The Spot (GC39) missing?

14k · January 2, 2017

Someone was just asking about oldest original logbooks so I thought I'd find a photo of the original logbook for "The Spot: (GC39), the 4th oldest active cache in the world.

According to the most recent logs it sounds like it may be missing.

"I wanted to get The Spot for my Jasmer grid so I stopped on the drive to KY. The walk along the ridges was beautiful with all the snow. Unfortunately I could not find the cache. After a thorough search, studying log pictures, and finding a recognizable rock from many of the picture thrown to the side, I believe the cache has been taken. I'd appreciate it if someone in the area who has found it before would check the situation."

"This cache looks to be definitely missing. I made a six hour road trip here, also to finish out my Jasmer grid, only to verify that the previous Cacher was right. I did a close forensic study of the online pix and am 100% certain that we found the GZ."

2k · January 2, 2017

Only 2 DNFs. Hopefully it's still there. I was planning on contacting the cache owner to see what his plans were, but the account hasn't been logged into in over a year.

Won't be long before a jasmer seeker will leave a pill bottle.

5.7k · January 2, 2017

Appears that the cache is indeed missing, and the owner is inactive. I'm sure that someone will prop it up for them with a nice new container.

I think this is accepted now, I see it so often. I'm planning an ATV trip to the oldest cache in West Virginia, and it's ownerless and maintained by the community, so my plan is to leave a nice custom ammo can in place of the lock-n-lock there now. The original was an ammo can.

8.9k · January 2, 2017

I think this is accepted now, I see it so often.

Throw downs? Doubtful. No - they're not really "accepted". Just because it's frequent doesn't mean it's right. However, if you have permission from the owner that's a different story.

Link to listing guidelines

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing...

AND

Link to Adoption

Geocaching HQ will not process a transfer without permission from the original cache owner.

It's likely that if the cache AND the owner is gone, the cache will eventually get archived.

5.7k · January 2, 2017

I think this is accepted now, I see it so often.

Throw downs? Doubtful. No - they're not really "accepted". Just because it's frequent doesn't mean it's right. However, if you have permission from the owner that's a different story.

Link to listing guidelines

Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location.

You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to ensure it is in proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.), or posts a Needs Maintenance log. Temporarily disable your cache to let others know not to search for it until you have addressed the problem. You are permitted a reasonable amount of time – generally up to 4 weeks – in which to check on your cache. If a cache is not being maintained, or has been temporarily disabled for an unreasonable length of time, we may archive the listing...

AND

Link to Adoption

Geocaching HQ will not process a transfer without permission from the original cache owner.

It's likely that if the cache AND the owner is gone, the cache will eventually get archived.

You are preaching to the choir brother. 😁

7.3k · January 3, 2017

A link to save folks some time:

https://coord.info/GC39

B.

3.7k · January 3, 2017

Appears that the cache is indeed missing, and the owner is inactive. I'm sure that someone will prop it up for them with a nice new container.

I think this is accepted now, I see it so often. I'm planning an ATV trip to the oldest cache in West Virginia, and it's ownerless and maintained by the community, so my plan is to leave a nice custom ammo can in place of the lock-n-lock there now. The original was an ammo can.

This is precisely why I feel the Jasmer is meaningless. If we're talking original containers, I'd argue there are VERY few left. If it's a replacement, it's not a 12, 13 or 15 year old cache...so the statistic is ONLY based on the publication date on the top of the page and does not in any way reflect the actual age of the cache. I would never hesitate to call that silliness out. Folks get way too attached to baseless statistics.

January 3, 2017

Appears that the cache is indeed missing, and the owner is inactive. I'm sure that someone will prop it up for them with a nice new container.

I think this is accepted now, I see it so often. I'm planning an ATV trip to the oldest cache in West Virginia, and it's ownerless and maintained by the community, so my plan is to leave a nice custom ammo can in place of the lock-n-lock there now. The original was an ammo can.

The oldest Cache in WV was actually a bag phone. Someone must've cito'd it awhile back after a lock n lock was placed there to keep the log dry. An ammo can is a nice replacement though

2k · January 3, 2017

Appears that the cache is indeed missing, and the owner is inactive. I'm sure that someone will prop it up for them with a nice new container.

I think this is accepted now, I see it so often. I'm planning an ATV trip to the oldest cache in West Virginia, and it's ownerless and maintained by the community, so my plan is to leave a nice custom ammo can in place of the lock-n-lock there now. The original was an ammo can.

