Groundspeak Forums: MINGO in jeopardy? - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (13 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

MINGO in jeopardy?

#1 User is online   cheech gang 

  • Second To Find
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 724
  • Joined: 26-March 04

Posted 26 June 2011 - 02:20 PM

LATEST MINGO LOG

#2 User is online   Harry Dolphin 

  • Major Porpoise
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 7901
  • Joined: 03-July 04

Posted 26 June 2011 - 02:55 PM

Certainly would qualify for "DNF = Found It" thread.
Not sure why they logged a 'find'. They did not find it. Cheap throwdown.
If their theory is correct, then it would appear that Mingo is gone.

#3 User is offline   jd-mitchell 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 123
  • Joined: 30-November 04

Posted 26 June 2011 - 03:10 PM

I just saw that on the GCCO FB page. Words cannot describe how I hope it in for (heavy duty) maintenance !

#4 User is offline   dfx 

  • CDJ Abuser
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8107
  • Joined: 06-April 07

Posted 26 June 2011 - 03:15 PM

I believe the owner(s) are still active, at least somewhat. Shouldn't be a problem to get it replaced or fixed.

#5 User is offline   Coldgears 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1667
  • Joined: 05-March 10

Posted 26 June 2011 - 03:16 PM

Should it be archived now since it doesn't have the original container? :ph34r:

#6 User is offline   NanCycle 

  • COLORADO, USA
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1556
  • Joined: 10-October 04

Posted 26 June 2011 - 03:18 PM

View PostColdgears, on 26 June 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

Should it be archived now since it doesn't have the original container? :ph34r:


No. Containers are replaceable, but the replacement should be done by the CO.

#7 User is offline   Coldgears 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1667
  • Joined: 05-March 10

Posted 26 June 2011 - 03:20 PM

View PostDoubleBent, on 26 June 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

View PostColdgears, on 26 June 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

Should it be archived now since it doesn't have the original container? :ph34r:


No. Containers are replaceable, but the replacement should be done by the CO.

Notice the ninja. Also notice the APE fiasco.

#8 User is offline   NanCycle 

  • COLORADO, USA
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1556
  • Joined: 10-October 04

Posted 26 June 2011 - 03:38 PM

View PostColdgears, on 26 June 2011 - 03:20 PM, said:

View PostDoubleBent, on 26 June 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

View PostColdgears, on 26 June 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

Should it be archived now since it doesn't have the original container? :ph34r:


No. Containers are replaceable, but the replacement should be done by the CO.

Notice the ninja. Also notice the APE fiasco.


So when my Lock-n-lock was stolen I should have archived the cache, instead of just buying a new lock-n-lock?

Then Tarryall should be archived too, because it's no longer the original 5 gallon bucket?

#9 User is offline   Coldgears 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1667
  • Joined: 05-March 10

Posted 26 June 2011 - 03:39 PM

View PostDoubleBent, on 26 June 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

View PostColdgears, on 26 June 2011 - 03:20 PM, said:

View PostDoubleBent, on 26 June 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

View PostColdgears, on 26 June 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

Should it be archived now since it doesn't have the original container? :ph34r:


No. Containers are replaceable, but the replacement should be done by the CO.

Notice the ninja. Also notice the APE fiasco.


So when my Lock-n-lock was stolen I should have archived the cache, instead of just buying a new lock-n-lock?

Then Tarryall should be archived too, because it's no longer the original 5 gallon bucket?

Dude, a ninja means it's sarcasm. Wasn't meant to be taken serious.

#10 User is offline   d+n.s 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 436
  • Joined: 04-May 10

Posted 26 June 2011 - 03:39 PM

View PostColdgears, on 26 June 2011 - 03:20 PM, said:

View PostDoubleBent, on 26 June 2011 - 03:18 PM, said:

View PostColdgears, on 26 June 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

Should it be archived now since it doesn't have the original container? :ph34r:


No. Containers are replaceable, but the replacement should be done by the CO.

Notice the ninja. Also notice the APE fiasco.

This isn't an APE cache, it's a traditional. Different cache types. Apparently different rules.

EDIT: Whoops. Sorry. Always thought a ninja meant you were saying something like you knew to hide or run right after it came out of your mouth

This post has been edited by d+n.s: 26 June 2011 - 03:42 PM


#11 User is offline   popokiiti 

  • Victoria, BC, Canada
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2321
  • Joined: 15-November 07

Posted 26 June 2011 - 04:52 PM

It is such a shame that the original has gone missing - and it was only found the day before, wasn't it?

#12 User is offline   Coldgears 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1667
  • Joined: 05-March 10

Posted 26 June 2011 - 04:59 PM

View Postd+n.s, on 26 June 2011 - 03:39 PM, said:

EDIT: Whoops. Sorry. Always thought a ninja meant you were saying something like you knew to hide or run right after it came out of your mouth


It may mean that now that I think of it. I don't think anyone said specifically what it meant. Just that users use it when bringing something completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, so I thought that it was always meant as sarcasm.

