View Full Version : Another one bites the dust.



Haffy
07-20-2009, 11:42 AM
Just happened to be reading that someone has asked for the archival of the Monument Hill cache. What a shame! I think being one of the oldest caches in Maine that someone would volunteer to adopt it or at least replace the cache so others can at least have a chance to find one of the older caches in the state. It even has what I like about a cache,a nice little hike and a great view. There has to be someone out that way to help this cache survive. If I were up there I would do it!!!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=3189abfd-eba7-4512-b152-a34274771b97

fins2right
07-20-2009, 12:02 PM
It's not that far away and I've cached that area. How does the "forced" :D:D adoption go? Should I email Maine Publisher?

WhereRWe?
07-20-2009, 12:25 PM
I note that the cache owner hasn't been on GC.com in almost 4 years. Surely there must be a procedure to adopt an abandoned cache...

:confused::confused:

tat
07-20-2009, 12:26 PM
Adoptions cannot be "forced" since Groundspeak does not own the cache. If the cache owner initiates the adoption process, it is simple and fast.

kayakerinme
07-20-2009, 12:28 PM
Adoptions cannot be "forced" since Groundspeak does not own the cache. If the cache owner initiates the adoption process, it is simple and fast.
gpsfun "forced" the adoption of GC128 to me as the original owner did not reply...

Ekidokai
07-20-2009, 12:35 PM
OK guys here is a chance to show off your skills. I'm talking to you hackers out there. Sign on, hack their password and send the adoption out. How hard can that be. They obviously have abandoned the cache and sight. Come on show your skills.

lexmano
07-20-2009, 12:58 PM
OK guys here is a chance to show off your skills. I'm talking to you hackers out there. Sign on, hack their password and send the adoption out. How hard can that be. They obviously have abandoned the cache and sight. Come on show your skills.

Don't you work in security?:)

Seems like a victimless crime to me, however.

Opalsns
07-20-2009, 01:09 PM
Maybe , if it's archived, someone could put an EarthCache there,as the spot of one of the oldest Caches in Maine that has a great view and put a physical "Tribute" Cache to the original 600 feet away. It could be a 2fer.
Just an idea.

Opalsns

Sabby
07-20-2009, 01:22 PM
As I see it a cacher has asked that it be archived and given reasons to do so. The Maine reviewer should send a message to the hider to check the cache and if not done in 30 days should archive it. Then the area is open for someone else to place a cache there.

Not only has the person who placed the cache there not been on line since 2005 but their membership has expired and their email has been deactivated because it was not validated.

By all means archive this cache and his/her other one too and let a cacher who will take care of a new cache place one there.

Haffy
07-20-2009, 01:45 PM
gpsfun "forced" the adoption of GC128 to me as the original owner did not reply...

There's your answer TAT...you have the power ...lol. Maybe if the Pisgah Fire Tower cache is in need of some maintenance as well both of those caches could be adopted at the same time since they are both owned by the same person and activated the same day. Just a thought.

Hiram357
07-20-2009, 03:52 PM
Don't archive it!!! :eek:

That's a cache that was placed in 2001!!!!

There's not many left, and if we start archiving them, then the "cache like it's 2001 challenge" would be too easy.... :(

hide_from_the_kids
07-20-2009, 04:05 PM
We'd being willing to adopt if it becomes a choice as well . . . both are not to far from us.

WhereRWe?
07-20-2009, 04:07 PM
gpsfun "forced" the adoption of GC128 to me as the original owner did not reply...

Sheesh! Unless my memory totally fails me, GPSFun asked us to adopt the "Wyman View (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=83b5b599-184b-40a6-820c-de56dd0feaf1&log=y&decrypt=)" cache. Check your rule book again, Tom. LOL!

brdad
07-20-2009, 04:27 PM
There is always the option if someone so chooses to repair the cache and maintain it despite the owner.

Sudonim
07-20-2009, 04:40 PM
There is always the option if someone so chooses to repair the cache and maintain it despite the owner.

I like that if needed. When you archive an old cache and place a new one, you lose one of those bits of caching history IMO.

Haffy
07-20-2009, 06:40 PM
There is always the option if someone so chooses to repair the cache and maintain it despite the owner.

That's just what I am hoping will happen,I hate so see old caches archived.:(

hollora
07-20-2009, 07:59 PM
If a cacher chooses place a repaired cache without a formal adoption - it is an option. I know of at least one other, "old one", in the state which is being maintained in exactly this way (I won't tell which one). There are some down sides to it though.

You can't change the cache page/description/hint, etc. You are not the owner so can't ask for coords to be changed. And - you do not get the emails about the cache finds, notes, DNFs and the like - but watching it is a way around this piece.

That being said - yes, a 2001 cache is a piece of Maine Geocaching history. It would be a shame to see this archived. Placing a new one in the same place would change the date and just not be the same.

Sounds like there might be folks who are interested in fixing the cache. Now, they need to decide if their desire is to - preserve it as is, with the absentee owner - or - if they want a new publication if it can't be adopted.

Rules which were in place a while ago - when folks seem to remember "forced" adoptions or "being asked" - may have changed as time has gone on. This is a dynamic sport and things are changing. What was a while ago - may not be the case now.

Perhaps a "Found It" log - and description of a well stocked and dry cache - might put an end to the discussion of need for archiving this one. Of course, this would have to come from someone going and replacing the container. But remember - I don't think anyone but the owner can remove the Needs Maintenance Icon - Maine Publisher would know.

JMHO - I, too, hope it gets repaired and maintained by someone who just silently steps forward and makes it happen.

fins2right
07-20-2009, 08:05 PM
First, I would like to apologize for using the term "Forced Adoption". I meant it in jest, but it does sort of imply that I was willing to take over the cache by force. This is simply not the case. I just think that we as a group have a vested interest in keeping old caches active and interesting. Sorry about that turn of phrase.

I am, however, very willing to adopt, and maintain this cache. I would also suspect that the Mt. Pisgah cache will need a sponser as well.

The question is, How? Is there a method where Tat, or Groundspeak can turn it over to an active cacher? My arguement for this is as follows: The owner has not been on the site since 10/19/2005 3 and 3/4 years. He cannot be contacted, in fact all trace of him, as a geocacher, has been taken down. As such I would maintain that he has abandoned any claim to these caches. I would also guess, considering how early he joined our sport, that he would want the caches up and running. Another point is that the cache hider never actually found a cache, just hid these two. He was not active, he just came in on the first wave. Now the law is very clear, (:eek::rolleyes::D) Abandoned property does not have a "right to privacy" under the 4th admendment to the constitution and is open to anyone who wishes to take it. (before we get riled up, I'm using this for the smile factor as well :)) This is why I spend all summer digging through trash bags before search warrants. Of course, this may not apply in this case, but I do think that part of it does.

