Help save Mingo

[+biscuit_fam]

Mingo is in great danger of being archived

 

If any one know Kansas Stasher Please message me or let him know I am willing to fix Mingo GC30 There are alot of people that would hate to see this cache die.

 

I am heading there tomorrow to access the situation again I think the site can be repaired and container Replaced. Any help would be appreciated.

[Trinity's Crew]

Good luck to you. I don't know the Kansas Stasher but it would be great to keep this cache alive. I read a fair amount of the previous thread and posted a couple of comments.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[+Great Scott!]

It's had a good run. Maybe it is time for us to obsess on a new oldest active cache.

[Trinity's Crew]

The problem as I see it at this point is that the Kansas Stasher hasn't weighed in on the issue for a couple of months. Ultimately he will determine whether this cache is re-activated or archived.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Only the CO can save Mingo. I think the people that thought that they were helping Mingo(by placing throwdowns) actual hurt Mingo by drawing all the attention to the cache. I say let the cache die and be done with it and let the next cache be the oldest. Then that one will be taken and the cycle starts all over again.

[+the4dirtydogs]

It's had a good run. Maybe it is time for us to obsess on a new oldest active cache.

+1

[knowschad]

I think it may be wise to take a look at this post that the reviewere Hemlock made to the recent Mingo thread before you place another throwdown: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=276856&view=findpost&p=4994327

[Trinity's Crew]

It's had a good run. Maybe it is time for us to obsess on a new oldest active cache.

-1 (provided KS steps up.)

Edited March 14, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[+biscuit_fam]

I was not going to do another throw down i want to offer my help to maintain it if it needs it and keep it alive it is part of caching history.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I said this in another thread about Mingo but I'll repeat it here: Mingo should be archived because...

 

1) the cache has been muggled twice in the last year; if this happened to pretty much any cache I should think it should be archived.

 

2A) it was hidden in an unusual (and no longer permitted) manner and due to the hole being filled with cement cannot be truly replaced

2B) the area where it was located is far too open to probably support any non-buried replacement other than a micro on the fence

2C) ergo, the history can no longer be preserved other than a GC number and published date

 

If Mingo was an ammo can behind a tree, it could be replaced by an ammo can behind a tree at or very close to the same coords and be essentially the same hide. It's not the same exact ammo can, but is functionally the same. Not so if the ammo can was replaced by a bison tube hanging in the tree and especially not if it was an ammo can in a hole dug in the ground that is now full of cement (and was grandfathered in because a new hide like that would violate current guidelines).

 

These are just my opinions of course.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Joshism

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's had a good run. Maybe it is time for us to obsess on a new oldest active cache.

-1 (provided KS steps up.)

 

Or, at least steps aside and allows someone that can maintain the cache to adopt it. If Mingo where archives the next oldest active cache would be GC12...a cache in the same general area as the Original Stash, Groundspeak HQ (and all the local events they hose), and a very cache rich area. Frankly, I"m glad that the oldest active cache is somewhere else.

[GOF and Bacall]

The hole has been filled in permanently. The experience will never be the same. Let it go already.

[+lamoracke]

really up to KS if he will let someone else adopt it, whether through GS or not, so not much to do.

 

However, if the cache did live on, I really do not care if the first hole is gone or not. My experience would be the area and history, would not care if that original hole is gone or not. It was probably never an exciting hole to begin with.

[Trinity's Crew]

The hole has been filled in permanently. The experience will never be the same. Let it go already.

Assuming the highway crew did this, I believe the problem will go away when they do.

 

The real question is whether chiseling out the hole would constitute a violation of the current guidelines or be "grandfathered" in.

[+Great Scott!]

The next oldest cache will also have area and history to experience.

[Trinity's Crew]

It's had a good run. Maybe it is time for us to obsess on a new oldest active cache.

-1 (provided KS steps up.)

 

Or, at least steps aside and allows someone that can maintain the cache to adopt it. If Mingo where archives the next oldest active cache would be GC12...a cache in the same general area as the Original Stash, Groundspeak HQ (and all the local events they hose), and a very cache rich area. Frankly, I"m glad that the oldest active cache is somewhere else.

You are entitled to your opinion, as we all are. I'm not glad to see this cache go.