#13 User is offline   Tahosa and Sons 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2689
  • Joined: 09-September 01

Posted 26 June 2011 - 05:06 PM

The same fate happened to GC57. But its still alive with a new container.

#14 User is offline   dameetro 

  • Nerd of all trades
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 14-March 11

Posted 26 June 2011 - 05:50 PM

View Postpopokiiti, on 26 June 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:

It is such a shame that the original has gone missing - and it was only found the day before, wasn't it?


I found it on our way thru Kansas Friday afternoon. They were doing some road work at the Mingo exit ramp, spraying oil and such. But I know others found it later that day because someone grabbed the trackable I dropped. And someone else dropped one of my geocoins in Mingo that evening. And somebody else grabbed that coin from Mingo Saturday so we know it the cache was ok at that point.

#15 User is offline   Curious Joe 

  • Cache on!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 49
  • Joined: 13-February 05

Posted 26 June 2011 - 06:12 PM

I hope I am just paranoid and it was just road crew knuckleheads, but living in the Seattle area and seeing how the APE cache (along with caches around it) was targeted, I was wondering which cache, plaque or location would be next. This cache was a logical next step as is the timing. Cache taken, then the perpetrator comes back later and fills it with dirt. Very deliberate. Then what, concrete? I felt archiving the APE empowers and emboldens the coward(s). It would be wrong to archive Mingo and so on due to the activities of this vendictive/vigilante person or group, if of course, this is the case and not coincidence.

#16 User is online   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8205
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 26 June 2011 - 06:20 PM

Forget the "should it be archived because the container is missing" thread drift. If someone really wants to discuss that topic it should be in a different thread. This thread is about the status of Mingo.

After reading the last log indicated by the OP I have to wonder who it was that filled up the hole previously occupied by the container with dirt. I would assume that whoever filled up the hole also removed the container. This is pure speculation but...

Could it be the same person that took the Ape cache and the other caches near it. I realize that Mingo is a long way away but if someone was really PO'd at Groundspeak and/or geocaching as a whole, the APE cache and Mingo are/were probably the two highest profile caches in existence. I suppose someone could dig up original place and it wouldn't exactly be feasible to remove the Groundspeak HQ cache, but if someone wanted to commit geocaching terrorism I can't think of any other higher profile targets. Someone with such a twisted agenda might even think that refilling the hole would prevent Mingo from being replaced as it would violate the "no buried caches" guideline.

I don't know much about the actual location where MINGO was located but is it possible that the cache was removed and the hole filled with dirt by the current land manager? There is obviously some private land near the location but who *is* the land manager where the cache is/was located?

#17 User is offline   dameetro 

  • Nerd of all trades
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 14-March 11

Posted 26 June 2011 - 06:32 PM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 26 June 2011 - 06:20 PM, said:



I don't know much about the actual location where MINGO was located but is it possible that the cache was removed and the hole filled with dirt by the current land manager? There is obviously some private land near the location but who *is* the land manager where the cache is/was located?


Well I doubt it was the road crew I saw while exiting the Interstate Friday afternoon. They were spraying the off ramp on the Eastbound side. You cannot see the gz from there, as it sits below the road. The cache is on the other side of the fence too. I doubt anyone would even walk down there unless they were looking for it.

I was really bummed when I tried to pull up the APE 9 cache last week and found it archived. We were planning to swing that way and take the hike and complete the triad. At least I beat the thieving losers to Mingo. I had no idea Mingo was on our route until we crossed the state line. I pulled up the coordinates and was ecstatic when I saw it was right off the Interstate. I really hope this was just a coincidence, but after talking to other folks about what happened to those around the APE, it does make me wonder.

This post has been edited by dameetro: 26 June 2011 - 06:45 PM


#18 User is offline   Clan Riffster 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9210
  • Joined: 26-December 04

Posted 26 June 2011 - 06:52 PM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 26 June 2011 - 06:20 PM, said:

Forget the "should it be archived because the container is missing" thread drift.

It might not be thread drift.

Kansas Stasher (owner of Mingo)

Member Since:Monday, 04 September 2000

Last Visit:Thursday, 12 May 2011

It's only been a month since he last checked in, which isn't really that long. No worries at this point. But if Kansas Stasher stays away for, say, three months, would the comments still be off topic? If a container gets stolen, and the owner is no longer playing, should the cache remain active? I always thought a missing cache and a missing owner was reasonable grounds for being archived.

But it ccould be argued that Mingo is not your average, ordinary cache.

If Kansas Stasher does stay away, (I have no reason to think he will, just asking), should an exception be made to keep Mingo alive? After all, there is a cache, of sorts, at ground zero, though it wasn't placed there by the owner. Perhaps a better question would be, if a cache has significant issues, (such as being stolen), and the owner is MIA, and the community is willing to keep it alive, should it be archived?

