Jump to content

I looked but did not find this question.


Shadow's
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

So here it is.

Can a Virtual cache also be used as a link in a multi cache?

What I wish to do is use a very well known Item here to make a jump to another multi but it is being used as a virtual cache, so it would not be another virtual just a clue for the second multi.

Thanks

Rick

Link to comment

As far as I could understand, you want to use a virtual cache as a landmark/clue referring to about where the cache is placed. And as far as I know, that's perfectly fine....

 

But my spyder senses are telling me you were talking about something else, and in that case, I have no clue.

 

----

Extra batteries for GPS, don't leave home without 'em.

Link to comment

It would really not be a virtual. You would post how and where to get the info for the next clue. In other words, each leg of the multi is not a seperate listed cache. Whether you gave instructions to what is already a virtual, who cares when you are using for them to get clues to finish the cache, but you may want to mention it on the cache page so they can get credit for a virtual as well.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Shadow's:

So here it is.

Can a Virtual cache also be used as a link in a multi cache?

What I wish to do is use a very well known Item here to make a jump to another multi but it is being used as a virtual cache, so it would not be another virtual just a clue for the second multi.

Thanks

Rick


 

Do I understand right that this is an already existing virtual? Yours? Somebody else's? I don't see a problem with it. I'd probably include a reference to it on my cache page so any seekers could log it,too, while they're at it.

 

Keep on caching!

 

Bluespreacher

 

"We've got the hardware and the software, the plans and the maps ..." -- Citizen Wayne Kramer

Link to comment

The way I see it, your wanting to take information from an object that is already a virt cache and use that information in a stage of a multi legged cache hunt.

 

As long as that object is not the first stop - therefore being within 0.10 miles of another cache and not allowed - there should be no problem. We have done a box full along the same line and have even set up one along that same line.

 

logscaler

 

"It is not fair to have a battle of wits with unarmed people."

Link to comment

Interesting, nobody see's a problem with it because I do.

 

First all legs of your multi must be at least .1 miles away from the virt and if you make that one of the stages that won't be possible.

 

The other thing I see is that if that was my cache I wouldn't want someone using it without my permission. So on that note you would want to ask but it negates it self because of the above.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

quote:

First all legs of your multi must be at least .1 miles away from the virt and if you make that one of the stages that won't be possible.


 

Hmmmm, I can think of at least three multi's I've done where this wasn't the case. Is this a guideline the admins use or is this part of the instructions that are available to all of us?

 

Bret

 

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.

When a man found it, he hid it again." Mt. 13:44

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by CYBret:

Is this a guideline the admins use or is this part of the instructions that are available to all of us?


 

Well I believe that its part of the guidlines that are available to everyone

 

Here is the specific portion of those guidelines I'm refering to:

 

Cache Saturation

 

The approvers use a policy that caches placed within .10 miles of another cache will not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area.

 

Multi caches are not specifically mentioned in there nor is any other type of cache specifically mentioned in the "cache saturation" section where this issue is addressed, there for they fall under that 'caches' term and multies are a part of that.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

I thought I've seen it mentioned that legs of multi's don't necessarily fall within that .1 mile rule.

 

Being that multi's are one cache in itself, what difference does it make as to where info is gotten to complete it? Even if the place where some of the info is gathered is already a virtual. The leg is not a cache itself. Now I could see not placing an actual container with info in it there at the virtual. Because that would negate the reason of the virtual being there. But if there is info, lets say wording on a plaque at a virtual, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to send them there to get the info.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Being that multi's are one cache in itself, what difference does it make as to where info is gotten to complete it?


 

The difference is that all stages of a multi needs to be accounted for. This is not mandatory in all areas at this time but I see it happening in the near future as more and more people ask for it.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Even if the place where some of the info is gathered is already a virtual. The leg is not a cache itself.