 

From where I sit the location of the next oldest cache has no real bearing on the situation. At least I hope it doesn't.

[+cache_test_dummies]

The hole has been filled in permanently. The experience will never be the same. Let it go already.

Assuming the highway crew did this, I believe the problem will go away when they do.

I don't know if it's the highway crew that is doing this, but I don't think the highway crew is going to go away until the highway goes away. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

I love the history, I love the story, and I envy those who were able to experience the real Mingo.

 

But Mingo is dead. Long live Mingo.

[Trinity's Crew]

The hole has been filled in permanently. The experience will never be the same. Let it go already.

Assuming the highway crew did this, I believe the problem will go away when they do.

I don't know if it's the highway crew that is doing this, but I don't think the highway crew is going to go away until the highway goes away. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

I love the history, I love the story, and I envy those who were able to experience the real Mingo.

 

But Mingo is dead. Long live Mingo.

This high profile cache was allowed to remain disabled for nearly six months with no feedback from the owner.

 

My point is that GS cuts some slack when they deem it appropriate. I think Mingo deserves a little slack.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[+Totem Clan]

The hole has been filled in permanently. The experience will never be the same. Let it go already.

Assuming the highway crew did this, I believe the problem will go away when they do.

I don't know if it's the highway crew that is doing this, but I don't think the highway crew is going to go away until the highway goes away. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

I love the history, I love the story, and I envy those who were able to experience the real Mingo.

 

But Mingo is dead. Long live Mingo.

This high profile cache was allowed to remain disabled for nearly six months with no feedback from the owner.

 

My point is that GS cuts some slack when they deem it appropriate. I think Mingo deserves a little slack.

I don't.

 

No cache should be treated any different, ever.

[Trinity's Crew]

The hole has been filled in permanently. The experience will never be the same. Let it go already.

Assuming the highway crew did this, I believe the problem will go away when they do.

I don't know if it's the highway crew that is doing this, but I don't think the highway crew is going to go away until the highway goes away. And I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

I love the history, I love the story, and I envy those who were able to experience the real Mingo.

 

But Mingo is dead. Long live Mingo.

This high profile cache was allowed to remain disabled for nearly six months with no feedback from the owner.

 

My point is that GS cuts some slack when they deem it appropriate. I think Mingo deserves a little slack.

I don't.

 

No cache should be treated any different, ever.

If you can point me to a standard that GS applies consistently regarding disabled caches I would agree. A look at disabled and archived caches leads me to the conclusion that there are no hard and fast rules and there is no "standard" procedure for archiving disabled caches.

[+Chokecherry]

Or dude can just maintain his cache and listing problem solved. Doesn't seem like that hard to me. If he can't or won't do either it's time to put it out of its misery. Usually around here caches needing maintenance and disabled are archived pretty quickly. So again my out side perspective looks at this as him getting ample special treatment and kid gloves. He can't even step up to maintain the cache page.

[Trinity's Crew]

Or dude can just maintain his cache and listing problem solved. Doesn't seem like that hard to me. If he can't or won't do either it's time to put it out of its misery. Usually around here caches needing maintenance and disabled are archived pretty quickly. So again my out side perspective looks at this as him getting ample special treatment and kid gloves. He can't even step up to maintain the cache page.

I have already stated that KS has to step up.

 

Based on my (somewhat limited) observations, KS has either:

Run out of time six weeks ago.

Or:

Has 3-10 months left to address the issue.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[+SwineFlew]

Why we are beating on a dead horse all over again?

[Trinity's Crew]

Why we are beating on a dead horse all over again?

I said very little in the first thread. From my perspective the horse isn't dead. I suspect that if KS doesn't deal with this issue soon the horse will be dead with a DNR order.

[Trinity's Crew]

Why we are beating on a dead horse all over again?

Since swineflew seems to be offended by my posts, (I'm being chastised on this in another thread as well) I'll drop it. If mingo goes it is squarely on the shoulders of the CO at this point.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[jholly]

If mingo goes it is squarely on the shoulders of the CO at this point.

I thought that was fairly obvious to the casual observer in the first thread. I didn't see anything in this thread that changed the situation.

[+jellis]

The hole has been filled in permanently. The experience will never be the same. Let it go already.

