Jump to content

Should This Cache Be Unarchived??


Recommended Posts

I asked that my cache be unarchived today and it was denied. The reason given is because another cache has been placed too close to the original one. The new cache is across the freeway and .2 miles as the crow flies. This is well outside the .1 mile guideline for closeness.

 

Here is the original cache I wish unarchived.

I Hate I-5

 

Click on closest and you'll see the other one is .2 miles away and on the other side of the freeway, a drive of several miles.

 

Here is a copy of the email I received...

quote:
Since your cache was archived another cache has been placed nearby. As a

result your cache will not be unarchived.


 

Your opinion?

 

So your opinion?

Link to comment

Interesting what you see on some caches.

 

The July 29 "patw" log is a *found it* log, but they didn't find the cache. One of those things that make you go hmmmmmm. Just below that one is "The Postman" who found it three times and logged it as found each time. Hmmmmmm. icon_rolleyes.gif

Link to comment

Ignoring all the history behind this case, I have to say .2 mile is more than .1 mile, the given guideline, and if that's the only reason you have been given, it should be unarchived.

 

Flat_MiGeo_B88.gif

"Winter's just the curtain. Spring will take the bow"

-- Richard Shindell, Spring

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Dinoprophet:

Ignoring all the history behind this case, I have to say .2 mile is more than .1 mile, the given guideline, and if that's the only reason you have been given, it should be unarchived.


Ditto.

.2 >.1 right?

 

waypoint_link.gif22008_1700.gif37_gp_logo88x31.jpg

Link to comment

I'm gonna probably take the unpopular side here, and vote no. No it has nothing to do with the history here. I still think it boils down to caches placed too far from home to maintain. Looking at the hiders finds may not totally tell you if a person goes to an area or not, but with a cacher with 400 finds, it gives you a pretty dadgum good idea of how much free time he has when he is there.

The other thing I'm looking at is the archived caches history. It survived for a month before it was reported missing. It then took the cache owner NINE MONTHS to replace it. If this cache was so special to him, and he travels here enough to easily maintain it, why did it take him 9 months to replace it? I think that right there tells alot about how capable he is of maintaining this cache, and it should stay archived since it no longer meets the "vacation cache" parts of the guidelines. Since it was archived before they even went into effect, and this is in effect a new cache, I feel it should not be grandfathered.

Now that I've pissed everyone off, I dont think it should be archived for being so close to the other cache. Even if it was under .1 mile, the guidelines allow for exceptions where you can not just walk/drive from one cache to another. In this case, though line of site they are .2 miles apart, the only safe legal route from one to the other is several miles. If this cache was placed by a local, I think it should be approved

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

Because this is a pre-existing cache that is being re-activated, I go with letting it be unarchived.

 

Obviously the owner is able to get there to maintain it, as he replaced it (and also placed another cache in the area recently).

 

I looked at the logs Mtn-man referred to. What's the deal with that? Logging a find because they saw the tree where it was (patw) and logging multiple finds on it (Postman)? Neither are novice geocachers. Heck, patw has 400 finds, so they should know better...or maybe a lot of those 400 are trees. I'm sure I could rack up 400 finds if I logged trees, and kept visiting the same 1/1 cache and logging it over and over.

 

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" -Abraham Lincoln

Link to comment

It seems to meet the rules, It should return.

 

As for taking 9 months to 'get back to it'. Whats the hurry? It's archived, nobody is visiting it, nobody else stepped up to the plate in the interem and made a new cache there. I'm not sure it's an issue so long as it's within his 'territory' and even if it's not that he had it at all rather grandfathers it.

 

Vacation rules are not retroactive last time I checked.

 

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

Mopar makes some valid points, but I have been following this one on the other threads.

Thank you LB&MM for posting this question as an adult. Your other recent posts make you look like a crybaby.

I feel you should change your cache page to make it clear that this cache is in the sister rest-stop of the other one and is at least 'X' number of miles driving although only .2 miles as the crow flies. The way the page was originally written, it appears that it is in the SAME rest stop and you can walk from one to the other. The rest stops may have the same name, but one is on the northbound side and the other on the southbound side of I-5 (a pretty busy freeway from what I remember)

It also fits the .1 mile rule from the guidelines.

I would also suggest that if you really do travel this way often enough to maintain the cache that you spend some time FINDING other caches in the area. I travel to Southern California 2-3 times a year (sometimes more) and have found a few caches there. I have plans for placing one in my hometown, but my Mom will be able to maintain it for me between visits. Who will maintain this cache if you don't visit as often as you have planned?

 

bandbass.gif

Link to comment

Was this placed with permission? We had a recent bomb scare at an "I Hate I-5" cache here in Washington State. I was told that the DOT did not authorize caches placed at rest stops.

 

If not, we may have to archive all rest stop caches from the site. Hopefully permission was obtained from each.

 

As for archived caches that are requested to be unarchived, if rules change from the time the cache was last listed the new rules now apply. They are not retroactive because they are considered a new cache.