 

Yes it is and it needs to be accounted for just like all stages for that multi. NOT just the first stage.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Now I could see not placing an actual container with info in it there at the virtual. Because that would negate the reason of the virtual being there. But if there is info, lets say wording on a plaque at a virtual, then there is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to send them there to get the info.


 

Well, I'm glad you feel that way, I guess.

 

The fact of the matter is that "Being that multi's are one cache in itself" that "one cache" needs to be a minimum of .10 of a mile away from any other active cache because it is ONE cache and just as any ONE cache must be .10 miles away from any ONE cache all legs apply.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

Put another way, when you go to one spot you should be finding one cache, not two. Whichever cache was there first, controls the spot. This is one of the reasons that it's rather hard to get a virtual cache approved these days. Many subjects of virtual cache submissions would make for a nice stage of a multicache.

 

Earlier this month, I archived a multicache submission on these same facts. I had approved the virtual cache in July after the hider begged me to allow it after I had archived it at first. But, he was there first. I felt bad, because the multicache was pretty interesting. It used information from the virtual location for each of the succeeding legs of the cache, all of which were thematically related.

 

--------------------

frog.gif Don't mess with the frog. frog.gif

Link to comment

So what about multis that each leg is not at least .1 miles away? Or when a leg of a multi is within .1 miles of another cache?

 

Like I said, I can understand about not placing a leg that there is actually a container with a clue in it that us within the distance to another cache. But if it's using something to get, lets say numbers off of it to get the coordinates to complete the multi, then I would not see why it would be a problem. I can understand the fact of legs in a multi being accounted for, but I would think this is one of those times in the guidelines that will vary from it.

 

Keystone, why would you allow a virtual if you archived it first and then allow it after they begged you? Did any of the situation on the virtual change from when you first didn't allow it?

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

So what about multis that each leg is not at least .1 miles away? Or when a leg of a multi is within .1 miles of another cache?


 

They don't get approved like Keystone mentioned above.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I can understand the fact of legs in a multi being accounted for, but I would think this is one of those times in the guidelines that will vary from it.


 

Yes, you are right there but as issues like this continue to be pushed I'm sure there will be no variance. That is my opinion and my opinion only.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Keystone, why would you allow a virtual if you archived it first and then allow it after they begged you? Did any of the situation on the virtual change from when you first didn't allow it?


 

I'll let Keystone answer that but I'm assuming its because we are cachers too and have hearts despite what may be thought.

 

migo_sig_logo.jpg

__________________________

Caching without a clue....

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by umc:

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

So what about multis that each leg is not at least .1 miles away? Or when a leg of a multi is within .1 miles of another cache?


 

They don't get approved like Keystone mentioned above.


 

Whoa, unless something changed in the last few days, there was no requirement for legs of a multi to be at least .1 mile away from each other. From another cache, yes, but not from each leg of the same cache.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Keystone, why would you allow a virtual if you archived it first and then allow it after they begged you?


Because I had a dialogue via e-mail with the hider. It is a cool spot and he convinced me that it met the requirements for a virtual cache. Yet, with some effort, another guy came along and used the same spot as the launching point for a multicache. It is rare when this CAN'T be done.
quote:
Did any of the situation on the virtual change from when you first didn't allow it?
Yes.

 

--------------------

frog.gif Don't mess with the frog. frog.gif

Link to comment

Yes UMC, I was referring to what Cachew Nut was talking about.

 

I understand the point of the .1 mile rule and I think that if it's going to be pushed then it needs to be pushed all around. But, the fact is, like CyberBret stated, there are many that do not fall within that rule. I'm sure than many of that many I stated, were grandfathered.

 

I would think that a leg or part of a multi would need to be taken into consideration. How is that leg/part used? Is it something actually placed there by the cache owner, or something that was already there that can be used to help get them to the next portion or to the actual cache itself.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

Link to comment

I think that most of the approvers, or at least those in cache-dense areas, are now asking for the coordinates to each step of a multicache. So it doesn't matter where it starts. If any stage of the multicache is within 528 feet of another cache, including someone's existing virtual cache, that's a density problem. So moving the first stage of the multicache more than .1 miles away from the existing virtual cache doesn't help any.