From what I see is it is not cement. It's garden mortar (look at the color). Not very permanent, but still hard.

 

From a previous poster. It was muggled 3 times.

Dirt

Industrial Foam

Mortar

 

The other thread was locked

And are we starting this again?

[+DanOCan]

I'm OK with Mingo becoming a micro if that's all the location will allow. I don't really care about the container. In fact, the original filled-in hole can stand as a tribute to the original hide, much like the plaque which marks where the Original Stash was hidden.

 

People will come (are coming, actually) from miles around to sign the log in micro and pose for photos with the hole and stake.

 

All we need is to CO to step in and make it happen.

 

Tick, tick, tick...

[Clan Riffster]

I would like to see Mingo continue on, if for no other reason, I am a fan of history. True, the term "history" is hard to apply to a hobby that is just over a decade old, but in terms of perspective, that sucker is ancient. There are many aspects to any particular cache, but from my (admittedly highly biased and opinionated) viewpoint, what makes Mingo unique is the GC number, not the container. The chance to add my moniker to that cache page, with names stretching back over a decade, holds a great deal of appeal to me.

 

Losing Mingo will not be earth shattering or life changing, but it would be disappointing, to me.

 

Though I gotta say, my inner snark would love it if one of the geocaching forefathers stepped up and unarchived one even older than Mingo. I know such an act would require the cache to meet the current guidelines, rather than the ones present at the time, and I haven't researched them to see if this is even possible, (were any of Mingo's predecessors unburied, on public land, with coords further than 529' from any other caches?), but it would be funny as heck, especially if the CO posted a note to Mingo to the effect of, "Your cache is not the oldest".

[+StarBrand]

I love my Great Great Grandfathers axe. It has been passed down through the family. It has had 4 new handles and 3 new heads. Boy do I love my great great grandfathers axe.

 

Let it go. The location is not useable and the container is different several times over. Nothing historic about a cache listing page.

[+Moose Mob]

I love my Great Great Grandfathers axe. It has been passed down through the family. It has had 4 new handles and 3 new heads. Boy do I love my great great grandfathers axe.

<snip>

Even though all the components have been replaced, the fact that you consider it to be your Great Great Grandfather's axe is what folks are trying to preserve. It's not the item people want, it's the sentiment.

[knowschad]

I love my Great Great Grandfathers axe. It has been passed down through the family. It has had 4 new handles and 3 new heads. Boy do I love my great great grandfathers axe.

<snip>

Even though all the components have been replaced, the fact that you consider it to be your Great Great Grandfather's axe is what folks are trying to preserve. It's not the item people want, it's the sentiment.

Yeah, but you have to admit... that is a great analogy!

[+bflentje]

I've found Mingo and plan to visit the cache mecca this summer. I am ok with whatever happens..

[Clan Riffster]

Yeah, but you have to admit... that is a great analogy!

It's not something I would admit.

 

StarBrand's analogy incorporates two pieces of a whole, both of which were replaced repeatedly.

 

Mingo is comprised of at least four pieces, location, container, owner & GC number.

 

Three of the four are still the same.

 

If we assume that, in Kansas, a set of coordinates in the hdd* mm.mmm format represents a square roughly 6'x6', eliminating a 4" section of that with the application of poured garden mortar, does not eliminate the location. Given that Groundspeak allows moves up to more than a hundred feet, (several hundred feet?), without a Reviewer's intervention, the location would likely still be viable if someone plopped down a Kwiqie Mart at ground zero. As to the GC number, whih, for those with an interest in the history of this short lived hobby is really the most significant piece, it has not changed at all. Neither has the owner, as far as I can tell.

 

Now if Kansas Stasher were to adopt out Mingo, and the current owner archived it, created a new cache 10 miles away, using a different container, and still insisted it was the original Mingo, then I would agree that the analogy fits.

 

Had Starbrand's anaolgy utilized four pieces of a whole, and three were still the same, I would also agree that it fit. For instance, if said grandfather's axe was comprised of an axe head, a handle, a leather grip wrap and a sheath, and the sheath was lost over time, that would be a working analogy.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Clan Riffster

[+Glenn]

I would like to see Mingo continue on, if for no other reason, I am a fan of history. True, the term "history" is hard to apply to a hobby that is just over a decade old, but in terms of perspective, that sucker is ancient. There are many aspects to any particular cache, but from my (admittedly highly biased and opinionated) viewpoint, what makes Mingo unique is the GC number, not the container. The chance to add my moniker to that cache page, with names stretching back over a decade, holds a great deal of appeal to me.