I currently have a 50 cal can painted, stickered, filled and ready to go. My wife and I had planned a hike up Mt. Pisgah on Friday (no kids, yeah!!) and I would be more than happy to recover this one as well. I would also throw this out: I could just replace the cache, put myself on the watch list and we could keep it going that way.

A long post, I know. I can chat a lot. :) But I would love to help, and if Hide From the Kids is willing to take over Mt. Pisgah, I think that this is a good solution. I would put it out there, and ask anyone to chime in with an opinion. Thanks

hollora
07-20-2009, 08:34 PM
First, I would like to apologize for using the term "Forced Adoption". I meant it in jest, but it does sort of imply that I was willing to take over the cache by force. This is simply not the case. I just think that we as a group have a vested interest in keeping old caches active and interesting. Sorry about that turn of phrase.

I am, however, very willing to adopt, and maintain this cache. I would also suspect that the Mt. Pisgah cache will need a sponser as well.

The question is, How? Is there a method where Tat, or Groundspeak can turn it over to an active cacher? My arguement for this is as follows: The owner has not been on the site since 10/19/2005 3 and 3/4 years. He cannot be contacted, in fact all trace of him, as a geocacher, has been taken down. As such I would maintain that he has abandoned any claim to these caches. I would also guess, considering how early he joined our sport, that he would want the caches up and running. Another point is that the cache hider never actually found a cache, just hid these two. He was not active, he just came in on the first wave. Now the law is very clear, (:eek::rolleyes::D) Abandoned property does not have a "right to privacy" under the 4th admendment to the constitution and is open to anyone who wishes to take it. (before we get riled up, I'm using this for the smile factor as well :)) This is why I spend all summer digging through trash bags before search warrants. Of course, this may not apply in this case, but I do think that part of it does.

I currently have a 50 cal can painted, stickered, filled and ready to go. My wife and I had planned a hike up Mt. Pisgah on Friday (no kids, yeah!!) and I would be more than happy to recover this one as well. I would also throw this out: I could just replace the cache, put myself on the watch list and we could keep it going that way.

A long post, I know. I can chat a lot. :) But I would love to help, and if Hide From the Kids is willing to take over Mt. Pisgah, I think that this is a good solution. I would put it out there, and ask anyone to chime in with an opinion. Thanks

You chat - look at my post! :D Lacking time for - Maine Publisher to respond - I do suspect some rules about old caches, uninterested or involved players and adoptions may have changed over time. Again - JMHO

As for the Mt. cache - another seemingly in jeapordy. Clearly! :(:mad::( So maybe you and HFTK need to do some PMs and get together to develop a strategy and plan for both of these. :):D:) Just a thought!

Any - thanks for all you are both doing for this community! It's appreciated! :):D:)

Team2hunt
07-20-2009, 08:46 PM
http://www.gpsunderground.com/forums/member.php?u=100616

kayakerinme
07-20-2009, 09:50 PM
This cache has stirred a good deal of interest in keeping this cache active. So I wonder... why this one? By what criteria is this judged? Caches are archived every day for lack of maintenance, either by their owners or a reviewer. I doubt there'd be any fuss if a Dalmatian was archived, or a cache of the Rose series, or the cache at Bug Light, for examples.

Is it the age of the cache? My puppy is already an adult at more than three years (and one flood) old. Does the cache have to be 3? 5? 7? 8? Is it only 2001? 2002? Will we look back 25 years from now and want to save the NE Centum Challenge? or the Delorme Challenge? or Breakfast (most recently published as I write this GC1W63D)?

Is it the location? Surely, if the location is good and the cache is archived another would be placed shortly... and give a reason to revisit for those that have already been there once. Heck, a lot of not-so-nice places get repeat caches.

Maine is privileged to have its first cache still remaining though not all states can say this. As the adopter of that cache I do feel that cache should remain as long as possible but what if the Conservation Commission decides to reverse itself and the cache should be removed? Or the police blow it up? Isn't there a point at which GC128 should be archived?

I look forward to hearing your comments about this...

Ekidokai
07-20-2009, 10:24 PM
I for one think that a piece of history should be preserved as long as it is feasible. Any 2001 caches are special in my view because they were the first ones. Maine is privileged to still have the first cache still active. It would be a very sad day to have that go away.

Sabby
07-20-2009, 11:03 PM
This cache has stirred a good deal of interest in keeping this cache active. So I wonder... why this one? By what criteria is this judged? Caches are archived every day for lack of maintenance, either by their owners or a reviewer. I doubt there'd be any fuss if a Dalmatian was archived, or a cache of the Rose series, or the cache at Bug Light, for examples.

Is it the age of the cache? My puppy is already an adult at more than three years (and one flood) old. Does the cache have to be 3? 5? 7? 8? Is it only 2001? 2002? Will we look back 25 years from now and want to save the NE Centum Challenge? or the Delorme Challenge? or Breakfast (most recently published as I write this GC1W63D)?

Is it the location? Surely, if the location is good and the cache is archived another would be placed shortly... and give a reason to revisit for those that have already been there once. Heck, a lot of not-so-nice places get repeat caches.

Maine is privileged to have its first cache still remaining though not all states can say this. As the adopter of that cache I do feel that cache should remain as long as possible but what if the Conservation Commission decides to reverse itself and the cache should be removed? Or the police blow it up? Isn't there a point at which GC128 should be archived?

I look forward to hearing your comments about this...


Well said. This is a changing world. There is no need to hold on to a cache simply because it has been around a while. Out with the old unmaintained cache and in with a new one that will be taken care of.

Haffy
07-20-2009, 11:17 PM
You know all you guys have the right to your opinion and I noticed that you"Barry" decided to adopt the 1st Maine cache so what is the problem with trying to preserve another older cache? With all the unnecessary micros under lamposts and in guardrails I just thought it would be nice to preserve one of the older and meaningful caches that take you to a nice view and takes you on a decent hike as well. Something that seems to be lacking in caches nowadays. If someone can do the needed maintenance on the cache what harm is there in that? They can keep track of it through their watchlist if they so desire. I could go on and on but I'll just leave it up to you guys as to what happens from here on out. Not much I can do from down here in SC but I can tell you one thing and that is if I was living up there there would be a maintained cache there tomorrow.

fins2right
07-21-2009, 05:40 AM
http://www.gpsunderground.com/forums/member.php?u=100616


Unless I'm mistaken, There is no activity and no way to contact through this page. Which is too bad because it would resolve this.

brdad
07-21-2009, 06:12 AM
My most common opinion since I have started caching is if a cache owner doesn't maintain their caches it probably doesn't deserve to be there. That opinion has changed slightly now that a few years have been invested in the sport.

