go bye bye.

Link to comment

I too have completed caches that are archived &/or no longer there, But they are harder to find.

I find this discussion more thoughtful then earlier similar threads, thanks for the ideas.

I would second Kevin & Susan's comment at this time " It hurts the people who actually did it and will no longer be able to share their experiences with the geocaching community in the posts they left."

 

The cache page is still there for others to read.

 

The people who logged it as "found" will still be able to read their logs.

 

Archiving a cache listing doesn't really "hurt" anyone. Geezaloo.

 

It seems like folks are more interested in continuing the drama involved around the CO.

 

So, it was possible in the olden days for CO's to un-archive their listings? Too bad the CO doesn't take of the cache page, if he was all that interested in keeping this one alive and well.

 

B.

Link to comment

The logging requirement is pretty clear. Have the reviewer do the log maintenance and then let it be.

Most Volunteer Reviewers have plenty of other work on their plates and probably don't have the spare time and/or interest to do log maintenance of abandoned virtuals in their areas. That appears to the the case here as well. According to the reviewer's Temporary Disable log:

 

It appears that this difficult Virtual is a target for a few folks to post invalid log entries in order to qualify for a few Challenge Listings out there. The cache owner appears to have been inactive for quite some time, and I'm reluctant to take on the task of checking Log Entries. I've talked it over with one community member and they tend to agree.

Link to comment

I agree with jahoadi and john, keep the cache. This cache is on my must do list and I never would have known about this area if I hadn't found the cache icon while going up 395. I have completed the first stage (log and photo to follow soon after a long trip across the country) and I still plan on the second stage. I have been thinking about this cache and doing this trip for the last two years. While I am disappointed in the fake logs, the fake logs do not diminish my log and my accomplishments. I will still have to climb up and over to make the find. I would have already found it if it were not for a busy schedule at work and move to the East Coast. This is probably the one cache on the West Coast that will bring me back. Good to know that CKayaks has placed some more but I would rather have 3 finds than 2 for my future efforts.

 

While I concede this cache isn't in accordance with the current rules, it is only an issue because people keep bringing it up. The cache, like all virtuals, are grandfathered exceptions to the current rules. Only a handful of people who are offering comments here have found or even attempted the cache. Leave well enough alone and let people play the game.

Link to comment

While I concede this cache isn't in accordance with the current rules, it is only an issue because people keep bringing it up. The cache, like all virtuals, are grandfathered exceptions to the current rules. [Emphasis added.]

While existing virtuals are grandfathered from automatic archival, they are not grandfathered from maintenance guidelines and potential archival:

 

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. [Emphasis added.]

As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

Link to comment

I agree with jahoadi and john, keep the cache. This cache is on my must do list and I never would have known about this area if I hadn't found the cache icon while going up 395. I have completed the first stage (log and photo to follow soon after a long trip across the country) and I still plan on the second stage. I have been thinking about this cache and doing this trip for the last two years. While I am disappointed in the fake logs, the fake logs do not diminish my log and my accomplishments. I will still have to climb up and over to make the find. I would have already found it if it were not for a busy schedule at work and move to the East Coast. This is probably the one cache on the West Coast that will bring me back. Good to know that CKayaks has placed some more but I would rather have 3 finds than 2 for my future efforts.

 

While I concede this cache isn't in accordance with the current rules, it is only an issue because people keep bringing it up. The cache, like all virtuals, are grandfathered exceptions to the current rules. Only a handful of people who are offering comments here have found or even attempted the cache. Leave well enough alone and let people play the game.

 

Like

Link to comment

My position is this--if the CO won't maintain it and delete bogus logs, archive it. Those logs sharing an actual experience will be buried by the bogus logs in the end, anyway. I subscribe to the view that no cache is sacred--if it's not maintained and the CO is gone, archive it.

 

This is how i feel about it. The original owner doesn't care and for whatever reason, doesn't want to adopt it out. It does sound like it was a nice challenging cache but it's not being maintained. We all know of caches that we would hate to see go away but if it happens, it's the owner's fault.

Link to comment
This is how i feel about it. The original owner doesn't care and for whatever reason, doesn't want to adopt it out. It does sound like it was a nice challenging cache but it's not being maintained. We all know of caches that we would hate to see go away but if it happens, it's the owner's fault.

The original owner couldn't adopt it out, even if he was active and wanted to.

- The rest I agree with. :)

Link to comment

Groundspeak Forums > Community > Geocaching Discussions by Country > Canada

 

Massive Archiving of TEAM KFWB GPS caches in B.C. What happened to the containers and contents?