 

I think it's OK for separate stages of the same multicache to be less than 528 feet apart, in general. If I see something that's a problem I will try to suggest that the hider make some changes. For example, if two stages are 50 feet apart it's quite likely that someone would accidentally find stage 3 while searching for stage 2. And if there's 14 stages that average 200 feet apart, I might suggest a change to that multicache, too.

 

--------------------

frog.gif Don't mess with the frog. frog.gif

Link to comment

With all the new updated guidelines I'm not sure if that is possible anymore. In the days of yore when caching was less complicated a virtual could be created and then used as a separate (cache) in the stages of a multi. It seems now that the stages must be a part of the cache, not a separate cache. This is an example of what was possible in the days of yore.

The following Caches have their difficulty (D) and Terrain (T) ratings included:

1. Lions Ridge D4-T4 Traditional Cache

Lion Gulch

which is linked to the following Caches.

a. Homestead Meadows North D2-T4 Virtual Cache

The Homesteaders

b. Geoteering D3-T4 Event Cache

Compasses etc.

c. Geo-Touring Rocky Mountain High D1-T4 Surprise Cache: A nice hike

And I would like to create another virtual up there that relates to the Big Elk Fire, but will probably be told NO even though the maps I created while putting caches back in those hills was used by the USFS to enhance the monument.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. Grey Diamond Ghost Trail D5-T4 Multi Cache

Find the Diamonds

which is linked to the following Caches.

a. UTM - Up The Mountain D2-T3.5 Virtual Cache

The Big Hill

b.Gliddens Wares - D2-T4.5 Traditonal Cache

This Cache is under development will involve a 4 mile hike 1 way with an elevation gain of 2,690 ft.

There are also 2 virtuals and one traditional that are in the vicinity of the trailhead that one uses to access this mountain

- - - - - - - - - - -

3. Puma' Red Ribbon Overlook D3.5-T3.5 Multi Cache

Le Puma which is linked to the following Caches:

a. The Original Cache D1-T1 Virtual Cache (this cache predates Ulmers can of beans)

Lets cache the powder

b. Lest We Forget D3-T2 Virtual Cache.

The last stop And I was contacted by the author who wrote about this place and received a nice thank you for sending people there, and this author is not a cacher.

- - - - - -

4. #25 D4 - T3 Multi Cache

12*2+1

which is linked to three virtual caches:

 

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

Link to comment

UMC And keystone.

 

WHAT???

 

WHY???

 

You mean to tell me that if I place a cache with multi stages that start and end more then

0.10 miles from any other existing cache but use information gathered from a sign/plaque

that is all ready a virtual cache, you will not approve it? What harm can be done by this?

 

And I can not wait to hear this, as it should be real good. I just might need that "doot"

bucket. So far, the reasons I have read would help my garden grow like crazy.

 

Now, Does the same rule apply to caches with a "bonus" cache where you have to locate

cache "A" to get the numbers for cache "B"?

Such as This cache and THIS cache are now out of style?

 

And now I read this :

 

quote:
(Added 5/28/02) Please do not place caches on archaeological or historical

sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be

caused by vehicles and humans. If you find a cache in one of these areas please remove

it and replace it a safe enough distance from the site to ensure that the site will not be

impacted by people searching for the cache and unknowingly traveling over or through a

site.


Does this mean that ALL THESE caches are now

going to be tossed out, as they are by design to be at HISTORICAL Sites!??

 

And I was also under the impression that caches in Wilderness areas where out, but I see

nowhere in the rules that this is so. Lands ruled by the National Parks are covered but not

wilderness areas.

 

My guess is I am about to be "Lazyboy"ed but, as much as I hate to say it, I think it is

about time to put these rules in black and white, not use some arbitrary "this is the way I

think the game needs played" judgment.

 

lazybo..., err,

 

logscaler.