I've never understood the history argument as a reason for not archiving a cache. As I see it archiving a cache preserves it's history. The cache listing is still viewable. All the past stories written about finds and find attempts are still there for all to read. That sounds just like preservation of history to me.

[+StarBrand]

Yeah, but you have to admit... that is a great analogy!

It's not something I would admit.

 

StarBrand's analogy incorporates two pieces of a whole, both of which were replaced repeatedly.

 

Mingo is comprised of at least four pieces, location, container, owner & GC number.

 

Three of the four are still the same.

 

If we assume that, in Kansas, a set of coordinates in the hdd* mm.mmm format represents a square roughly 6'x6', eliminating a 4" section of that with the application of poured garden mortar, does not eliminate the location. Given that Groundspeak allows moves up to more than a hundred feet, (several hundred feet?), without a Reviewer's intervention, the location would likely still be viable if someone plopped down a Kwiqie Mart at ground zero. As to the GC number, whih, for those with an interest in the history of this short lived hobby is really the most significant piece, it has not changed at all. Neither has the owner, as far as I can tell.

 

Now if Kansas Stasher were to adopt out Mingo, and the current owner archived it, created a new cache 10 miles away, using a different container, and still insisted it was the original Mingo, then I would agree that the analogy fits.

 

Had Starbrand's anaolgy utilized four pieces of a whole, and three were still the same, I would also agree that it fit. For instance, if said grandfather's axe was comprised of an axe head, a handle, a leather grip wrap and a sheath, and the sheath was lost over time, that would be a working analogy.

 

The container (size especially) and hide style are much the important factors to me. GC number is just a database reference as is the listing just a web page. Though I might agree to a 3rd element - the owner. But I think the family connection in my analogy covers that as well.

[GOF and Bacall]

The hole has been filled in permanently. The experience will never be the same. Let it go already.

Assuming the highway crew did this, I believe the problem will go away when they do.

 

The real question is whether chiseling out the hole would constitute a violation of the current guidelines or be "grandfathered" in.

 

I would think that it would be a violation of the guidelines. However, if the CO could show permission from whomever is in charge of that land, DOT or town, etc. I'd have no problem with it. But just the fact that the hole was filled with concrete calls into question the status of any permission. It really should be closed and locked until the question can be resolved one way or the other.

[Clan Riffster]

I would like to see Mingo continue on, if for no other reason, I am a fan of history. True, the term "history" is hard to apply to a hobby that is just over a decade old, but in terms of perspective, that sucker is ancient. There are many aspects to any particular cache, but from my (admittedly highly biased and opinionated) viewpoint, what makes Mingo unique is the GC number, not the container. The chance to add my moniker to that cache page, with names stretching back over a decade, holds a great deal of appeal to me.

I've never understood the history argument as a reason for not archiving a cache. As I see it archiving a cache preserves it's history. The cache listing is still viewable. All the past stories written about finds and find attempts are still there for all to read. That sounds just like preservation of history to me.

Could be. I look at it as visiting an archaeological dig, getting my hands dirty, versus seeing a photo of the site. From my admittedly biased perspective, the appeal is that, so long as it's not archived, I have an opportunity to add my name to that 12 year old list of past finders. This appeals to me, personally. The history is ongoing. If it is archived, the history stops. At that point it holds no more appeal than GC1, or whatever the first legitimate listing is. Sure, I can view it, but I cannot contribute to it, nor can I become a part of it.

[+Totem Clan]

Archive it. If the problems get fixed un-archive it. If they don't we're do with all this.

[knowschad]

Yeah, but you have to admit... that is a great analogy!

It's not something I would admit.

 

StarBrand's analogy incorporates two pieces of a whole, both of which were replaced repeatedly.

 

Mingo is comprised of at least four pieces, location, container, owner & GC number.

 

Three of the four are still the same.