This is precisely why I feel the Jasmer is meaningless. If we're talking original containers, I'd argue there are VERY few left. If it's a replacement, it's not a 12, 13 or 15 year old cache...so the statistic is ONLY based on the publication date on the top of the page and does not in any way reflect the actual age of the cache. I would never hesitate to call that silliness out. Folks get way too attached to baseless statistics.

Last I knew this cache had the original ammo can and logbook, which made it that much more special. A replacement by the CO or the community just means the cache page is old, not the cache.

5.7k · January 3, 2017

Appears that the cache is indeed missing, and the owner is inactive. I'm sure that someone will prop it up for them with a nice new container.

I think this is accepted now, I see it so often. I'm planning an ATV trip to the oldest cache in West Virginia, and it's ownerless and maintained by the community, so my plan is to leave a nice custom ammo can in place of the lock-n-lock there now. The original was an ammo can.

The oldest Cache in WV was actually a bag phone. Someone must've cito'd it awhile back after a lock n lock was placed there to keep the log dry. An ammo can is a nice replacement though

We are talking about Rich Creek Riches aren't we?

January 3, 2017

Yep.

5.7k · January 3, 2017

I'm glad that I got that fact straight, and was wrong about who left the last lock-n-lock.

I may have been thinking about another old geocache that I help out with. :anicute:

9k · January 3, 2017

This is precisely why I feel the Jasmer is meaningless. If we're talking original containers, I'd argue there are VERY few left. If it's a replacement, it's not a 12, 13 or 15 year old cache...so the statistic is ONLY based on the publication date on the top of the page and does not in any way reflect the actual age of the cache. I would never hesitate to call that silliness out. Folks get way too attached to baseless statistics.

I guess it depends on whether you value the container, or the location. In this case I think the location is just as special and unique as the container.

Note: I'm not advocating throwdowns; but, I think some might put forth the argument that latching merely on to the physical container as "the cache" is just as silly and superficial as denigrating those who cache for 'the numbers'.

This is an old cache in an old and beautiful location. If someone were to place a throwdown, I don't think I'd feel any less cheated by not finding the original container. Ok maybe a bit, but given the location I'd still fully enjoy it and absolutely love to claim the find. (as obvious, I haven't yet - despite having been a short hike away at one point but unable to go for it - and really want to, and would be disappointed if it were archived, though I wouldn't argue as I also agree with the rule about active cache ownership and maintenance).

If it gets archived, I hope it gets archived naturally, as it were, not through complaints or petitions. That is, if a non-owner replaces the cache, which is not against the rules, it should not be archived. But if there is ongoing maintenance issue with the cache, and the owner doesn't fulfill their responsibility, then it should be.

3.6k · January 3, 2017

Just hit the N/A button and let the hell boil over. Caches like this sure get people all worked up over nothing.

5.7k · January 3, 2017

Just hit the N/A button and let the hell boil over. Caches like this sure get people all worked up over nothing.

I recall you and I getting cyber attacked here over something like that once.

3.6k · January 3, 2017

Just hit the N/A button and let the hell boil over. Caches like this sure get people all worked up over nothing.

I recall you and I getting cyber attacked here over something like that once.

That was years ago. :-P Not going to touch it with a 10 foot pole.

3.7k · January 3, 2017

This is precisely why I feel the Jasmer is meaningless. If we're talking original containers, I'd argue there are VERY few left. If it's a replacement, it's not a 12, 13 or 15 year old cache...so the statistic is ONLY based on the publication date on the top of the page and does not in any way reflect the actual age of the cache. I would never hesitate to call that silliness out. Folks get way too attached to baseless statistics.

I guess it depends on whether you value the container, or the location. In this case I think the location is just as special and unique as the container.

Either way, a missing and unmaintained cache should be archived and, if someone truly values the location, a new cache can be published in that same spot. The ONLY argument people could possibly have against that is the fact that they could no longer fill in a square on some grid. THOSE are the folks who truly don't value the location at all.

14k · January 3, 2017

Appears that the cache is indeed missing, and the owner is inactive. I'm sure that someone will prop it up for them with a nice new container.

I think this is accepted now, I see it so often. I'm planning an ATV trip to the oldest cache in West Virginia, and it's ownerless and maintained by the community, so my plan is to leave a nice custom ammo can in place of the lock-n-lock there now. The original was an ammo can.