 

"It is not fair to have a battle of wits with unarmed people."

Link to comment

Ah hum, parden me, I am over here? LOL Man I did not mean to open this up.

Well Keystone, I sent you a email trying to explain this better but dont know if you got it.

 

Seems about 1/2 say its ok and the other 1/2 say its not.

 

My thoughts is that a Virtual is just that you look at it and maybe answer a question or two. I dont want to start a big debate but I really dont see the point to them but since we have them why not use them as what they are and also allow them to be sort like a cross road or jump point if you will. It would then not block caches in the area. What do you think?

 

I wish this would have been more one sided, for or against. It would have made this much simpler. I guess I will go ahead and finish the cache and turn it in and see what happens

Thanks,

Rick

Link to comment

You know, the more I think about it, the less I like this new developement. I think this is a bad idea in the extreme.

 

I can understand about cache saturation. In the woods, fine. In a large park, fine. But to come along and say the paths of two different multis can't cross? That's just simply taking things too far. List the coords of each stage? Again, what's with all of this extra work? Afraid snot-nosed newbies will find the wrong cache and start crying about it? I don't care. Comprehensive FAQs and tutorials would go a long way to handling that. But Noooo gotta keep the game flexible. My eye! Can you tell that I'm hot under the collar? Good!

 

Why in the world are you wanting to cause more work on the approvers? I makes absolutely NO sense!

 

I see absolutely NO reason that a lame virt can forever hog any one spot. At least before there was a way for someone to come in and incorporate it into a decent multi. With this change in rules this can't happen. It's a shame, it really is.

 

I think it is a bad idea. I think it will stifle creativity as I have elements in the works for a large multi that plays off other caches in the area. The new rule completely screws that up.

 

I really think you guys should rethink this change in rules. I really do.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

I agree CR. To me it sounds like every stage is a cache in itself. No wonder some people complain about not getting credited for each stage of a multi they find...lol

 

I think that i would be a little easier if the rules/guidelines were more set in black/white. I know, many don't like the idea of it because they want to work with less rules. But when you have thousands of people coming together for one common cause, then you need some sort of order. Along with that, I would like to see the guidelines/faq/etc all combined together or get rid of some of them. One page will say something and another page will say the same thing, but something different as well, and then another page is even more confusing.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

Link to comment

So tell me, what are you guys going to do to the people who have caches rejected, but put them out anyway?

 

There are other sites and private webpages, what if people start advertising these rejected caches in their approved caches?

 

How would you handle a cache owner who allows people who find a rejected cache to log them on an approved cache?

 

I understand how you can control what is listed on GC.com, but how are you going to control geocaching beyond this website?

 

Curious minds want to know.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

WO, I like good clear cut rules, this is this and that is that. But also very few rules. Make it simple and easy to understand. This ever morphing stuff is for the birds, it really is.

 

I like letterboxing for the fact that the rules are strick and few. You do this and this, and the rest is up to you--all is fair. In letterboxing, getting a box approved is unheard of. They would riot! Maybe that's why they didn't want to join this site. Too much control in too small of a group. That's never good.

 

I feel this is too much control by the approvers. What's next? Will they want to hold my hand as I place the cache? I bend down with cache in hand and look for approval in their eye, just waiting for that slight nod like a good little puppy?

 

~snort!~ It'd be funny if it was so sad.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

Now I hope you folks can see why I pointed you this direction.

 

THIS topic needs brought before a firing squad and SHOT!

 

I have a LARGE multi stage out here in Oregon I put out to ATTRACT other cachers to the local area so they would place some caches.

 

Now, with this rule in place - not for long I hope - I will have roughly tied up all those other cache locations in 46 SQUARE MILES!

 

I am still waiting for a good reason for this rule to be imposed.

 

logscaler.

 

"It is not fair to have a battle of wits with unarmed people."