I am all for preserving, when possible, caches which have historical geocaching value and which represent the original idea of geocaching, and promoting memories for the finders, for example taking them to a place they would have not known otherwise, or a new style of hide. I also feel most of the caches placed in the first few years of caching have a quality that is lacking in many of today's hides. That is a quality of having being placed because the hider had a connection to the area it was hidden in. Even with some of the (for lack of a better term) lamer caches hidden at those times, they generally were not placed for the sake of hiding a cache, they were hidden because the cache owner wanted to show you what interested him or her. In my opinion, that makes a big difference in the value of a cache. Now I will agree, many of those caches were hidden while on vacation and by hiders who gave up 3 days later, but that doesn't negate their consideration of the location in most cases. The firsts, for example LPCs or GRCs? Possibly, but does anyone even know which cache each is, or does anyone care?

My current opinion is if any person(s) shows enough interest to maintain any cache, either by adopting or just carrying on with continued maintenance, that's fine with me. If a bunch of people jump up and down crying a cache has to be saved but no one is willing to care for it on a continuing basis, archive it!

Team2hunt
07-21-2009, 06:16 AM
Just happened to be reading that someone has asked for the archival of the Monument Hill cache. What a shame! I think being one of the oldest caches in Maine that someone would volunteer to adopt it or at least replace the cache so others can at least have a chance to find one of the older caches in the state. It even has what I like about a cache,a nice little hike and a great view. There has to be someone out that way to help this cache survive. If I were up there I would do it!!!

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=3189abfd-eba7-4512-b152-a34274771b97

On August 2, a Sunday I will go out and replace the container at the monument. It should survive due to it's age and the history some of the older caches have. I had made up a couple of lock n locks and did not have to replace the cache at French's Mountain. And I have a debt to geocaching I must now start to pay forward. I'm sure that there are several people here who will watch the cache and help to maintain it.

kayakerinme
07-21-2009, 07:05 AM
[QUOTE=Haffy;54851]You know all you guys have the right to your opinion and I noticed that you"Barry" decided to adopt the 1st Maine cache so what is the problem with trying to preserve another older cache? With all the unnecessary micros under lamposts and in guardrails I just thought it would be nice to preserve one of the older and meaningful caches that take you to a nice view and takes you on a decent hike as well. Something that seems to be lacking in caches nowadays. If someone can do the needed maintenance on the cache what harm is there in that? They can keep track of it through their watchlist if they so desire. ... that is if I was living up there there would be a maintained cache there tomorrow./QUOTE]

I am not, in any way, suggesting that this cache should not be preserved. In fact, I'd advocate such. I was trying very carefully to word it in such a way as to not give the impression that I wanted this cache archived but I apparently did not succeed in that.

Instead, I wondered what attributes of this cache have prompted this discussion. You've answered this with "older and meaningful", where, if I understand your statement, it has a nice view and a decent hike.

If the cache did get archived would you be making the same trip to put a new one out in its place?

WhereRWe?
07-21-2009, 07:14 AM
meaningful caches that take you to a nice view and takes you on a decent hike as well. Something that seems to be lacking in caches nowadays.

Sheesh! When RULost2? and I started geocaching, this was the definition of the activity. Now the definition has been changed so that even the family dog can be a geocacher. (BTW, my favorite "dog cacher" has dropped to #137 worldwide, with 8032 finds.)

firefighterjake
07-21-2009, 07:31 AM
. . . This is why I spend all summer digging through trash bags before search warrants. . .

So that was you digging through Hiram's trash last week . . . and here he thought it was me . . . must have got us confused due to the uniforms . . . of course I wasn't wearing a gun and didn't have any Dunkin' Donuts with me so I can't for the life of me figure out how he got us confused. :D;)

firefighterjake
07-21-2009, 07:35 AM
My opinion . . . deciding whether to adopt, archive, etc. should generally be left to the cache owner.

Seeing as the cache owner is MIA and most likely not involved in caching the decision should fall back on Maine's official GC rep -- Maine Publisher who would probably in most cases archive it and allow another cacher to place a cache there.

However, it seems to me that the location and age of this cache would present a special case for treating this cache special and allowing other cachers to adopt this cache.

Haffy
07-21-2009, 08:28 AM
[QUOTE

If the cache did get archived would you be making the same trip to put a new one out in its place?[/QUOTE]

To answer your question,,,,yes most definately.

Kaching Karen
07-21-2009, 09:15 AM
Team2hunt has offered to put a cache in place. I don't mind doing just that. Jon's camp is out that way and we go there a couple times a week. I'll be headed that way on Wednesday.
I agree with Haffy. This one should be saved. I don't mind keeping an eye on it.
I have cleaned out other's caches before. In fact a lot of people just do that for coutesty sake. I'll just pretend I'm cleaning... okay, renovating.

attroll
07-21-2009, 11:33 AM
I was going to volunteer but it looks like Lexmano (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=8fbf71f2-fa8b-4db0-adb5-15cd895d9ff8&wid=175c3aa4-21b9-4bbd-97fc-64b0571aff23&ds=2) took it over.

lexmano
07-21-2009, 12:56 PM
I was going to volunteer but it looks like Lexmano (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=8fbf71f2-fa8b-4db0-adb5-15cd895d9ff8&wid=175c3aa4-21b9-4bbd-97fc-64b0571aff23&ds=2) took it over.

Rick, I did not do it really!! I did adopt Baston Park with Robt's permission.

Haffy
07-21-2009, 01:19 PM
I was going to volunteer but it looks like Lexmano (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=8fbf71f2-fa8b-4db0-adb5-15cd895d9ff8&wid=175c3aa4-21b9-4bbd-97fc-64b0571aff23&ds=2) took it over.

Get with the program Rick....LOL Both T2H and Karen both have volunteered to take care of them. Looks like we have enough to do the job so what's one more volunteer....;):D Just put them on your watchlist and if they need some maintenance looks like we have enough to care of them for eternity.

attroll
07-21-2009, 10:29 PM
Get with the program Rick....LOL Both T2H and Karen both have volunteered to take care of them. Looks like we have enough to do the job so what's one more volunteer....;):D Just put them on your watchlist and if they need some maintenance looks like we have enough to care of them for eternity.
Haffy, I was with the program. If you had looked at the cache when I posed Lexmano (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=8fbf71f2-fa8b-4db0-adb5-15cd895d9ff8&wid=175c3aa4-21b9-4bbd-97fc-64b0571aff23&ds=2) name was on it a the owner.