This is precisely why I feel the Jasmer is meaningless. If we're talking original containers, I'd argue there are VERY few left. If it's a replacement, it's not a 12, 13 or 15 year old cache...so the statistic is ONLY based on the publication date on the top of the page and does not in any way reflect the actual age of the cache. I would never hesitate to call that silliness out. Folks get way too attached to baseless statistics.

Last I knew this cache had the original ammo can and logbook, which made it that much more special. A replacement by the CO or the community just means the cache page is old, not the cache.

From a reading of the early logs it looks to me that the original cache was some sort of bucket and in 2002, after complaints of it leaking, the CO replaced the container with a 50mm ammo can and just transferred the contents (including the original log book) to the new container. It's never actually gone missing or had a throwdown. It's not a 12, 13, or 15 year old cache. It's the 4th oldest active cache in the world. For those that haven't found it, it's about a .4 mile hike from a parking area off a seasonal road. I hope that someone can get in contact with GPSFool so he can decide what to do about it.

9k · January 3, 2017

This is precisely why I feel the Jasmer is meaningless. If we're talking original containers, I'd argue there are VERY few left. If it's a replacement, it's not a 12, 13 or 15 year old cache...so the statistic is ONLY based on the publication date on the top of the page and does not in any way reflect the actual age of the cache. I would never hesitate to call that silliness out. Folks get way too attached to baseless statistics.

I guess it depends on whether you value the container, or the location. In this case I think the location is just as special and unique as the container.

Either way, a missing and unmaintained cache should be archived and, if someone truly values the location, a new cache can be published in that same spot. The ONLY argument people could possibly have against that is the fact that they could no longer fill in a square on some grid. THOSE are the folks who truly don't value the location at all.

Yep, like I said, for an unmaintained cache where the CO is MIA and not keeping up with their duties, the cache should be archived naturally (typically that means reviewer disable, likely after a NM), followed by archival if it's not kept up by the CO.

But the only argument for not archiving? Disagree. You know how many caches exist, and in good condition, despite the owner potentially being MIA, because community helps keep them up and running (and reviewers do not archive them despite maintenance being done by non-COs)? It's a can of worms to require owner maintenance or else (to no exclusion) face archival. It a reviewer task that can't be managed with consistency; in many cases there could be an uproar when a good cache everyone loves which is in good condition and actively found gets archived merely because the owner hasn't logged in for 3 years. What if the owner was away (maybe a shorter period of time obv), comes back and finds all their caches archived and they were ready to go out and refresh them, even though others had helped to keep them in good condition?

That's why they focus on extended negative cache condition, with demonstrated neglect by the CO (whether by inactivity or intentional ignorance). And that means, while not a "rule" or "allowance", non-CO maintenance is a viable method of keeping a cache active, and it also reflects on the community's love for a cache.

So, yes, if The Spot remains missing a sufficient amount of time for the local reviewer to put it through its steps to archival, then make it so. But don't archive it now just because someone reports it's missing and believes the owner to have abandoned it. They could show up tomorrow and fix it. Let it sit until it's archived naturally, IMO.

Edited January 3, 2017 by thebruce0

3.7k · January 3, 2017

This is precisely why I feel the Jasmer is meaningless. If we're talking original containers, I'd argue there are VERY few left. If it's a replacement, it's not a 12, 13 or 15 year old cache...so the statistic is ONLY based on the publication date on the top of the page and does not in any way reflect the actual age of the cache. I would never hesitate to call that silliness out. Folks get way too attached to baseless statistics.

I guess it depends on whether you value the container, or the location. In this case I think the location is just as special and unique as the container.

Either way, a missing and unmaintained cache should be archived and, if someone truly values the location, a new cache can be published in that same spot. The ONLY argument people could possibly have against that is the fact that they could no longer fill in a square on some grid. THOSE are the folks who truly don't value the location at all.

Yep, like I said, for an unmaintained cache where the CO is MIA and not keeping up with their duties, the cache should be archived naturally (typically that means reviewer disable, likely after a NM), followed by archival if it's not kept up by the CO.

But the only argument for not archiving? Disagree. You know how many caches exist, and in good condition, despite the owner potentially being MIA, because community helps keep them up and running (and reviewers do not archive them despite maintenance being done by non-COs)? It's a can of worms to require owner maintenance or else (to no exclusion) face archival. It a reviewer task that can't be managed with consistency; in many cases there could be an uproar when a good cache everyone loves which is in good condition and actively found gets archived merely because the owner hasn't logged in for 3 years. What if the owner was away (maybe a shorter period of time obv), comes back and finds all their caches archived and they were ready to go out and refresh them, even though others had helped to keep them in good condition?