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Keystone Approver:

I think that most of the approvers, or at least those in cache-dense areas, are now asking for the coordinates to each step of a multicache. So it doesn't matter where it starts. If any stage of the multicache is within 528 feet of another cache, including someone's existing virtual cache, that's a density problem. So moving the first stage of the multicache more than .1 miles away from the existing virtual cache doesn't help any.

 

I think it's OK for separate stages of the same multicache to be less than 528 feet apart, in general. If I see something that's a problem I will try to suggest that the hider make some changes. For example, if two stages are 50 feet apart it's quite likely that someone would accidentally find stage 3 while searching for stage 2. And if there's 14 stages that average 200 feet apart, I might suggest a change to that multicache, too.

 

--------------------

frog.gif Don't mess with the frog. frog.gif


This is pretty much the standard the approvers use. No new rules or guidelines here. Just common sense. If stage 14 of Woodster's new 'PITA Cache' multicache is 30ft from Tahosa's 'Where's Ben?' cache (with $100 bill for the 1st 100 finders), I'm going to make Woody move stage 14 a few hundred feet, so people aren't finding Tahosa's cache by mistake.

It works both ways. By my knowing where Woodster's stages are, I can prevent Sissy-n-CR from placing a cache 5ft from stage 47 (the final cache) of Woodster's. That might prevent something like this from happening again.

Link to comment

NJ Admin...what about if the leg of a multi doesn't use an actual container? But perhaps there is a virtual nearby that has a plaque that you get the numbers out of for coordinates to another part of the leg? There is no finding the wrong "cache" there. I could see if a stage of a multi was a container at a traditional type of a cache with a container. But when there is either only one container or no containers at all used(multi stage and other cache), I don't understand the logic of it.

 

On another note, if someone created a multi lets say and placed a stage of it in a micro container near another actual cache with container, then couldn't a statement be placed or required in the micro that states it is not an actual cache but part of a micro, without reference to which micro? Of course that would be if the owner actually placed that statement in or on the multi stage cache container, if it was as container.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by NJ Admin:

This is pretty much the standard the approvers use. No new rules or guidelines here. Just common sense. If stage 14 of Woodster's new 'PITA Cache' multicache is 30ft from Tahosa's 'Where's Ben?' cache (with $100 bill for the 1st 100 finders), I'm going to make Woody move stage 14 a few hundred feet, so people aren't finding Tahosa's cache by mistake.

It works both ways. By my knowing where Woodster's stages are, I can prevent Sissy-n-CR from placing a cache 5ft from stage 47 (the final cache) of Woodster's.


 

Sorry, I don't buy it. I don't recall giving approvers all of the stages of my other caches.

 

Not only that, but GC.com is not the end-all of caching. There are other sites out there. You going to police those as well? What about letterboxing?

 

"I can prevent..." are troubling words.

 

Not only that, but we were originally talking about virts! Who really gives a dadgum if someone accidently finds virtual stages in a multi? Would they even know?

 

Nope, this is a bad idea. Very, very bad.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

i have a leg of a multi that is AT another virt. the multi is long and intricate, and the virt allows people to use that location if they DON'T do the whole multi. there has also been some request to put a cache at the final location so that people who are not up to the full challenge can enjoy finding a cache at that location.

 

the multi legs are far apart and nothing about the area is close to saturation. i'm trying very hard here to give examples without giving hints, since as we speak people are working on the multi.

 

the stages of the long multi depends on geometrical solutions, and a leg HAS to be at the virt, because that's the way the geometrical figure works. if i hadn't been able to have put that stage there, i'd have had to move ALL the stages.

 

happily, it's working out just fine. people who get that far in the multi do not mind the virt, and people who do the virt are not aware of the multi leg. everybody's happy. the guidelines have been stretched, but the spirit is intact.

 

-====)) -))))))))))))

presta schrader

Link to comment

I don't like the way this is sounding. We recently did a multi with steps between 200 & 500 feet from each other and it was cool. And we did a multi which didn't even use coordinates, just riddles to lead you to the micros containing the next riddle, each micro containing one piece of the final coordinate. It's steps were near another riddle multi that was awesome. I know of one person who was stuck on one riddle for quite a qhile and found the correct virtual location for that riddle while searching for the micro. I can't see anything wrong with this type of overlap as it made for more fun in a neat area.