Haffy
07-22-2009, 12:05 AM
HUH????? What are you saying then?

Haffy
07-22-2009, 12:13 AM
All I can say is I'm glad the geocaching community is with this in regards to saving this cache.

kayaking loon
07-22-2009, 03:22 PM
Sheesh! Unless my memory totally fails me, GPSFun asked us to adopt the "Wyman View (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=83b5b599-184b-40a6-820c-de56dd0feaf1&log=y&decrypt=)" cache. Check your rule book again, Tom. LOL!


Your memory totally fails you, Bruce. Wyman View was set out by N1ULY and Cricket's_Song. He moved to Thailand , I was taking care of some of his caches and he asked me if I would adopt them. I listed a few I would be willing to adopt but instead he sent me adoption papers on all of his caches. I adopted a lot of them and the rest I asked (on geocachingmaine.org) for people willing to adopt from me. You took Wyman View. And that's the rest of the story.....

Kaching Karen
07-22-2009, 04:39 PM
I'm on my way to Monument Hill to "fix" the cache.

Haffy
07-22-2009, 04:55 PM
Way to go 'k"

WhereRWe?
07-22-2009, 05:20 PM
Your memory totally fails you, Bruce. Wyman View was set out by N1ULY and Cricket's_Song. He moved to Thailand , I was taking care of some of his caches and he asked me if I would adopt them. I listed a few I would be willing to adopt but instead he sent me adoption papers on all of his caches. I adopted a lot of them and the rest I asked (on geocachingmaine.org) for people willing to adopt from me. You took Wyman View. And that's the rest of the story.....

Well, I at least remembered that SOMEONE asked us to adopt it! LOL!

(Sheesh! I did a search and found the original thread from 2006. Even in that thread we were talking about how our minds were going! LOL!)

dubord207
07-24-2009, 03:47 PM
I think that the rules for adoption should follow what happens in the real world. In real adoptions, if the father cannot be located after a showing of a legitimate effort to find him, then the notice to the father that the child is to adopted is made by what is called "Service by Publication." Usually that's in a newspaper of circulation where dad last resided.

In the geocaching world, why couldn't tat say that in 30 days or how many days required, that if the cache owner doesn't respond, then the cache is being put up for adoption, rather then archived? The net result is the same and the historical integrity of the cache can be maintained. I wouldn't call this forced adoption, just giving the original placer as much due process as is practical. What do you think, lexmano?

hollora
07-24-2009, 05:19 PM
I think that the rules for adoption should follow what happens in the real world. In real adoptions, if the father cannot be located after a showing of a legitimate effort to find him, then the notice to the father that the child is to adopted is made by what is called "Service by Publication." Usually that's in a newspaper of circulation where dad last resided.

In the geocaching world, why couldn't tat say that in 30 days or how many days required, that if the cache owner doesn't respond, then the cache is being put up for adoption, rather then archived? The net result is the same and the historical integrity of the cache can be maintained. I wouldn't call this forced adoption, just giving the original placer as much due process as is practical. What do you think, lexmano?

Welcome back Dan - and your suggestion sounds good. Now, "That's Easy!" And I might add - it works too if the Mother can not be found!

brdad
07-24-2009, 05:32 PM
I think the percentage of caches that are of high enough value to a given group of cachers and which are placed by uncontactable placers is real small. The current system works fine, except for a cache like the one mentioned which less than 10 people care about enough to do something about it.

We can't really compare caches to children or they'd be putting all cache hiders in jail for neglect and endangerment. You can't leave a kid under a pile of rocks and walk away!! Trust me on this, it's a no-no! :eek::):eek:

hollora
07-24-2009, 06:02 PM
I think the percentage of caches that are of high enough value to a given group of cachers and which are placed by uncontactable placers is real small. The current system works fine, except for a cache like the one mentioned which less than 10 people care about enough to do something about it.

We can't really compare caches to children or they'd be putting all cache hiders in jail for neglect and endangerment. You can't leave a kid under a pile of rocks and walk away!! Trust me on this, it's a no-no! :eek::):eek:

Hee, hee - and especially when you place them somewhere and folks can't find them LOL!!! :eek:;):eek:

squirrelcache
07-24-2009, 07:30 PM
I think the percentage of caches that are of high enough value to a given group of cachers and which are placed by uncontactable placers is real small. The current system works fine, except for a cache like the one mentioned which less than 10 people care about enough to do something about it.


Oh no.... not only do we have way too much groundwater.... but hell's about to freeze over. brdad actually spoke out against the act of keeping a cache around that's of great value to many folks. It's not a micro.....or a GRC.... what's to hurt by saving it!?

Just for the record...there are countless folks like myself who haven't/didn't speak up about coming to the rescue of this cache! I was physically headed out there to replace it when others spoke up about wanting to adopt it. I'm just glad I'm able to closely monitor the forum...so I didn't step on toes w/a rescue.

robt
07-24-2009, 07:46 PM
I think the percentage of caches that are of high enough value to a given group of cachers and which are placed by uncontactable placers is real small. The current system works fine, except for a cache like the one mentioned which less than 10 people care about enough to do something about it.

We can't really compare caches to children or they'd be putting all cache hiders in jail for neglect and endangerment. You can't leave a kid under a pile of rocks and walk away!! Trust me on this, it's a no-no! :eek::):eek:

I tried to leave mine under a rock but she keeps coming back esscially when she wants money :D:D:D:D

hollora
07-24-2009, 08:18 PM
I tried to leave mine under a rock but she keeps coming back esscially when she wants money :D:D:D:D

For goodness sakes - aren't all your kids at age of adulthood??? And now, doesn't the State of Maine have a formula for this stuff?

When it comes to alimony, Ralph and I learned - leave it - it is what it is - where it is and what it is.............and claim it as a deductible on your income tax :D:):D! It fun to watch - especially when they don't claim it as income! Oh - I am bad! :rolleyes:;):eek:

dubord207
07-24-2009, 08:26 PM
While I can understand that Groundspeaks' managing elders have to have rules, I can't comprehend why a cache placed by a cacher who has clearly stopped caching can't be put up for adoption and maintained by an active cacher. That's the point, isn't it? If I stop caching then for Pete's sake, if I don't respond to e-mails or comments about any of my caches, take them over! And as far as a "handful" of caches that fall within the subject of this thread, I found three of the ten I found this week that have issues and the cache placers are long gone. Read my logs...one had 2 placed hides and one found hide with the cache I found .17 miles off!It's not an unusual problem as suggested by some.

So the process to replace/adopt needs to be workable, not the overly complicated bunch of BS steps currently used. Let's make it easier to adopt then to archive, okay?