That's why they focus on extended negative cache condition, with demonstrated neglect by the CO (whether by inactivity or intentional ignorance). And that means, while not a "rule" or "allowance", non-CO maintenance is a viable method of keeping a cache active, and it also reflects on the community's love for a cache.

So, yes, if The Spot remains missing a sufficient amount of time for the local reviewer to put it through its steps to archival, then make it so. But don't archive it now just because someone reports it's missing and believes the owner to have abandoned it. They could show up tomorrow and fix it. Let it sit until it's archived naturally, IMO.

Whatever. It amazes me the lengths to which people will go to prop up a cache. I just don't understand the sentimentality people attach to a cache that has been replaced countless times. If it's the location, let it die naturally and put in a new cache in that spot with a proper maintenance plan. If it's the cache container itself (age, uniqueness, whatever...), then it being destroyed or going missing is basically the end anyway. The only other aspect is its value as a statistic, which itself is no reason to prop it up. It's just truly bizarre to assign some great value to a cache simply because it passed some arbitrary date-line. Yeah, I'm honestly impressed with any cache that manages to survive intact for a dozen years or more and would enjoy finding one that has. I think those are extremely rare, though. I'd be far more interested in seeing a list of original cache containers and log books that enjoy such longevity then going to Mingo which has, as I understand it, been replaced as least a few times.

January 3, 2017

GPS fool has logged today that he will perform maintenance to preserve history.

Thore

14k · January 3, 2017

This is precisely why I feel the Jasmer is meaningless. If we're talking original containers, I'd argue there are VERY few left. If it's a replacement, it's not a 12, 13 or 15 year old cache...so the statistic is ONLY based on the publication date on the top of the page and does not in any way reflect the actual age of the cache. I would never hesitate to call that silliness out. Folks get way too attached to baseless statistics.

I guess it depends on whether you value the container, or the location. In this case I think the location is just as special and unique as the container.

Either way, a missing and unmaintained cache should be archived and, if someone truly values the location, a new cache can be published in that same spot. The ONLY argument people could possibly have against that is the fact that they could no longer fill in a square on some grid. THOSE are the folks who truly don't value the location at all.

Yep, like I said, for an unmaintained cache where the CO is MIA and not keeping up with their duties, the cache should be archived naturally (typically that means reviewer disable, likely after a NM), followed by archival if it's not kept up by the CO.

But the only argument for not archiving? Disagree. You know how many caches exist, and in good condition, despite the owner potentially being MIA, because community helps keep them up and running (and reviewers do not archive them despite maintenance being done by non-COs)? It's a can of worms to require owner maintenance or else (to no exclusion) face archival. It a reviewer task that can't be managed with consistency; in many cases there could be an uproar when a good cache everyone loves which is in good condition and actively found gets archived merely because the owner hasn't logged in for 3 years. What if the owner was away (maybe a shorter period of time obv), comes back and finds all their caches archived and they were ready to go out and refresh them, even though others had helped to keep them in good condition?

That's why they focus on extended negative cache condition, with demonstrated neglect by the CO (whether by inactivity or intentional ignorance). And that means, while not a "rule" or "allowance", non-CO maintenance is a viable method of keeping a cache active, and it also reflects on the community's love for a cache.

So, yes, if The Spot remains missing a sufficient amount of time for the local reviewer to put it through its steps to archival, then make it so. But don't archive it now just because someone reports it's missing and believes the owner to have abandoned it. They could show up tomorrow and fix it. Let it sit until it's archived naturally, IMO.

Whatever. It amazes me the lengths to which people will go to prop up a cache. I just don't understand the sentimentality people attach to a cache that has been replaced countless times. If it's the location, let it die naturally and put in a new cache in that spot with a proper maintenance plan. If it's the cache container itself (age, uniqueness, whatever...), then it being destroyed or going missing is basically the end anyway. The only other aspect is its value as a statistic, which itself is no reason to prop it up. It's just truly bizarre to assign some great value to a cache simply because it passed some arbitrary date-line. Yeah, I'm honestly impressed with any cache that manages to survive intact for a dozen years or more and would enjoy finding one that has. I think those are extremely rare, though. I'd be far more interested in seeing a list of original cache containers and log books that enjoy such longevity then going to Mingo which has, as I understand it, been replaced as least a few times.