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=271434

 

Cape Fear Geocache https://coord.info/GCA4A5

 

Post Reviewer Note

04/03/2011

 

Through special arrangement by Groundspeak, many of the caches recently archived by TEAM KFWB GPS will be made available for adoption.

 

Please do not remove or recycle any of these caches or cache containers until all caches which may be chosen for adoption have been processed.

 

A list of caches which may potentially be adopted is currently being prepared and will be posted at www.wizardofooze.com/team hopefully by 9:00 p.m. Sunday, April 3.

 

Please note that not all caches listed may be adoptable, as I have not had time to review each one to ensure that it meets today's geocaching guidelines. I am doing this as a favour to the BC caching community, and ask that you please be respectful of me and your other fellow cachers while this process is underway. While the caches will be adopted on a "first come, first serve", please do not request a large quantity for yourself, as there are many who are interested in owning a part of this BC caching history. Out of respect for others, please select up to three caches and email wiz@wizardofooze with the GC waypoint number and name of your desired caches, along with your cacher name and email address. I will do my best to ensure that you receive at least some of the caches that you have requested.

 

I appreciate your cooperation while we sort through this. If in the unlikely event that things get out of hand, Groundspeak's special arrangments will be terminated and the caches will remain archived, so please be thoughtful and courteous of your fellow cachers and me, your local volunteer reviewer.

 

Thanks,

Wizard of Ooze

www.wizardofooze.com

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

I'll never do this one but I have enjoyed watching 3 friends complete this cache. This is not a drive up nor for the faint of heart.

 

While it probably meets the guidance for archiving I vote we don't. There is at least one legitimate effort in progress.

 

I've changed my heretofore opinion for archiving in that shedding light on bogus logs has at least in the latest instance resulted in that being changed to a note. IRRC, there may be part of it now inaccessible, but short of that, let's keep it in play. There are a lot of watchers and bogus logs will be brought to the attention of the community.

 

If not clearly prohibited by TPTB, I invite the reviewer to delete the other bogus logs with the express understanding that a precedent is not being set.

 

This one is worthy of an exception to guidance and/or policy.

Link to comment

I'm not sure the reviewers want to take on the responsibility of maintaining logs on abandoned caches. (i.e. the suggestion that the reviewer delete the bogus logs.) Nor should they. If the cache owner does not want to maintain it, why should the reviewer be burdened? Make an exception for this one?? Maybe, but what about some other cache popping up that some other group things is valuable. It would be a mess I don't think we want to launch the reviewers into.

 

Regarding adoption today's rules say a virtual cache cannot be adopted. But that was not always the case. Adoption requests went to the CO before that rule went in with no answer. There was also the broadcast message PupPatrol posted above. Wish I had seen that back in 2011! I would have gladly adopted this one and OHDA2 for that matter. It could have been cleaned up and kept alive as well.

 

It will be sad to see this one go, but it clearly is abandoned.

Link to comment
This is how i feel about it. The original owner doesn't care and for whatever reason, doesn't want to adopt it out. It does sound like it was a nice challenging cache but it's not being maintained. We all know of caches that we would hate to see go away but if it happens, it's the owner's fault.

The original owner couldn't adopt it out, even if he was active and wanted to.

- The rest I agree with. :)

 

Typo in that reply. I meant to say "didn't" want to adopt it out. At least i think virtuals could be adopted back when the archive log was posted.

Link to comment

I'm not sure the reviewers want to take on the responsibility of maintaining logs on abandoned caches. (i.e. the suggestion that the reviewer delete the bogus logs.) Nor should they. If the cache owner does not want to maintain it, why should the reviewer be burdened? Make an exception for this one?? Maybe, but what about some other cache popping up that some other group things is valuable. It would be a mess I don't think we want to launch the reviewers into. <Snip>

 

I should have been clearer. I agree reviewers don't need an open ended anything on abandoned caches. I was suggesting the reviewer look at only this cache and take action one time only. And that action will not set a precedent for other abandoned caches. I was trying to buy some time for those who have already logged their start. I doubt it will happen but never say never. :)

Link to comment

Different virtual with similar name. I looked at his profile.He had two plus many other types of hides. All now archived but this one.

 

The title of this thread is "https://coord.info/GCB416 OPERATION HIGH DESERT ADVENTURE being archived?"

 

One never concerns oneself with the "name" of a cache. It's the unique GC code that counts.

 

https://coord.info/GCB416

 

TEAM KFWB GPS

Archive

02/21/2003

 

ARCHIVED AT REQUEST OF ADMIN. NCFLYERS.

 

THIS CACHE ALSO WAS A 'ONE TIME'FIND.

TEAM KFWB GPS

 

B.

Well it would appear that the command did not take place. Archive did not happen.

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 6
×
×
  • Create New...