[Az-Geocaching] so much for trying to preserve a cache

[Brian Casteel]

Because like the new team colors, I think the name sucks.  :-)

 

Brian

Team A.I.

 

  _____  

From: az-geocaching-bounces at listserv.azgeocaching.com
[mailto:az-geocaching-bounces at listserv.azgeocaching.com] On Behalf Of Regan
Smith
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 1:58 PM
To: listserv at azgeocaching.com
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] so much for trying to preserve a cache

 

It is chase field now so why not a new cache with a old name/

 

  _____  

From: az-geocaching-bounces at listserv.azgeocaching.com
[mailto:az-geocaching-bounces at listserv.azgeocaching.com] On Behalf Of Gale
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 12:16 PM
To: listserv at azgeocaching.com
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] so much for trying to preserve a cache

 

I dont get it. There was no need to archive this cache. Someone else was
willing to take it over. Unless they want older caches to disappear and new
caches to replace them so people can hunt them instead of placing caches in
"undesirable"(ie those dreaded urban micros) locations. Thing is, I know we
would get bored hunting for new caches repeatedly placed in the same
location. 

We could have seen this coming back when Petite Elite attempted to adopt All
Aboard Gone up in Prescott. I can't remember if the original owner was out
of contact, but the logic was that the container was missing, so the cache
could only be un-archived to the original owner, and not an adoptee. 
I read something in the forums that hinted that archived caches will be
taken off the maps soon, so the only way you would be able to 'find' them
would be by knowing the waypoint ID, or perhaps by looking at someones found
list. 
Apparently 'cache permanence' is falling by the wayside, so stock up on
'Gladware' and just archive the cache and 'hide' a new one when the
container disintegrates.

Richard Daines wrote: 



There have been several conversations on the forum about just this topic and
as predicted, this is the response.  GC seems to lean to archiving rather
that adoption if the original owner doesn't get involved.  There is a
similar cache here in Missouri that appears to have been quietly adopted but
is Disabled none the less.  Unless the original owner speaks up, I bet this
one will be Disabled too regardless of it condition.  I guess I can see the
point that a cache needs an owner, a point of contact.  Having to apply for
a new cache at the location 
seems extreme but this is how GC tries to have control.

 

  

  _____  

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48253/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC>
in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/pipermail/az-geocaching/attachments/20070928/7494e7e8/attachment.htm