In the case of The Spot, the cache hasn't been replaced countless times. The CO replaced the original container with a 50mm ammo can in 2002, not because it was missing, but because the bucket he used leaked. That container, *and the original logbook* were still intact as recently as November 2, 2016. It's not that it's passed some arbitrary date line. It's the 4th oldest active cache in the world *and* had, possibly the oldest existing logbook (both GC12, and Beverly have newer log books that are being signed...no idea of the original log books are still there). It's never had a throwdown. It has numerous characteristics which *do* make it extremely rare.

The notion of "value" is entirely subjective. I suspect that I don't value any family photos you have as much as you do, nor would I expect you to value something the same amount as I.

The location itself is at the edge of a deep gully. Perhaps a group will get together to search the area and maybe find the cache as was done for the APE cache. That would be the preferred outcome over anything else.

There were several responses which suggested that someone might prop it up with a throwdown, but I didn't see any responses which actually suggested that it *should* be propped up.

9k · January 3, 2017

Here's another question then, if it's all about the container:

If the CO replaces the container and keeps the listing active, should it still then be archived because it's not the original container?

...of course not. Archival should be a combination of a number of factors; there's no one size fits all. Is it the container? Is it the location? Is it the CO's last activity? None of the above, exclusively. It comes down to cache maintenance (by whomever) - findability, but ultimately negligence (through CO/community ignorance or inactivity) will cause a cache's natural archival. And that is of course not to say the CO has no responsibility.

Exceptions of course are community postings of NM or NA, and those already have their own cans of worms connected with them in these angsty forums, but that sets the judgement before TPTB.

GPS fool has logged today that he will perform maintenance to preserve history.

Thore

Awesome!

Edited January 3, 2017 by thebruce0

January 3, 2017

... I'm planning an ATV trip to the oldest cache in West Virginia, and it's ownerless and maintained by the community, so my plan is to leave a nice custom ammo can in place of the lock-n-lock there now. The original was an ammo can.

The original cache was not an ammo can, it was a bag phone. <_<

5.7k · January 3, 2017

... I'm planning an ATV trip to the oldest cache in West Virginia, and it's ownerless and maintained by the community, so my plan is to leave a nice custom ammo can in place of the lock-n-lock there now. The original was an ammo can.

The original cache was not an ammo can, it was a bag phone.

Yeah, I think we cleared that up already several posts back, but thanks.

10.1k · January 3, 2017

This is precisely why I feel the Jasmer is meaningless. If we're talking original containers, I'd argue there are VERY few left. If it's a replacement, it's not a 12, 13 or 15 year old cache...so the statistic is ONLY based on the publication date on the top of the page and does not in any way reflect the actual age of the cache. I would never hesitate to call that silliness out. Folks get way too attached to baseless statistics.

I guess it depends on whether you value the container, or the location. In this case I think the location is just as special and unique as the container.

Either way, a missing and unmaintained cache should be archived and, if someone truly values the location, a new cache can be published in that same spot. The ONLY argument people could possibly have against that is the fact that they could no longer fill in a square on some grid. THOSE are the folks who truly don't value the location at all.

I took a three day trip to find The Spot (and color in some PA counties.) Was it a beautiful spot? Yes. And the nearby EarthCache was great. Yes. I went there for the square. Doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the location. Would I hve gone for it if it did not fill in a month I needed? Five hour drive. Steep dirt road. Nope. If I were visiting the Finger Lakes, that would not have been one of my choices.

Do I value locations? I've been brought to some spectacular spots! That was not one.

14k · January 3, 2017

This is precisely why I feel the Jasmer is meaningless. If we're talking original containers, I'd argue there are VERY few left. If it's a replacement, it's not a 12, 13 or 15 year old cache...so the statistic is ONLY based on the publication date on the top of the page and does not in any way reflect the actual age of the cache. I would never hesitate to call that silliness out. Folks get way too attached to baseless statistics.

I guess it depends on whether you value the container, or the location. In this case I think the location is just as special and unique as the container.

Either way, a missing and unmaintained cache should be archived and, if someone truly values the location, a new cache can be published in that same spot. The ONLY argument people could possibly have against that is the fact that they could no longer fill in a square on some grid. THOSE are the folks who truly don't value the location at all.

I took a three day trip to find The Spot (and color in some PA counties.) Was it a beautiful spot? Yes. And the nearby EarthCache was great. Yes. I went there for the square. Doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the location. Would I hve gone for it if it did not fill in a month I needed? Five hour drive. Steep dirt road. Nope. If I were visiting the Finger Lakes, that would not have been one of my choices.

Do I value locations? I've been brought to some spectacular spots! That was not one.