 

If we assume that, in Kansas, a set of coordinates in the hdd* mm.mmm format represents a square roughly 6'x6', eliminating a 4" section of that with the application of poured garden mortar, does not eliminate the location. Given that Groundspeak allows moves up to more than a hundred feet, (several hundred feet?), without a Reviewer's intervention, the location would likely still be viable if someone plopped down a Kwiqie Mart at ground zero. As to the GC number, whih, for those with an interest in the history of this short lived hobby is really the most significant piece, it has not changed at all. Neither has the owner, as far as I can tell.

 

Now if Kansas Stasher were to adopt out Mingo, and the current owner archived it, created a new cache 10 miles away, using a different container, and still insisted it was the original Mingo, then I would agree that the analogy fits.

 

Had Starbrand's anaolgy utilized four pieces of a whole, and three were still the same, I would also agree that it fit. For instance, if said grandfather's axe was comprised of an axe head, a handle, a leather grip wrap and a sheath, and the sheath was lost over time, that would be a working analogy.

 

You really should relax, CR. I was simply talking about a great analogy, not about Mingo, or even how or if it applied to Mingo.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

I've never understood the history argument as a reason for not archiving a cache. As I see it archiving a cache preserves it's history. The cache listing is still viewable. All the past stories written about finds and find attempts are still there for all to read. That sounds just like preservation of history to me.

 

Almost no one in this discussion cares about preserving history - they want to be part of it, i.e. log a really old cache. I can understand the attraction of this to some degree, but I don't really understand the amount of interest it has generated. Nothing lasts forever - people should accept this and move on, in my opinion.

 

It seems like there are several other caches that were hidden around the same time that have just as much merit if one wants to find a really old cache. The "oldest cache currently listed" criteria seems like a somewhat artificial and ephemeral thing to be worked up over, to me. (But that's just my opinion, obviously others feel very strongly about this.)

 

BTW, I don't care which way this goes. I'm perfectly happy if the cache is saved and continues on - yay! I'm content if its time has passed.

[GOF and Bacall]

The hole has been filled in permanently. The experience will never be the same. Let it go already.

From what I see is it is not cement. It's garden mortar (look at the color). Not very permanent, but still hard.

 

From a previous poster. It was muggled 3 times.

Dirt

Industrial Foam

Mortar

 

The other thread was locked

And are we starting this again?

 

Are we really gonna split hairs over the type of material used? The important fact is that it was filled in. That raises both the question of permission and party. Was the party that filled it in the land owner/manager or their rep, or was it someone else? If the first then it seems permission is in serious doubt. If the later then any repair is unlikely to last.

 

It's done. Stick a fork in it.

[Clan Riffster]

The container (size especially) and hide style are much the important factors to me.

That's kewl. I respect your viewpoint, though my values are slightly different.

 

GC number is just a database reference as is the listing just a web page.

That's where we differ. Of all four elements, the only one which would allow me to personally interact with the other folks who found it over the past 12 years is the GC number. In my eyes, that is what makes it so special. If it gets archived, and a local somehow gets explicit permission to bury another container there, mimicking the original hide, but with a week old cache page and a 7 digit GC number, I would not make a cross country pilgrimage to find it. I doubt many others would either. Seemingly, the appeal is the age. With the age comes the GC number.

 

But still, you believe otherwise, and I can respectfully disagree.

As debate tactics go, your habit of politely stating your opinion is greatly appreciated.

 

Though I might agree to a 3rd element - the owner. But I think the family connection in my analogy covers that as well.

Maybe. If you were your great grandfather. Otherwise, it falls a bit short.

[4wheelin_fool]

Its a historic GZ location, in which is kept alive through the listing. Cachers from all over the country have made a pilgramage there to visit, and there logs are a part of geocaching history. Archiving it would turn it into just a footnote.

 

 

I love my Great Great Grandfathers axe. It has been passed down through the family. It has had 4 new handles and 3 new heads. Boy do I love my great great grandfathers axe.

<snip>

Even though all the components have been replaced, the fact that you consider it to be your Great Great Grandfather's axe is what folks are trying to preserve. It's not the item people want, it's the sentiment.

 

Nearly every cell in your body has been replaced several times since you were born. The Starbrand or Moose Mob that was here in 1990 is gone, and has been almost completely replaced by a close replica, except for brain cells.