Haffy
07-24-2009, 08:27 PM
So has the cache been taken care of yet? I haven't read anything yet on the cache page that says anything. Karen?

Haffy
07-24-2009, 08:36 PM
I wasn't really expecting all the "hoopla" regarding this cache but I guess I opened up a pandora's box which I don't think was necessary. I was just hoping someone would step forward before it was too late and save an old "circa 2001" cache that's all. I have over the years taken care of many caches that I thought needed some extra TLC and this was one that I had a good memory of and thought it needed the same TLC that I provided on others back there in Maine. Anyway I think the cache has been taken care of and thanks to all who had something to do with this. So for my next request!!!!!!!! Not!!! if it causes all this ruckus.....lol

dubord207
07-24-2009, 08:47 PM
Not a problem for me Johnny. This is an ongoing topic. People bitch about maintenance but offer nothing about the problem. The Pisgah Fire Tower cache is a case in point. I replaced the whole cache a year ago and I guess it needs it again. People bitch about full and wet logs...but how often and how many folks replace them? I did a nano replacement today in a downpour... not looking for a medal, but it's how Di and I cache.

So thanks for the thought provoking topic. I'll be submitting 4 new caches for publication tomorrow that appear to be contrary to Groundspeaks' first topic this month...vacation caches. Yeah, but two are Pelican cases and will last at least until next year when I check them and I'm sure I could call on Vic or other cachers in that area to tend to maintenance issues if I can't. Isn't that the spirit of the game folks? We can all pitch in to keep the caches in findable condition!

Haffy
07-24-2009, 08:50 PM
Thanks Dan, you and I have a lot more in common than I ever thought,even if you are French.;):D

brdad
07-24-2009, 09:05 PM
Oh no.... not only do we have way too much groundwater.... but hell's about to freeze over. brdad actually spoke out against the act of keeping a cache around that's of great value to many folks. It's not a micro.....or a GRC.... what's to hurt by saving it!?

Just for the record...there are countless folks like myself who haven't/didn't speak up about coming to the rescue of this cache! I was physically headed out there to replace it when others spoke up about wanting to adopt it. I'm just glad I'm able to closely monitor the forum...so I didn't step on toes w/a rescue.

I guess my statement could be misinterpreted it. I am not against keeping this cache, I would like to see it remain.

Also, my statement about 10 people care about enough to do something about it was an estimate of my own opinion of the number of cachers who might personally see that the cache was saved, either by adoption or just heading there and replacing it as you indicated. This does not include those like myself, who would like to see it remain but would probably not personally go out and fix it on their own.

Hope that clarifies things.

Sabby
07-24-2009, 10:06 PM
I need to add my 2 cents

I feel that if a geocacher leaves the sport and can't be found then the caches should go with them and be archived.

Just my opinion

Ekidokai
07-24-2009, 10:45 PM
Read my logs...one had 2 placed hides and one found hide with the cache I found .17 miles off!It's not an unusual problem as suggested by some.

What are you some kind of blood hound?

squirrelcache
07-24-2009, 10:47 PM
I need to add my 2 cents

I feel that if a geocacher leaves the sport and can't be found then the caches should go with them and be archived.

Just my opinion

Okeedokee......when I move away.... I'll be sure to pack up All of the ammo cans.....film canisters...and nanos I have remaining in the cities and woods at that point. Whaaaaat!? I don't want to be accused of leaving geo-trash laying around ;)

I'd have to say I might generally agree. I also see others' romantic idea behind putting a bit of effort into preserving just a little of our Maine caching history.

brdad
07-25-2009, 06:14 AM
A big cure for the maintenance problem would be if cachers could not hide caches until they were a member for a given time, say two years, and if there was a cap on the number of caches they could place, or at least not be allowed to place more caches until they proved they could maintain the ones they have. This will never happen of course, since this is a for profit venture and any cache is better for profit than no cache.

Hmm, I just thought up a new stat - how long cachers waited until they hid their first cache! Hmmm, is that doable?


Again, my statement:


I think the percentage of caches that are of high enough value to a given group of cachers and which are placed by uncontactable placers is real small.

Dan, of the 3 caches you mention, do they meet both of those criteria I mention? Could we find, say 5 people who would speak up and say that any of these caches should be saved? I know there are many caches which have been placed by people who no longer cache. A small percentage of those are contactable, but it may take a while, due to being in the military or being confronted with other life issues. Not everyone is connected to the internet on a daily basis. The remaining percentage have invalid emails or have moved on and left their caches as trash. But how many of these have any value that an archival followed by a new cache placement would not satisfy?

Even the Monument Hill Cache - if it wasn't for it's age, to most cachers it'd be just another cache. It would be no big deal to archive it and let someone else place another one there. The location is interesting, the hide is typical, the cache really has no redeeming qualities other than being the fourth cache approved in Maine and about #1288 in the world. If it had been placed last year, this thread would not have gotten anywhere near this much attention.

WhereRWe?
07-25-2009, 06:42 AM
A big cure for the maintenance problem would be if cachers could not hide caches until they were a member for a given time, say two years, and if there was a cap on the number of caches they could place, or at least not be allowed to place more caches until they proved they could maintain the ones they have. .

This morning I got notification of a new cache placed nearby (Difficulty 3.2, terrain 2.5). The cache owner has been a GC.com member since July 2, 2009, and has found a total of 3 caches. IMHO, I would have hoped that this cache had a little more experience before deciding to place a cache. And especially for a 3.4/2.5 cache, I would have expected a little more experience before placing an "advanced" cache).

Sheesh!

(By the way... RULost2? just left for work, and I very rarely go caching alone, so the FTF is up for grabs... LOL!)

dubord207
07-25-2009, 08:40 AM
Of the 3 I mentioned, I think they are all worth saving. It's just odd that Groundspeak doesn't have a mechanism to correct listings or provide for an easy and orderly adoption process.

Dave, if we had to wait 2 years to place a cache, my 40 caches would not be placed as I have another 3 months to go. With 2400 caches shouldn't I be able to place a few? I'm being sarcastic, of course and your point is well taken. Just five minutes ago I posted an archive note on a cache published this morning that's a mile in on a private camproad. The cache placer is either blind or doesn't care because there's no less then a dozen signs indicating "Private Road" on the way to the cache. And the deal is that this cacher joined YESTERDAY! Has no finds and vows to place caches only at night. Yikes!