Nearby Hammondsport is a wonderful place to stay for exploring the Finger Lakes (but, then, so is Ithaca). Sure, there are better, more spectacular locations than The Spot, but it's a lot nicer than most. I didn't find it to fill in a month (I have no idea what months I might need to complete the Jasmer challenge). It's about an hour from home and I wanted a notable cache for a milestone. I was originally planning on looking for a lonely cache that required a 3 hour round trip paddle, but the weekend before I was going to go for it, someone went there, couldn't find it, and threw down a replacement.

9k · January 3, 2017

Some may like a location, others may not. It's subjective, and 'wow' factor is not one by which reviewers can decide if a cache should be archived or not.

January 26, 2017

I've got flights booked from the UK for a Jasmer trip in July (which includes the Spot), I hope it's up and running by then.

January 27, 2017

If a new container is put out by a new CO then surely that will be a totally new cache and the old one gets archived. Otherwise it's what we call "Trigger's Broom" in the UK:

Trigger - And that's what I've done. Maintained it for 20 years. This old broom's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time.

Sid - How the hell can it be the same bloody broom then?

Trigger - There's the picture. What more proof do you need?

14k · January 27, 2017

If a new container is put out by a new CO then surely that will be a totally new cache and the old one gets archived.

The current and original CO has indicated that he plans on replacing the container and I suspect that he will try to replace it with an ammo can just like the one that has gone missing. That would not be a totally new cache. The only difference would be that it's a different container and doesn't have the original log book.

January 27, 2017

In that case, that's a new lease of life that's thoroughly deserved (IMHO...)

January 27, 2017

And it hasn't actually been confirmed by the CO that it is indeed missing. There is probably a decent amount of snow in that area and it might just be buried.

7.4k · January 27, 2017

If a new container is put out by a new CO then surely that will be a totally new cache and the old one gets archived. Otherwise it's what we call "Trigger's Broom" in the UK:

Trigger - And that's what I've done. Maintained it for 20 years. This old broom's had 17 new heads and 14 new handles in its time.

Sid - How the hell can it be the same bloody broom then?

Trigger - There's the picture. What more proof do you need?

The cache owner is the one who is best positioned to determine whether or not the cache has changed in such a substantial way that it is no longer the same cache.

I suspect that nobody would make this sort of comment about a cache owner replacing the container for a newer cache.

5.7k · January 27, 2017

And it hasn't actually been confirmed by the CO that it is indeed missing. There is probably a decent amount of snow in that area and it might just be buried.

And those poor TB's. :laughing: I'm more concerned about them. The next seeker can replace the ammo can and log book.

14k · January 27, 2017

And it hasn't actually been confirmed by the CO that it is indeed missing. There is probably a decent amount of snow in that area and it might just be buried.

One of the DNFs showed some snow on the ground but it didn't look to me (I've been there) that it would be enough to bury the container. The main access point is a small parking area up a steep seasonal (unmaintained) road. If someone was able to get to the beginning of the trailhead there probably wasn't enough snow to hide the cache. One of the DNF logs mentions the large rock that was covering the cache (which can be seen in several photos in the gallery) that was "tossed aside". This is a cache that has only had 11 DNFs in 17 years. If someone gets to GZ, and the cache is there, it's going to be found.

Ground zero for the cache is very close to a steep drop into a gully. A plausible scenario would be that the container was found by a muggle, who then chucked it into gully. That would certainly result in the DNFs, but as far as I know, nobody has searched the nearby Clark's Gully. The terrain in the gully would be far more difficult to navigate than around GZ, but once things dry out, I think it would probably be worth the search.

January 27, 2017

And it hasn't actually been confirmed by the CO that it is indeed missing. There is probably a decent amount of snow in that area and it might just be buried.

One of the DNFs showed some snow on the ground but it didn't look to me (I've been there) that it would be enough to bury the container. The main access point is a small parking area up a steep seasonal (unmaintained) road. If someone was able to get to the beginning of the trailhead there probably wasn't enough snow to hide the cache. One of the DNF logs mentions the large rock that was covering the cache (which can be seen in several photos in the gallery) that was "tossed aside". This is a cache that has only had 11 DNFs in 17 years. If someone gets to GZ, and the cache is there, it's going to be found.

Ground zero for the cache is very close to a steep drop into a gully. A plausible scenario would be that the container was found by a muggle, who then chucked it into gully. That would certainly result in the DNFs, but as far as I know, nobody has searched the nearby Clark's Gully. The terrain in the gully would be far more difficult to navigate than around GZ, but once things dry out, I think it would probably be worth the search.

