Jump to content

Is this cache grandfathered?


31BMSG
Followers 4

Recommended Posts

Good question.

 

They were still listing virtual caches back then (although they had to pass a "Wow! factor" test that severely limited their number), so a virtual could have been grandfathered. But this is an "untraditional", listed as a traditional cache with a logging requirement based on an object inside the container. That's more like an ALR cache (which cannot be grandfathered) or maybe a codeword cache (which also cannot be grandfathered).

 

My guess is that it has just slipped through the cracks because no one has reported it in the 15 years it's been listed.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, niraD said:

My guess is that it has just slipped through the cracks because no one has reported it in the 15 years it's been listed.

 

That's my thinking too. I don't think this kind of thing would have been allowed in 2004, so it was probably changed after-the-fact.

 

So, to answer the question posed in the topic title, no, it probably isn't grandfathered. It's just a Traditional that's violating the guidelines by trying to masquerade as a Virtual (based on the evidence I can see, so we could be wrong).

Link to comment

Hmm, this is an odd cache. After looking through the logs, it seems like there has always been a container there, but not always a log. The second-oldest log mentions finding the container with no log in it, so they put some paper in it. The third-oldest log mentions sending the email, so the text about sending an email must have been there then. A note 5 days after the FTF mentions that they removed the "offending" log sheet, but one has since been put back in it because more recent logs mention signing the log. So, I think this is an ALR cache, where the CO is expecting you to find the empty container, but to send them an email with some required information in order to log it as a find. If someone tries to log this without sending the email and their log is deleted by the CO, there's a good chance that they could successfully appeal to get their log restored.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Hmm, this is an odd cache. After looking through the logs, it seems like there has always been a container there, but not always a log. The second-oldest log mentions finding the container with no log in it, so they put some paper in it. The third-oldest log mentions sending the email, so the text about sending an email must have been there then. A note 5 days after the FTF mentions that they removed the "offending" log sheet, but one has since been put back in it because more recent logs mention signing the log. So, I think this is an ALR cache, where the CO is expecting you to find the empty container, but to send them an email with some required information in order to log it as a find. If someone tries to log this without sending the email and their log is deleted by the CO, there's a good chance that they could successfully appeal to get their log restored.

I noticed the log mentioning the offending log sheet as well. This is right off my route but I think I'll avoid this one and let the local community deal with it.

Link to comment

I stumbled upon another odd listing when I was planning a trip earlier this year. It was an old Traditional that originally did have a physical container and log, but the container kept going missing and the owner tried to change it into a pseudo-Virtual. A reviewer later caught on and told the CO that they needed to replace the container, so they did. However, it sounds like the container went missing again and they changed it back to being a pseudo-Virtual again. I couldn't see any further evidence of reviewer interaction, so I believe it remains in this state to this day. I considered stopping by to see if there is a container there or not (I strongly suspect there isn't based on recent logs), but it was just a bit too far out of my way. I don't want to bring it up as being a potential issue without having all the necessary evidence, so I haven't said anything to any reviewers.

Link to comment
On 10/31/2019 at 3:37 PM, 31BMSG said:

I'm planning a trip to northern MN next year and came across this cache along my route. Was a traditional with no log allowed at some point in time? This is a first for me.

 

I found this back in 2008. Unless you like 4 digit GC caches this one would not be on my list as someone passing through town. 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, ottieolsen said:

GC42JW9 in Kansas is the same way...

It looks like GC42JW9 started out with a log (and a container), but then the CO decided to turn it into a virtual cache after it was repeatedly muggled.

 

In contrast, GCK9CV seems to have started life as a type of codeword cache, with a container, but no long, and finders were supposed to send the codeword (details of the item in the container) to the CO.

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, ottieolsen said:

GC42JW9 in Kansas is the same way...

 

Yeah... "Someone keeps taking off with the container - no matter where and how good I hide it. Because I believe this location is significant historically, I am forced to change the type of hide this is. Since there is no longer a "log book" to sign," - and then the "other means" to log.