Also, recently I came across a multi in CA that started at a virtual location and the owner had links to the virtual so folks could log them both. I couldn't see why that was a problem. I would have just gotten the cool Virt as I didn't have the time to explore the area with the multi. I still would have gotten something for being there. And the folks who put in more time and effort get more caches. Just how the game should work.

-Jennifer

 

Age does not bring wisdom, but it does give perspective.

Link to comment

We're in the process of creating an eight-stage multi; the legs are virtual, with a container at the final stage. It's a car-themed cache, so the legs are a mile or two from each other along a road. Are you seriously saying that people would be prohibited from placing another cache within 528 feet of ANY of the stages? That would certainly cast multis in a bad light, if they monopolize huge areas like that. I don't *want* to monopolize a huge swath of an already-dense area. This just makes multicaches less appealing.

 

Multi stages are typically virtuals, or small tags or micro-containers; there's no reason an ammo can can't be a couple hundred feet from one. It would really suck to place a regular cache, and have an approver come back with, "Nope, there's a leg of a multi nearby." What multi? What leg? You don't want to give away that information, do you? Is anyone supposed to even KNOW where the intermediate stages of every multi in their area are? Someone can do their research, find a nice open area, place a cache... and find out a mystery multi stage is blocking it. There are a few large local multis that have you, say, take numbers off a street sign. Is it really reasonable to say that for 0.1 miles all around that sign, the area is sufficiently saturated with Geocaching goodness? Come on.

 

I do know of one cache not far from us that's placed barely 50 feet from the final stage of a two-parter. In fact, the standalone's spot was such an appealing hiding place that I looked there, first, when trying to find the multi. The standalone was placed the week after we found the multi; I'd be surprised if people coming later don't wander over, looking for the multi, and find the standalone first. That's a genuine collision. Intermediate stages, though, are different animals, and I don't think placing a five-leg multi should have the same effect as placing five stand-alone caches, when it comes to density measurements.

Link to comment

Kite and Hawkeye...you do bring up some good points. The one about your 8 part multi. Your right, that one cache would take up 8 different spots. Also about the part of not even knowing that part of a multi is already there. That would be a lot fo work on the person trying to place a cache somewhere and even researched it and saw no other cache there near it, but after you go and place it, you are told that there is a stage of a multi already there or close to it. That would really su*k....A person could monopolize a large area with enough stages of a multi.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

Link to comment

Please pardon any misspelling as I am going hard and fast with this and the other thread.

 

I have no problem with having to submit to the approvers the final cords for a multi stage

to be sure the multi does not conflict with an existing CACHE CONTAINER.

 

I have no problem with having to submit the cords for the different stages.

 

I have no problem with having to move any stage of a multi-CONTAINER/clue multi stage cache that is too close to an existing cache or multi-Container/clue stage cache stage.

An example I have for this is I have a cache out that uses business card magnets with

information laminated to them and I would not like someone to place a cache/cache stage

near enough to my information to compromise my cache hunt.

 

However, I still see no problem with using information off of a sign/plaque/address

etcetc.

 

And I would very much like to here from TPTB a GOOD reason why two or more different cache hunts can not use the same VIRTUAL information.

 

And WO, Yes each stage now take up a 0.1 mile radius.

 

Do we who have out multi stage caches now have to submit all those waypoints? And how are you going to say which existing multi stage cache will prevail when two old caches conflict?

Oldest first? Most hits? Best comments? (Edited this text, Not Right. Sorry guys. Keep up the good work and I will calm down.)

 

logscaler.

 

"It is not fair to have a battle of wits with unarmed people."

 

[This message was edited by logscaler on September 03, 2003 at 10:10 PM.]

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 0
×
×
  • Create New...