Cache Went Awol

[+Waterboy]

Today was a day set aside for maintenance on the Appalachian Trail. This mainly consisted of removing debris left by the hurricanes. Since we were passing one of our caches (Appalachian Trail Maintenance), we decided to stop and perform maintenance here.

 

The Good News – Appalachian Trail is in great shape.

The Bad News – Our cache is AWOL.

 

We are temporarily disabling this cache. Now we are trying to decide if we will re-install this cache, or put our efforts into a new cache. We were not planning any new caches, but if we decide on a new one it will be more difficult. We would like to consider comment from other cachers.

 

Waterboy With Wife

[+DeskJocky]

We are temporarily disabling this cache. Now we are trying to decide if we will re-install this cache, or put our efforts into a new cache. We were not planning any new caches, but if we decide on a new one it will be more difficult. We would like to consider comment from other cachers.

 

Waterboy With Wife

OK, I'll admit it, I never found your cache. But, that doesn't mean I don't want to. I noticed that it has over a two mile hike to get there. Now that in itself is a reason for me to go after the cache. Plus, it is on the AT, another huge reason for me to go after it. It is in Pennsylvania, another good reason! So in my opinion, put it back.

 

For a little over a decade I've had a dream to hike the entire AT. I am getting older and fatter, my dream still exists. So this cache might be one of the pebbles that pushes me over my breaking point and I just might get out there and start hiking. After all, I've been looking for a reason to quit my job and go play in the woods for six months...

[+JOEK]

JoeK & Maddog,

According to the new NY Admin., Caches are not allowed on the AT. He/she disallowed our Spanish Mine cache because we suggested using the AT to get there. The cache was not placed on the AT but at the bottom of a cliff 60 ft. below the trail. We went back and moved the container 300 ft. to the south. Also changed the cache page, telling prospective finders not to use the AT in their approach. Unfortunately, the cache is not at the mine sight anymore, but 250 ft. away.

[+briansnat]

Replace it. The world needs more WWW caches, not fewer!

[+HartClimbs]

JoeK & Maddog,

According to the new NY Admin., Caches are not allowed on the AT. He/she disallowed our Spanish Mine cache because we suggested using the AT to get there. The cache was not placed on the AT but at the bottom of a cliff 60 ft. below the trail. We went back and moved the container 300 ft. to the south. Also changed the cache page, telling prospective finders not to use the AT in their approach. Unfortunately, the cache is not at the mine sight anymore, but 250 ft. away.

That's surprising - I thought the prohibition was on placing caches on the AT corridor, but there wouldn't be a problem with any approach using the trail. If the container's outside the corridor (and not in an NPS), I'd expect it to be fine - but it sounds like the approver found it within the AT corridor or there was some other factor.

 

I thought as long as the cache is reachable without requiring trespassing - things were cool - I'm hoping this is the case.

 

I hope WWW replaces this cache - I haven't had the opportunity to seek their caches as yet (every time I've been backpacking in the area of one of their caches - I was with friends and didn't want to detour the group). I only wish more caches were hidden by people who enjoy the outdoors so much.

[+briansnat]

I thought the prohibition was on placing caches on the AT corridor, but there wouldn't be a problem with any approach using the trail.

 

There should be no ban on using the AT as an approach. Its odd that would result in a rejection of a cache.

[Colonel Mustard]

I too am a bit surprised that there would be a ban on placing a cache on the AT "corridor". The AT is a public access trail open to all. While I would agree that placing a cache directly on the trail would likely be a poor idea, due to the muggle factor, using the trail to access the area should not present a problem. The AT runs many miles through state game lands and state park lands in PA. As does the Horseshoe trail and several others. To ban a cache because of the trail access doesn't sound right to me as long as it's a public domain trail. There are a number of PA caches using these trails as access routes. I would also like to hear a definition of what is considered the AT "corridor"? The AT also runs through privately owned property and the right of way is garanteed by law. That may prohibit placing a cache in the "corridor", but that is a different matter.

Edited October 11, 2004 by Colonel Mustard

[+briansnat]

I too am a bit surprised that there would be a ban on placing a cache on the AT "corridor". The AT is a public access trail open to all. While I would agree that placing a cache directly on the trail would likely be a poor idea, due to the muggle factor, using the trail to access the area should not present a problem. The AT runs many miles through state game lands and state park lands in PA. As does the Horseshoe trail and several others. To ban a cache because of the trail access doesn't sound right to me as long as it's a public domain trail. There are a number of PA caches using these trails as access routes. I would also like to hear a definition of what is considered the AT "corridor"? The AT also runs through privately owned property and the right of way is garanteed by law. That may prohibit placing a cache in the "corridor", but that is a different matter.