 

The only thing you really can't change on a cache is it's type.      Notice the FPs caches that bypass guidelines get...

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 11/3/2019 at 10:05 AM, cerberus1 said:

 

Yeah... "Someone keeps taking off with the container - no matter where and how good I hide it. Because I believe this location is significant historically, I am forced to change the type of hide this is. Since there is no longer a "log book" to sign," - and then the "other means" to log.

 

The only thing you really can't change on a cache is it's type.      Notice the FPs caches that bypass guidelines get...

 

Which high favorited caches bypass the guidelines?

Link to comment
On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 11:05 AM, cerberus1 said:

The only thing you really can't change on a cache is it's type.      Notice the FPs caches that bypass guidelines get...

12 minutes ago, ottieolsen said:

Which high favorited caches bypass the guidelines?

 

 Please explain where you think I said "high-favorited"...

Didn't you look at any links ?  :) 

Link to comment
On 11/3/2019 at 11:05 AM, niraD said:

It looks like GC42JW9 started out with a log (and a container), but then the CO decided to turn it into a virtual cache after it was repeatedly muggled.

 

In contrast, GCK9CV seems to have started life as a type of codeword cache, with a container, but no long, and finders were supposed to send the codeword (details of the item in the container) to the CO.

 

An interesting observation on yet another cache (also in Kansas, though this one is a mystery) GC1K1N0.

 

In GC42JW9 you can see the Owner's Maintenance log where the CO decides to shift the type from "physical to virtual." Whereas in this new example, the very first logs mention the ALR/email requirement (and none mention a log!).

 

 

Edited by STNolan
Link to comment
17 minutes ago, STNolan said:

An interesting observation on yet another cache (also in Kansas, though this one is a mystery) GC1K1N0.

 

 

From the cache page:

 

Quote

The final is NOT a physical cache. All you need to do to claim this cache is to email me the name of the person that you find on the sign at the mystery coordinate. Happy caching.

 

Barely even a Virtual cache. There's nothing to visit. All the work can be done from a computer using Google Maps.  

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

 

From the cache page:

 

 

Barely even a Virtual cache. There's nothing to visit. All the work can be done from a computer using Google Maps.  

 

Having gone to school in that school district I can tell you even using google earth is a stretch for most people because the answer/location is fairly well known.

 

Heck I even found the answer in about 2 minutes scrolling through old logs...

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 11/5/2019 at 9:03 PM, L0ne.R said:
On 11/5/2019 at 8:41 PM, STNolan said:

An interesting observation on yet another cache (also in Kansas, though this one is a mystery) GC1K1N0.

 

From the cache page:

 

Quote

The final is NOT a physical cache. All you need to do to claim this cache is to email me the name of the person that you find on the sign at the mystery coordinate. Happy caching.

 

Barely even a Virtual cache. There's nothing to visit. All the work can be done from a computer using Google Maps.  

 

That's...interesting.  From the logs, it looks like that language was in there from the get go, and not edited in after publication.

  • Surprised 2
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, hzoi said:
On 11/5/2019 at 9:03 PM, L0ne.R said:
On 11/5/2019 at 8:41 PM, STNolan said:

An interesting observation on yet another cache (also in Kansas, though this one is a mystery) GC1K1N0.

 

From the cache page:

 

Quote

The final is NOT a physical cache. All you need to do to claim this cache is to email me the name of the person that you find on the sign at the mystery coordinate. Happy caching.

 

Barely even a Virtual cache. There's nothing to visit. All the work can be done from a computer using Google Maps.  

 

That's...interesting.  From the logs, it looks like that language was in there from the get go, and not edited in after publication.

+ thats one of the owner hwo made the effort of finding his own cache. Amazin! He even did it in the spirit of the "found before published" thread. Wonder if he emailed the answeres to him self and claimed FTF :D

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
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...