I've also been there, but not in winter. It's also possible that the cache has just moved slightly. I personally don't assume a cache is missing until confirmed by the CO.

9.1k · January 27, 2017

Ground zero for the cache is very close to a steep drop into a gully. A plausible scenario would be that the container was found by a muggle, who then chucked it into gully. That would certainly result in the DNFs, but as far as I know, nobody has searched the nearby Clark's Gully. The terrain in the gully would be far more difficult to navigate than around GZ, but once things dry out, I think it would probably be worth the search.

Thanks for the local intelligence! I liked your plausible theory. Your description reminded me of the recent successful search for the Washington Project APE cache, where the container was pitched down a very steep hillside. Perhaps there could be a similar search party mission for The Spot. I'd be game to try. The cache has been on my "To Do List" for many years. I kept meaning to visit the cache during one of my trips home (I grew up in Rochester and my family's roots are in the Auburn/Moravia area). This would make for an even bigger adventure.

14k · January 27, 2017

Ground zero for the cache is very close to a steep drop into a gully. A plausible scenario would be that the container was found by a muggle, who then chucked it into gully. That would certainly result in the DNFs, but as far as I know, nobody has searched the nearby Clark's Gully. The terrain in the gully would be far more difficult to navigate than around GZ, but once things dry out, I think it would probably be worth the search.

Thanks for the local intelligence! I liked your plausible theory. Your description reminded me of the recent successful search for the Washington Project APE cache, where the container was pitched down a very steep hillside. Perhaps there could be a similar search party mission for The Spot. I'd be game to try. The cache has been on my "To Do List" for many years. I kept meaning to visit the cache during one of my trips home (I grew up in Rochester and my family's roots are in the Auburn/Moravia area). This would make for an even bigger adventure.

Even if GPSFool replaces the container, I'd love to see a search party formed to look for the old container. I'm afraid, however, that the sheer number of geocachers within a days drive of the Washington APE cache, made it a lot easier to form a search party. There's a decent size community in the Rochester area (and is, I believe, where GPSFool lives), but no where near as big as Seattle.

Although it's not the original container, it did contain the original logbook. It's about an hour and a half from me so if there was a search party for it I might even join the search.

January 27, 2017

Ground zero for the cache is very close to a steep drop into a gully. A plausible scenario would be that the container was found by a muggle, who then chucked it into gully. That would certainly result in the DNFs, but as far as I know, nobody has searched the nearby Clark's Gully. The terrain in the gully would be far more difficult to navigate than around GZ, but once things dry out, I think it would probably be worth the search.

Thanks for the local intelligence! I liked your plausible theory. Your description reminded me of the recent successful search for the Washington Project APE cache, where the container was pitched down a very steep hillside. Perhaps there could be a similar search party mission for The Spot. I'd be game to try. The cache has been on my "To Do List" for many years. I kept meaning to visit the cache during one of my trips home (I grew up in Rochester and my family's roots are in the Auburn/Moravia area). This would make for an even bigger adventure.

Even if GPSFool replaces the container, I'd love to see a search party formed to look for the old container. I'm afraid, however, that the sheer number of geocachers within a days drive of the Washington APE cache, made it a lot easier to form a search party. There's a decent size community in the Rochester area (and is, I believe, where GPSFool lives), but no where near as big as Seattle.

Although it's not the original container, it did contain the original logbook. It's about an hour and a half from me so if there was a search party for it I might even join the search.

I live about 20 miles from The Spot

3k · January 28, 2017

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

February 2, 2017

The cache was just found in November by French speaking geocachers which appear to have had to spend a while there enjoying the views and eventually became able to find the container. I do not think its missing. The 2 cachers who logged DNFs simplify state that they each didn't find the cache (for whatever reason, that is). GPS fool specifically wrote a note on the cache page recently stated that he/she would replace the cache if it was indeed missing.

14k · February 3, 2017

The cache was just found in November by French speaking geocachers which appear to have had to spend a while there enjoying the views and eventually became able to find the container. I do not think its missing. The 2 cachers who logged DNFs simplify state that they each didn't find the cache (for whatever reason, that is). GPS fool specifically wrote a note on the cache page recently stated that he/she would replace the cache if it was indeed missing.