The AT corridor is managed by the National Park Service, which bans geocaching on lands they manage. Though the AT crosses a hodge-podge of public land including state parks and forests, town and county parks, national parks and forests and other public lands, the actual trail corridor is in the hands of the NPS, no matter who owns the land it crosses.

 

Still, using the AT to access a cache should not cause it to be rejected as long as its not on the trail corridor.

Edited October 11, 2004 by briansnat

[Colonel Mustard]

I agree. Rejection of a cache needs to be for a reason OTHER than using the AT as access. And thanks for making the point that the AT is maintained by the NPS. I knew that and I had forgotten. That is a major point. I would still be interested in what is considered the corridor.

Edited October 11, 2004 by Colonel Mustard

[+briansnat]

I would still be interested in what is considered the corridor.

 

 

That is variable. On land owned by the NPS, like the Delaware Watergap NRA, the entire park. In places where it crosses other public land, for example High Point State Park or Harriman, just a matter of a few feet.

Edited October 11, 2004 by briansnat

[+JMBella]

I would still be interested in what is considered the corridor.

 

 

That is variable. On land owned by the NPS, like the Delaware Watergap NRA, the entire park. In places where it crosses other public land, for example High Point State Park or Harriman, just a matter of a few feet.

That's how I always understood it. Unless I'm missing something, your cache should be open for further review. Were there any other factors? I'm especially surprised with all the caches in that area I'm sure quite a few require use of the AT even if the cache itself is not on it.

[Keystone]

Waterboy's cache was taken by a cache maggot. It was not "rejected." I fail to understand why the thread turned in that direction.

 

If you pull up the TopoZone map for this cache, as I did when I reviewed the submission months ago, you will see where this cache is located relative to the Appalachian Trail. It is also obvious from the cache page that the cache owner is a member of the group that maintains this section of the trail. In listing the cache, I assumed that the owner had adequate permission for placing the cache, and that the cache fell outside of the narrow NPS corridor. When I've hiked off trail along the AT, I've encountered boundary markers a short distance away from the trail itself. I had no difficulties in listing Waterboy's cache based on my knowledge of the rules and the information on the cache page. That remains the case today.

 

Pardon the intrusion. I now return you to your regularly scheduled forum topic.

[+Berserkr]

Waterboy,

 

Your cache has fallen victim to a yellow-bellied cache thief who has plagued this area for about 3 months now. The thief can be attributed to 20+ disappearances in this area. I have lost 3 of my caches, replaced them and lost them again.

 

The thief is a paying member, because when I replaced them I moved them to new locations and made them MOC's and they still disappeared. I have a whole lot more information.

 

I hate to say it, but many of your caches are in the originally targeted area and I fear the worst.

 

 

Berserkr

[+JMBella]

Waterboy's cache was taken by a cache maggot. It was not "rejected." I fail to understand why the thread turned in that direction.

Actually we ended up not talking about waterboy's cache but JOEK's cache that was rejected. This certainly seems like a topic worthy of it's own thread.

from JOEK:

JoeK & Maddog,

According to the new NY Admin., Caches are not allowed on the AT. He/she disallowed our Spanish Mine cache because we suggested using the AT to get there. The cache was not placed on the AT but at the bottom of a cliff 60 ft. below the trail. We went back and moved the container 300 ft. to the south. Also changed the cache page, telling prospective finders not to use the AT in their approach. Unfortunately, the cache is not at the mine sight anymore, but 250 ft. away.

 

Just to be on topic, WWW's cache sounds like a good one. I would replace it we might be heading to PA soon.

[+Polgara]

Greetings Waterboy & Wife!

 

Its been a looooong time since I've hiked with the two of you. I vote you put it back, hiking for your caches is always an adventure!

[+Waterboy]

Today (Dec 14) we confirmed that another one of our Pennsylvania caches is missing. This missing one was Rock Garden, last visited on June 26 of this year.

 

Although we did not mention it above our Wilkum to Rocksylvania cache was also vandalized. This was discovered on September 26. The co-ordinates were removed from the second of three caches in this multicache. The removal was not an easy task, and the cache container (water bottle) was not removed.

 

With today’s disappointment we are considered more strongly archiving our Pennsylvania caches that have vanished. Final decision will not be made until we complete maintenance on our other caches.

 

We would like to thank all those who responded to our earlier request. We appreciate your concern and your kind words.

 

Waterboy With Wife

[+briansnat]

That's a shame. We need more caches like yours, not fewer!