I think that after somebody has 100 caches, they may have seen enough to know a good cache from a not so good cache.

brdad
07-25-2009, 08:56 AM
I was just picking a period of time. When I started caching, the general rule of thumb was to recommend finding 10 caches before hiding any. Nowadays, 10 caches can happen in an hour and probably would not be a representative of the whole. The beauty of the one or two years idea is that most cachers, if they stick with it for that long, are probably in it for the long haul or at least are committed enough to let someone adopt their caches if anyone is willing (or would remove and archive their own caches and not leave unmaintained caches behind). Personally, I'd be happy if they required a credit card or some other valid ID in order to hide a cache. IMO hiding caches in haste is a bad idea to begin with, and doing so when you are a newer member is even a worse idea.

One thing we should be careful about. It's easy for an established cacher to create a brand new account and hide a cache. So we should be careful making assumptions that a "new" cache hider has no experience. For another example, my son has found a decent number of caches with me (though none for some time), but does not have an account. So, he would not be a total newbie if he was to hide a cache. We should all be careful making any uninformed judgments.

brdad
07-25-2009, 09:05 AM
Hate to go too far off topic, perhaps replies to this should be in another thread, but regarding private roads - being a private road does not mean no one can use them does it? I could be wrong, I have seen many caches on private roads, I have even seen businesses on them. I thought private road just meant it was maintained by the landowners. Of course, they would have the right to limit who uses them on an individual basis.

WhereRWe?
07-25-2009, 09:19 AM
IMO hiding caches in haste is a bad idea to begin with, and doing so when you are a newer member is even a worse idea.


I agree. And adding another reason, I've noted that MANY new cachers lose interest after a short period. If they've put out several caches, their interest in maintaining those caches has probably waned a swell. :(:(

TRF
07-25-2009, 11:37 AM
I think all caches should be archived 6 months after being placed. After all there are only a couple score of active cachers in the State and most of them have logged it within the first few weeks. I'm also thinking that any cache that requires walking more than 500 feet to get to should be archived in 3 months because there are only a couple dozen folks that venture that far from their vehicles to retrieve them.

I didn't think "Posted signs", No Trespassing", "No Parking" etc. etc. applied to registered geocachers? :) :) :)

robt
07-25-2009, 12:20 PM
I think all caches should be archived 6 months after being placed. After all there are only a couple score of active cachers in the State and most of them have logged it within the first few weeks. I'm also thinking that any cache that requires walking more than 500 feet to get to should be archived in 3 months because there are only a couple dozen folks that venture that far from their vehicles to retrieve them.

I didn't think "Posted signs", No Trespassing", "No Parking" etc. etc. applied to registered geocachers? :) :) :)

Why not just replace all old cachers with newer models that then we would not need new caches. At least that way we would not hear the same old people complaining. :D:D:D:D:D

TRF
07-25-2009, 01:12 PM
Why not just replace all old cachers with newer models that then we would not need new caches. At least that way we would not hear the same old people complaining. :D:D:D:D:D


hehehe, so do we start replacing them by date they joined or by their birthdays. I don't like it when old people complain either. hehehe:D:D

WhereRWe?
07-25-2009, 04:45 PM
I think all caches should be archived 6 months after being placed. After all there are only a couple score of active cachers in the State and most of them have logged it within the first few weeks.

Sheesh! I definitely disagree! True, many caches in Maine will attract only the "regulars", but most of our caches are regularly logged by tourists and passers-by. Like us, many people travel to an area with the intent of doing some geocaching when they get there. We've been caching in 26 states, 6 countries and 4 Canadian provinces - and plan to add at least one more state this fall! LOL!

brdad
07-25-2009, 05:09 PM
Sheesh! I definitely disagree! True, many caches in Maine will attract only the "regulars", but most of our caches are regularly logged by tourists and passers-by. Like us, many people travel to an area with the intent of doing some geocaching when they get there. We've been caching in 26 states, 6 countries and 4 Canadian provinces - and plan to add at least one more state this fall! LOL!

But just imagine - you can return to the same wal-mart every six months and log a new cache at the same lamp post! That's better than a gas saver cache - it's a battery saver cache! Regular visitors won't need their GPS to find the cache on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ..., 10,000th find at the same location!

dubord207
07-25-2009, 05:23 PM
I'm a little surprised at brdad's statement, actually a lot surprised. A while back Dave asked for a little legal discussion about this, so here you go.

Going on anybody's property without permission is trespass... period. See Title 17A,Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, Section 363. It's a Class E crime. Once the Private or No Trespass sign is in place you are trespassing unless you have the express permission of the landowner. While a Private or No Trespass Sign is not a prerequisite to exercising your right to privacy, the sign will be the proverbial nail in your legal coffin if you're summonsed for criminal trespass. Trust me, it happens and I for one don't want to see a member of our geocaching community trying to assert some bulls*** right to trespass on another's property. Most private roads are owned by all the abutters or the association and without permission or a specific invitation, don't push the envelope. Without sterotyping anybody, deer hunters frequently end up on the wrong side of this issue, and trouble that lands them in court. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game preaches "Ask First" a good creed for our group.

I live on a pirvate road. It's 2 miles of gravel with a lot of great places to hide caches. Just because I live on the road and coincidently serve as road commissioner doesn't mean I can place caches on the road and I haven't and I won't. While some private roads maybe be discontinued county roads with excepted public easements, most are not and most people wouldn't want to go to the county commissioner's office and try to figure that out.

Also, the fact that one land owner on a private road has a home occupation and sees customers at their property doesn't open the road to all activities.

It's all about respect for other's valued rights to privacy. The cache published this morning has been archived. The placers said they didn't see a sign...yikes, guess that's what happens when you're on a private road in the wee hours.




Hate to go too far off topic, perhaps replies to this should be in another thread, but regarding private roads - being a private road does not mean no one can use them does it? I could be wrong, I have seen many caches on private roads, I have even seen businesses on them. I thought private road just meant it was maintained by the landowners. Of course, they would have the right to limit who uses them on an individual basis.

WhereRWe?
07-25-2009, 05:37 PM
Regular visitors won't need their GPS to find the cache on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ..., 10,000th find at the same location!

True, but somebody would try and be cute and put it in a different lamp post... ;);)

WhereRWe?
07-25-2009, 05:55 PM
Going on anybody's property without permission is trespass... period. See Title 17A,Maine Revised Statutes Annotated, Section 363. It's a Class E crime. Once the Private or No Trespass sign is in place you are trespassing unless you have the express permission of the landowner.

Can you post a link to that statute? My copy of the MRSA doesn't include a Section 363 in Title 17a, although it does have a Section 402 (http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec402.html) that seems to apply, and it doesn't say what you have. If the sign says "No Trespassing", then you don't go. But if it says "Private Road", and someone tries to arrest me for entering, I'm calling Joe Bornstein!

dubord207
07-25-2009, 06:20 PM
You're in the right place Bruce, the Section #'s have been changed. I was doing it from memory, but 402 is the right place for our discussions.

