+rcives Posted April 25 Share Posted April 25 Hello Spokane Geocache. This Ohio geocachers needs someone's help in Spokane. Need someone to get the Washington portion on GC2RM0P. The 1st Ohio portion and NC done. If success and TX and SD all go well then the team can claim an Ohio smiley. GC2RM0P is a multi-state multi. Anyone interested? I have the WA coords, just need a draftee. GC name - rcives 1 Quote Link to comment
Moun10Bike Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 I'm relatively close to the Washington location. Quote Link to comment
+rcives Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 Can I draft you to get the code and I move on to a Texas cacher? I will contact you when I finish the final in Ohio so that you can claim a smiley. If you agree I'll give the coords Our team name is CACHERSacrossUSA 1 Quote Link to comment
Moun10Bike Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 It wouldn't be right for me to claim a smiley unless I do the legwork to get the codes from all of the locations and then sign the logbook at the final. But I'm happy to help get what you what you need for Washington. 1 Quote Link to comment
+rcives Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 You don't understand GC2RM0P is a multi-state Multi All the team participants are only needed to do the state that's located where they live. I did the 1st Ohio location angelfire did the North Caroline location you can get the Washington location I'll recruit someone in Texas and South Dakota and I'll do the final which is back in Ohio When the final is signed I'll notify team members and they can claim GC2RM0P as a smiley and get an Ohio souvenir. Understand... still interested? just check out GC2RM0P and you'll understand. Let me know thank you rcives 1 Quote Link to comment
Moun10Bike Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 I understand - I'm familiar with how these long-distance multis work - but I personally don't feel it is right for me to log a find on a cache located in Ohio when I wasn't there at the final signing the logbook myself. YMMV. However, I'm more than happy to help with the Washington leg. 2 Quote Link to comment
+rcives Posted April 26 Author Share Posted April 26 (edited) Ill use you're help - Thank you! Not sure I understand your conviction but they are yours. If you change your mind then!!!... The coords for Washington are [spoiler removed by moderator] Not sure what type or if there's a container there but looking for a code that will look like this: WA-TX-???? I hope you reconsider your position Let me know what you find Edited April 26 by Keystone removed spoiler for Washington stage 1 Quote Link to comment
+The_Jumping_Pig Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 21 minutes ago, rcives said: The coords for Washington are... You might want to edit your post and remove this. Somebody else completing this could see this forum and skip the first few steps. Quote Link to comment
+Max and 99 Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 2 hours ago, rcives said: You don't understand GC2RM0P is a multi-state Multi All the team participants are only needed to do the state that's located where they live. I did the 1st Ohio location angelfire did the North Caroline location you can get the Washington location I'll recruit someone in Texas and South Dakota and I'll do the final which is back in Ohio When the final is signed I'll notify team members and they can claim GC2RM0P as a smiley and get an Ohio souvenir. Understand... still interested? just check out GC2RM0P and you'll understand. Let me know thank you rcives You don't understand. What you are doing is against the rules. https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=814 I was part of a recent world cache and it was made clear to all five countries and cache owners during the review process that only those who were physically there and signed the log could claim a find. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 26 Share Posted April 26 1 hour ago, Max and 99 said: You don't understand. What you are doing is against the rules. You don't understand. The cache in question was published in 2011. The guidance you're quoting didn't exist then. Internal guidance to Reviewers matured on this subject in 2014. Think of caches like this one as the reason why the current guidance is stricter. Legacy caches like the one discussed in this thread met the guidance in effect when they were published, so they're allowed to continue. 1 1 Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.