 

As for caches placed on vacation, 9 months from when the cache was archived to when it was checked on and recovered would indicate that the cache owner is unable to adequately maintain it. Even without these other reasons listed above, it probably would not be approved anyway.

 

Since this post is a duplicate of emails sent to the contact list, this topic has been sufficiently answered here.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

It seems to meet the rules, It should return.

 

As for taking 9 months to 'get back to it'. Whats the hurry? It's archived, nobody is visiting it, nobody else stepped up to the plate in the interem and made a new cache there. I'm not sure it's an issue so long as it's within his 'territory' and even if it's not that he had it at all rather grandfathers it.

 

Vacation rules are not retroactive last time I checked.


Well, I would expect if it was his "territory" as you called it, he would have lots of finds there, he doesn't. What's the rush to replace the cache? He also didnt find any caches near there in that that nine months. In other words, it was 9 months before he was ABLE to maintain his cache. When I checked LB's finds during one of the many other threads about this cache, he had no finds anywhere near this cache. In fact, he only had a few finds in the entire state of CA. Of those, they were all grouped at least 6 months apart. Once every 6 months isnt your local territory, and really isn't maintaining a cache that didnt even last 6 weeks last time.

As for being grandfathered, this isnt a cache that was just archived because of a rules change. This cache has been gone almost a year. Why should it be immune from the rules 9 months later? If it had been there and active the whole time, that would be different. Thats like you placing a cache 20ft from were I placed one last year, but archived it. Should I be able to reactivate my cache 9 months later, even though it'd 25ft from yours? No, if you want it reinstated after that long a lapse, it still needs to be re-approved.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

It seems like you're going to have to just let this one go, LB&MM. While we're encouraged to bring situations like this to the forums for a vote, this isn't a democracy. BTW, I voted to unarchive it.

 

Friends don't let friends attempt to persuade them to be biased toward any particular type of cache.

Link to comment

quote:
I still think it boils down to caches placed too far from home to maintain.

 

I recall once asking about one of Jeremy's caches he placed in Hawaii. It was grandfathered in so I was told.

 

Well a lesson learned here for sure. Don't every archive a cache if you think you might want to reactivate it down the road. I suppose it's better to just let it lay there.

 

Yep I'll let it go. Too bad as this particular location is the original I Hate I-5 cache. Last time I looked there were 42 of them up and down I-5.

 

What I have found curious about my childish behavior here of late is how many e-mails I have gotten in support. They far outnumber the support comments in the thread. I won't give out a single name but the normal comment is that they don't want to have problems with Jeremy by posting here.

 

A couple of years ago I would post comments defending Jeremy on various matters. Some of these complaining cachers have left the activity now. As you can see I don't defend him at all these days. I'm not happy with him and I feel he is going to destroy his own website. I'm not worried about that as I'm sure other cache sites will pop up before long.

 

The only reason I was given is that it was too close Jeremy and you know it. Now it's about asking permission or maybe we'll have to archive all the reststop caches? It couldn't be anything like a vendetta could it?

 

Naw

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

No, if you want it reinstated after that long a lapse, it still needs to be re-approved.


 

As you can tell I'm not going to sign up for that one. But then I'm always more liberal when it comes to what should and shouldn't get approved than the staunch geo-conservatives. Then again my area is not anywhere near saturation.

 

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

Link to comment

IMO this is getting nowhere. Grandfathered in or not. Or what ever the case may be, looks like all Interstate caches will get achieved if DOT says so. Not Jeremy. This site isn't going down because of him either. It's because he has to make rules that some people find hard to follow. That's the breaks. Permission means ask before doing. Let's face it. The real truth here is????????

 

rocker

 

give to the world the best you have,

and the best will come back to you.

...............MaryAinge deVere

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by ron50eli:

Or what ever the case may be, looks like all Interstate caches will get achieved if DOT says so. Not Jeremy. This site isn't going down because of him either. It's because he has to make rules that some people find hard to follow. That's the breaks. Permission means ask before doing. Let's face it. The real truth here is????????


 

I would be interested to find out how many caches really have permission? I am guessing that less than 10%?

 

How high up the DOT do you have to go to find someone with the authority to say 'YES'? Any level can say 'No'. Looks like we will be virtuals only on most public lands soon....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

 

I recall once asking about one of Jeremy's caches he placed in Hawaii. It was grandfathered in so I was told.


 

I've never been to Hawaii, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Where do you come up with these stories?

 

quote:
Some of these complaining cachers have left the activity now.

 

So why are you still here? Honestly, for someone with 492 finds and 70 caches hidden under your belt, I think you've had more than enough support from this web site over the last two years.

 

At this point I suppose you're right. I don't like your actions and I no longer care to support your temper tantrums when you don't get your way. Consider yourself persona non grata from now on. Don't expect any considerations on this web site.

 

I'd send you a personal note about this, but my emails to you would land in the forums anyway. Don't expect any additional communications from me or the site.

 

Your forum posts are also being moderated. If you continue your ranting through alternate accounts your account will be banned.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...