The Common Law standard is still clearly stated in the statute: A person who enters...knowing he/she is not licensed or privileged" is guilty of criminal trespass. Section 4 of the main text is where the deer hunters frequently try to hang their hat saying the posting had letters, that were too small, not every 100 feet, etc. They loose these arguments because most judges will simply say " When you saw the sign, did you really think that it was an 'invitation' to come onto somebody's property without asking?" A sign at the beginning of a private road is enough to put the trespasser on notice for purposes of the statute.

Joe Bornstein is a nice guy but doesn't try cases. He refers them to other lawyers and shares the fees if a Plaintiff prevails, something Maine Bar Rules allow.

TRF
07-25-2009, 07:03 PM
hehehe, so do we start replacing them by date they joined or by their birthdays. I don't like it when old people complain either. hehehe:D:D


Sheesh! I definitely disagree! True, many caches in Maine will attract only the "regulars", but most of our caches are regularly logged by tourists and passers-by. Like us, many people travel to an area with the intent of doing some geocaching when they get there. We've been caching in 26 states, 6 countries and 4 Canadian provinces - and plan to add at least one more state this fall! LOL!


When is your birthday? :D:p

Sabby
07-25-2009, 07:05 PM
Okeedokee......when I move away.... I'll be sure to pack up All of the ammo cans.....film canisters...and nanos I have remaining in the cities and woods at that point. Whaaaaat!? I don't want to be accused of leaving geo-trash laying around ;)

I'd have to say I might generally agree. I also see others' romantic idea behind putting a bit of effort into preserving just a little of our Maine caching history.

I think that I indicated that "If the cache placer could not be found"

I don't have any problem with someone moving out of the area putting their caches up for "adoption" before they leave. I guess that I did not make that clesr.

WhereRWe?
07-25-2009, 07:06 PM
When is your birthday? :D:p

I'll be 61 next month - so I qualify for the "Senior Discount" at McDonalds! LOL!

WhereRWe?
07-25-2009, 07:08 PM
I don't have any problem with someone moving out of the area putting their caches up for "adoption" before they leave. I guess that I did not make that clesr.

Sheesh! "don't have any problem" with it? I think it's a freakin' great idea! LOL! ;);)

brdad
07-25-2009, 07:41 PM
Even reading that section, it stills seems up to interpretation, and that's exactly why I am unsure and probably others are as well. While it may not hold up in court, I don't see where a sign stating "private road" indicates access is not allowed any more than a sign that states "brdad's road". The horizontal lines section is clear and makes sense, as does a "no trespassing" sign, as well as any sign saying "no vehicles", "no hunting", or "no atvs". I swear the people that write some of these laws up intentionally keep them vague so there is always room for interpretation!

Dan, surprised I am unsure of the answer and asked, or surprised I don't understand law?

I asked because as I stated I have seen and have done caches on roads marked private. Heck, there have been caches hidden stating to ignore the no trespassing sign because permission to cache there was given.

Now, as a cache finder, I know I am responsible for my actions irregardless of whether the cache was hidden with or without permission or what the description might indicate. But as a hider, if the cache description states the cache is on a private road, should the reviewer no approve the cache? And what do we do with all the caches which are on roads marked as private? Archive them all?


True, but somebody would try and be cute and put it in a different lamp post... ;);)

Yes, that's true. There's always people trying to mess with quality geocaching experiences!

fins2right
07-25-2009, 08:35 PM
Ok. I just got back from Stud Mill Rd and haven't had a chance to check this for a while so the last 4 pages are new to me. First, let me get my dig in, Dan you're dating yourself when you quote Title 17 instead of 17-A (inside joke, I hope he gets it :D:D:D:D) Now, the street cop perspective: Private roads are used throughout the state of Maine and are not always illegal to trespass on. Example: Elizabeth St. in Oakland is a privately owned road. It is not maintained by the Town and the locals pay for snow removal (poorly, but thats another thread) It is open to public use and one resident cannot restrict the publics use. There are many roads like this, to include the Stud Mill Rd and the most famous the Golden Road. This changes quickly when the magic "No Trespassing" sign goes up. From that point on going on the road without a legit reason is a no-no. (even this gets a little muddy, but that's the simple version) You may get permission, but permission must be granted. I hope that clears up the Private Road issue. I would be very hesitant to enforce a trespass issue if the sign merely reads "Private Road", in fact I would probably just ask the offender to leave and request the landowner put up well marked no trespass signs. Like everything else in law, there are gray areas. Something I agree with everyone on is hiding caches. I waited until I had 50. That's just me, but I did and still do see the need to get a little experience first. Now if I could, without creating offense, redirect attention to the cache. Did anyone fix it yet? My plans changed rapidly this week and I got the chance to go east and had to take it. Tomorrow consists of two birthday parties so I will not get the chance to go out. Lastly, Would we have to petition GC.com to get the rules on adoption changed? Perhaps it's the exhaustion, perhaps it's the fact that I had a blast today, met great people (EMSdaniel, his lovely wife and Hollora!!!)and had fun caching, but life is too short to argue here. Get outside and cache. Consider that an order. :D:D:D:D

pm28570
07-25-2009, 09:09 PM
I have to agree with Dan and Tracey.....waiting an appropriate amount of time or in reality, experience, is best before placing a cache. Experiencing the variety of cache placements, containers and everything that goes into a placement all adds up to a more responsible cache placer, I know I think it helped me with my first and the others to come. And certainly with placement comes responsibility in regards to maintaining and being part of the community.

hollora
07-25-2009, 11:36 PM
................. Perhaps it's the exhaustion, perhaps it's the fact that I had a blast today, met great people (EMSdaniel, his lovely wife and Hollora!!!)and had fun caching, but life is too short to argue here. Get outside and cache. Consider that an order. :D:D:D:D

Nice to see you too fins2right and even on that "private road". There are "private roads and there are other private roads". I recently encountered an caching area which was never posted which has been posted. The cache owner did not know. Each circustance if different.

Get outside and cache - a well taken order SIR! Cache on - cache happy! And don't get me started about Landowners permission..........

dubord207
07-26-2009, 06:57 AM
A final post on this subject. Glad folks chimed in as it is an important topic.

As I stated in an earlier post, there are certainly private roads where the public has access. The paper company roads are an example and of course some private roads such as the one Tracy mentions in Oakland became private by being discontinued or abandonned with the county specifically reserving the public access. There are many old county roads that were discontinued in that fashion as well.