 

Who are we really?

Edited March 14, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Archive it. If the problems get fixed un-archive it. If they don't we're do with all this.

 

If they archive this cache, it is gone forever - there is no restoring it.Once archived, any grandfathered status it had goes away when it is unarchived. Since it was buried, there is no way it could be unarchived again if it were re-buried.

 

Although I think the rule against burying caches is a good rule - I can't think of a better way to get this game banned than to have some fool incite people to dig up the lawn at city hall looking for a cache - I also could understand being flexible about this for this one cache, because it is grandfathered in. However, since someone went to the trouble of filling in the original hiding place with cement, allowing it to be reburied just seems like it would be prolonging the inevitable.

[GOF and Bacall]

I would like to see Mingo continue on, if for no other reason, I am a fan of history. True, the term "history" is hard to apply to a hobby that is just over a decade old, but in terms of perspective, that sucker is ancient. There are many aspects to any particular cache, but from my (admittedly highly biased and opinionated) viewpoint, what makes Mingo unique is the GC number, not the container. The chance to add my moniker to that cache page, with names stretching back over a decade, holds a great deal of appeal to me.

I've never understood the history argument as a reason for not archiving a cache. As I see it archiving a cache preserves it's history. The cache listing is still viewable. All the past stories written about finds and find attempts are still there for all to read. That sounds just like preservation of history to me.

Could be. I look at it as visiting an archaeological dig, getting my hands dirty, versus seeing a photo of the site. From my admittedly biased perspective, the appeal is that, so long as it's not archived, I have an opportunity to add my name to that 12 year old list of past finders. This appeals to me, personally. The history is ongoing. If it is archived, the history stops. At that point it holds no more appeal than GC1, or whatever the first legitimate listing is. Sure, I can view it, but I cannot contribute to it, nor can I become a part of it.

 

You can go to Boston harbor. You can board a boat there. You can even toss tea into the water. That won't make you a part of the Boston Tea Party.

[GOF and Bacall]

Oh! I thought of a better one.

 

If I sign a copy of The Declaration of Independence that won't make me a founding father.

[Clan Riffster]

You really should relax, CR.

I'm actually pretty relaxed.

As an ordained Dudeist Priest, being mellow is my norm.

Trying to paint me as a crazed madman only works if I behave as a crazed madman.

 

I was simply talking about a great analogy, not about Mingo, or even how or if it applied to Mingo.

It was a terrible analogy.

Two elements as opposed to four...

All elements changed as opposed to only one out of four...

Sorry. As analogies go, it was a stinker.

 

As to your claim that you weren't making a comparison, "Meh".

But I won't debate it as that might bring this dead horse further off topic.

[+The A-Team]

The important fact is that it was filled in. That raises both the question of permission and party. Was the party that filled it in the land owner/manager or their rep, or was it someone else? If the first then it seems permission is in serious doubt. If the later then any repair is unlikely to last.

I think this is the biggest issue with Mingo right now. Several times now, someone has gone to the effort of trying to permanently eliminate this cache. If Mingo were to be replaced with another non-micro container, there seems to be a good chance the person will come back and muggle it again. At what point has it gone on long enough? I think we're already there.

Anyway, no matter how much armchair-quarterbacking we do here, it's all up to Kansas Stasher what happens with it. The ball's in his court.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The hole has been filled in permanently. The experience will never be the same. Let it go already.

Assuming the highway crew did this, I believe the problem will go away when they do.

 

The real question is whether chiseling out the hole would constitute a violation of the current guidelines or be "grandfathered" in.

 

I would think that it would be a violation of the guidelines. However, if the CO could show permission from whomever is in charge of that land, DOT or town, etc. I'd have no problem with it. But just the fact that the hole was filled with concrete calls into question the status of any permission.

 

That is, assuming the person or persons that have filled in the holes had permission to do so. In the previous thread there was a discussion about the concrete/metal bar/blue ribbon and that a land surveyor had indicated that it almost certainly was not placed there with permission and could be considered vandalism.

 

There is also the infamous (and deleted for some reason) log posted on Nov. 4, 2011 by someone that indicated that he had invited someone from Kansas DOT to visit the location personally, and that she did not have any issues with a cache at that location.