The last "find" has a photo of GZ as "proof" of the find because they "forgot their pen". I find it hard to believe that a 50cal ammo can that's been there for 16 years wouldn't have a pen in it and don't believe the Found It log posted on Dec. 3rd. Having been there I think it would have been very unlikely that they would not have found the cache if it was under that "Suspicious Pile of Rocks" shown in their log. The photo posted on the 3rd shows the same pile of rocks and just a dusting of snow on the ground. What seems to be missing is the large flat rock shown in a photo in the Found It log posted on Nov. 2nd.

3.3k · February 3, 2017

When I found the cache in 2011, I photographed several pages of its log book as part of my Geocaching Heritage Project. You can find those photos here. I did not do a complete photographic record of the cache due to being with several impatient people at night, but they at least humored me for a couple minutes. Anyway, if anyone has additional photos of that log book or anything else old, I'd love to add them to the project.

6.8k · February 3, 2017

I find it hard to believe that a 50cal ammo can that's been there for 16 years wouldn't have a pen in it

Without a cache check all what we write is speculation anyway but with regard to the missing pen I'd like to mention that it often happened to me that I encountered no pen/pencil

in a cache container because a previous finder took the pen/pencil along. It seems to happen even more frequently when groups visit a cache and they move around the log book and writing utensil.

As a cache owner I 'm used to the situation that pencils get lost and need to be restocked if I want to have one in my cache containers.

14k · February 3, 2017

I find it hard to believe that a 50cal ammo can that's been there for 16 years wouldn't have a pen in it

Without a cache check all what we write is speculation anyway but with regard to the missing pen I'd like to mention that it often happened to me that I encountered no pen/pencil

in a cache container because a previous finder took the pen/pencil along. It seems to happen even more frequently when groups visit a cache and they move around the log book and writing utensil.

As a cache owner I 'm used to the situation that pencils get lost and need to be restocked if I want to have one in my cache containers.

Sometimes the conclusion one draws from speculation is the same was it is when there is definitive proof. Who goes searching for the 4th oldest cache in the world one one has to park almost a half a mile from GZ and doesn't grab a pen? I suppose it could happen, but it seems unlikely. I has also often happened to me that a cache with a large container that has been around for a very long time, typically *collects* pens/pencils. This is also a cache that has only had 11 DNFs since it was placed in 2000. All but the most recent two indicate that the reason for the DNF was that they never reached GZ.

I may be speculating but my conclusion is based upon some pretty convincing evidence that the cache is not there.

Here is a photo of GZ from a log on a Found It posted on November 2nd. The DNF logs refer to this photo and specifically to the distinctive rock covering the cache.

Here is a photo from a log on December 3rd. That flat rock is no longer on top of the pile of rocks/wood and that odd shaped piece of wood is now on the top of the pile.

5.7k · February 3, 2017

What is keeping someone from attempting to find this geocache now? Sorry, but if I knew I have forgot now.

February 3, 2017

What is keeping someone from attempting to find this geocache now? Sorry, but if I knew I have forgot now.

We've had a little bit of snow this past week. I don't know how much GZ has gotten, but I'm pretty sure there is some snow on the hill.

The area has has become quite popular over the years. It isn't as secluded as it once was. When I was there two years ago, there was a fire ring 50' from GZ.

Edited February 3, 2017 by igator210

5.7k · February 3, 2017

What is keeping someone from attempting to find this geocache now? Sorry, but if I knew I have forgot now.

We've had a little bit of snow this past week. I don't know how much GZ has gotten, but I'm pretty sure there is some snow on the hill.

The area has has become quite popular over the years. It isn't as secluded as it once was. When I was there two years ago, there was a fire ring 50' from GZ.

So a little snow is keeping anyone from attempting to find it?

Hmmm, a fire ring 50' from GZ. I bet those rocks in the photos here are part of it now. Maybe it should just be archived.

14k · February 3, 2017

What is keeping someone from attempting to find this geocache now? Sorry, but if I knew I have forgot now.

We've had a little bit of snow this past week. I don't know how much GZ has gotten, but I'm pretty sure there is some snow on the hill.

The area has has become quite popular over the years. It isn't as secluded as it once was. When I was there two years ago, there was a fire ring 50' from GZ.

So a little snow is keeping anyone from attempting to find it?

What's probably keeping many from attempting to find it are the recent log which strongly suggest that it's missing.

The problem with a little bit of snow is that the road that goes up to the nearest parking area is a "seasonal road". That means that it's not maintained or plowed, typically between December and March. A little bit of snow isn't much of an issue on most roads in the area, or even getting from the parking area to GZ, but driving a seasonal road as steep as this one can get quite treacherous.

The Spot (GC39) missing?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment