At 05:28 PM 6/22/2002 -0700, you wrote:
>I can't believe that you have actually gotten those types of responses from
>cache owners.
Sort of surprised me also.
>The first and last one in particular show a distinct
>disregard for what is currently happening in the state.
I think part of the problem might be that some of the cache owners are from
out of state.
>As I remember, the ability to temporarily disable a cache hasn't been around
>from the start, so it is possible that some cache owners don't know that
>feature is available: that I'll grant. It's also possible that the cache
You are right, it is a somewhat new feature, but the closure of the
Coronado and other forests have come after it was implemented. If you go
and read some of the cache logs, there are notes from the cache owners
saying that you shouldn't go after the cache because of the closure, but
they are still listed as active. I think it is somewhat irresponsible to
leave a cache active when you KNOW that it is illegal, even if only
temporarily, to go and find it. It seems to me like this feature was
tailor made for this situation.
>owner didn't think of diabling the cache till the threat passes, and some
>cache owners are no longer active and monitoring the situation or their
>caches.
That could be true. I really wish that there was a way that you could
adopt a cache if the owner lost interest.
Scott
Team My Blue Heaven
www.myblueheaven.com/geocache
(text/plain)