But if you see the word "Private" does that sound like an invitation to you? Do you want to risk an ugly encounter with a landowner who is an owner and put the sign up in the first place to suggest you not trespass on his/her property? That's the issue. And if you want to place a cache on a Private road with permsission, then please state that in the cache description. If in doubt, stay out, that's my motto and one that gives due respect to the rights of property owners.

robt
07-26-2009, 08:36 AM
. Get outside and cache. Consider that an order. :D:D:D:D

Now I feel bad, I got out and only did one cache this weekend and I DNF'd it probally mostly for pack of effort...... But then my grandson and I did have a really fun 6 mile paddle to not find a cache right next to the road :D:D:D:D:D

I hope that this comes close to fulfilling your order.

Now the next question or challenge for someone....... is it possible to to do the centennium challenge by watter? or will we need to find a group to set that idea up????

fins2right
07-26-2009, 08:52 AM
Now I feel bad, I got out and only did one cache this weekend and I DNF'd it probally mostly for pack of effort...... But then my grandson and I did have a really fun 6 mile paddle to not find a cache right next to the road :D:D:D:D:D

I hope that this comes close to fulfilling your order.

Now the next question or challenge for someone....... is it possible to to do the centennium challenge by watter? or will we need to find a group to set that idea up????


I think that completes the order completely~:) A water Centrum, hmmmm I'l have to research that

squirrelcache
07-26-2009, 11:21 AM
Now the next question or challenge for someone....... is it possible to to do the centennium challenge by watter? or will we need to find a group to set that idea up????

Should this topic go any further......perhpas it's a new thread!? Water caching can be a Private property/Public way opportunity.

A couple years back....I offered to set up some water caches for a paddle event that was happening. No one replied or showed interest in helping out a newbie water cache placer. So I didn't place any ... or attend. :( Don't get me wrong...I like you folks. If I'm going to paddle and Not cache along the way...I have other friends to do that with ;)

I like the idea of a Centum Water Challenge!! I'd suggest forming a group of atleast 7 people that would put out and maintain 20 caches each. That way we could each participate in the challenge and partake in the hard work done by the other C.O.s ....whatcha think!?

The Kennebec offers a whole lotta mileage from the coast to the first damn now. I believe there should be Plenty of places to "hang" a cache along the way.

Haffy
07-26-2009, 03:46 PM
Ok I'm asking the moderators to shut down this thread that I started regarding the adoption of a certain cache and this has evolved into something totally different. Just wish for once we could keep a thread on topic. Thanks

WhereRWe?
07-26-2009, 04:15 PM
Just wish for once we could keep a thread on topic.

Sheesh! You're not invited to the party! :p:p

Hiram357
07-26-2009, 04:23 PM
I thought the topic was discussed and the problem solved? So is it wrong to use a thread that no longer serves a purpose as a medium of communication?? :confused:

c'mon haffy, smile, it won't crack your face... :D:D:D

WhereRWe?
07-26-2009, 04:44 PM
I thought the topic was discussed and the problem solved? So is it wrong to use a thread that no longer serves a purpose as a medium of communication?? :confused:


Very true - especially since the subject of the thread was discussed quite thoroughly. And we all moved on to our usually friendly discourse...

(Sheesh! At least we didn't talk about beer! Hey, Hiram - I'm drinking Sleeman's Cream Ale tonight. What'er you drinking? :D:D)

WhereRWe?
07-26-2009, 04:48 PM
(Sheesh! At least we didn't talk about beer! Hey, Hiram - I'm drinking Sleeman's Cream Ale (http://www.sleeman.com/en/brand_showcase.html) tonight. What'er you drinking? :D:D)

(Added a link...)

brdad
07-26-2009, 06:24 PM
Sorry, John, I knew my question should have been directed elsewhere, I'll take full responsibility. But, at least it's a productive discussion. Or was anyway...

Haffy
07-26-2009, 09:02 PM
So now that this has digressed to it's fullest can we now close this thread and topic. Karen has informed me that the Monument Hll cache has been taken of. I want to thank everyone who posted to this thread regardless of what position you took. I just wanted to save a cache that meant something and now it is done. Thanks "K". You've done good as they say.

Hiram357
07-26-2009, 09:29 PM
Sorry, John, I knew my question should have been directed elsewhere, I'll take full responsibility. But, at least it's a productive discussion. Or was anyway...

I thought it was a pretty productive one, I come across that kind of situation alot, not just caching but often on the ATV, you should start up another thread about it, and maybe dig up a clear explanation of trespassing and posted lands laws.

And Brdad is right Haffy, he derailed the thread long before Bruce got ahold of it... (we're off the hook!!):D:D:D

Sudonim
07-27-2009, 05:39 PM
John, If you will allow me one more post (on-topic too)...
People have asked what the difference is between an old, but otherwise unremarkable cache, and a new one. My thoughts are that it's kind of like an old car or old house. Unremarkable in their day, they have gained value through provenance or just "making it'" this long. Take any car from the 1920's or even a basic car from the '60s. People will buy a rustbucket "classic" and fix it up. When the same car was 5 years old, it would have gone to the crusher or driven into the woods and left there. Look at some of the old houses on the historic registers. Small, drafty, low ceilings, but people will go to great lengths to preserve them, or even move them if need be. A new 3 bedroom, 2 bath modular is more practical, but people like to see the 'old' things saved. Maybe it's this nostalgia that makes us want to keep the 2001 caches around.
...Or they just want to make the 'Cache like it's 2001' cache that much harder (shameless plug)

Kaching Karen
07-27-2009, 06:50 PM
The nice thing about Monument Hill is that it has everything I like in a cache and it's doable by families. It has a little hike, history, view and is big enough for trade items. The spot is a gem. That is more than enough reason for me to want to clean up the cache for the owner. There are people in this area (and over 50 miles away ;)) that are willing to pitch in. Thanks to them for the back up!

Hiram357
07-27-2009, 08:56 PM
The nice thing about Monument Hill is that it has everything I like in a cache and it's doable by families. It has a little hike, history, view and is big enough for trade items. The spot is a gem. That is more than enough reason for me to want to clean up the cache for the owner. There are people in this area (and over 50 miles away ;)) that are willing to pitch in. Thanks to them for the back up!

yeah, nice job by the way. ;)

Haffy
07-27-2009, 09:10 PM
Thanks to everyone who made a difference. Just goes to show what good people geocachers really are. Ok now we can officially lock this thread.....Rick????

Mainiac1957
07-27-2009, 09:17 PM
Since you started this thread, you can close it. Post a reply and look at the bottom. The last option is thread management. You can close ones that you started.

hollora
07-27-2009, 09:19 PM
Since you started this thread, you can close it. Post a reply and look at the bottom. The last option is thread management. You can close ones that you started.


mainiac1957 - :):D:)

Haffy
07-27-2009, 09:22 PM
Thanks Brad, luv you man.....LOL