#19 User is offline   Keystone 

  • Everything in Moderation
  • Group: Site Wide Moderators
  • Posts: 16624
  • Joined: 16-May 03

Posted 26 June 2011 - 07:06 PM

View PostColdgears, on 26 June 2011 - 04:59 PM, said:

View Postd+n.s, on 26 June 2011 - 03:39 PM, said:

EDIT: Whoops. Sorry. Always thought a ninja meant you were saying something like you knew to hide or run right after it came out of your mouth


It may mean that now that I think of it. I don't think anyone said specifically what it meant. Just that users use it when bringing something completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, so I thought that it was always meant as sarcasm.

Here's an idea: quit posting things "completely irrelevant to the issue at hand." Thank you.

#20 User is offline   skraeling 

  • OMG! Humans are visible from space! Oh noes!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 04-April 05

Posted 26 June 2011 - 07:18 PM

View PostTahosa and Sons, on 26 June 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:

The same fate happened to GC57. But its still alive with a new container.


Is it just me or does more of this kind of thing seem to be happening recently... to both new and old cache?

#21 User is offline   DanOCan 

  • Caching for the experience, not the numbers.
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1907
  • Joined: 15-December 03

Posted 26 June 2011 - 07:21 PM

I admit that the first thing that went through my mind was that this is too much of a coincidence with the disapperance of the APE cache. The "filling in the dirt" is what really sets off alarm bells for me.

#22 User is offline   Sol seaker 

  • Geocacher of the year 2024
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2173
  • Joined: 16-March 09

Posted 26 June 2011 - 08:01 PM

Did someone email the cache owner on this?
He/she should be contacted in case they don't read all the logs on their cache.

I didn't want to do it if it had already been done ten times.

#23 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38056
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 26 June 2011 - 08:34 PM

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:

This post has been edited by briansnat: 26 June 2011 - 08:38 PM


#24 User is offline   I! 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 822
  • Joined: 30-June 09

Posted 26 June 2011 - 10:30 PM

View Postdfx, on 26 June 2011 - 03:15 PM, said:

Shouldn't be a problem to get it replaced or fixed.
One would hope so; but ...

cache page said:

A 6" round container buried in the ground. Only the lid is exposed.
... there might be a Guidelines issue here!

#25 User is online   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8205
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 27 June 2011 - 02:44 AM

View Postdameetro, on 26 June 2011 - 06:32 PM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 26 June 2011 - 06:20 PM, said:



I don't know much about the actual location where MINGO was located but is it possible that the cache was removed and the hole filled with dirt by the current land manager? There is obviously some private land near the location but who *is* the land manager where the cache is/was located?


Well I doubt it was the road crew I saw while exiting the Interstate Friday afternoon. They were spraying the off ramp on the Eastbound side. You cannot see the gz from there, as it sits below the road. The cache is on the other side of the fence too. I doubt anyone would even walk down there unless they were looking for it.

I was really bummed when I tried to pull up the APE 9 cache last week and found it archived. We were planning to swing that way and take the hike and complete the triad. At least I beat the thieving losers to Mingo.


At this point, we really don't know who took it. If it was taken by the land managers of the property on which it was located, they'd have every right to remove it if they didn't want it there. A cache "on the other side of the fence" sounds to me like it's on private property.

#26 User is online   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8205
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 27 June 2011 - 02:57 AM

View PostClan Riffster, on 26 June 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 26 June 2011 - 06:20 PM, said:

Forget the "should it be archived because the container is missing" thread drift.

It might not be thread drift.

Kansas Stasher (owner of Mingo)

Member Since:Monday, 04 September 2000

Last Visit:Thursday, 12 May 2011

It's only been a month since he last checked in, which isn't really that long. No worries at this point. But if Kansas Stasher stays away for, say, three months, would the comments still be off topic? If a container gets stolen, and the owner is no longer playing, should the cache remain active? I always thought a missing cache and a missing owner was reasonable grounds for being archived.


It is, but the "joke" was that it should be archived because the "original" (don't know if it actually was the original) container was missing. If Kansas Stasher *does* check in he/she may have permission and "no buried caches" issues to contend with, but the fact that a different container might be used is irrelevant.

#27 User is offline   J the Goat 

  • Pasture Dweller
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04-June 09

Posted 27 June 2011 - 05:43 AM

View PostClan Riffster, on 26 June 2011 - 06:52 PM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 26 June 2011 - 06:20 PM, said:

Forget the "should it be archived because the container is missing" thread drift.

It might not be thread drift.

Kansas Stasher (owner of Mingo)

Member Since:Monday, 04 September 2000

Last Visit:Thursday, 12 May 2011

It's only been a month since he last checked in, which isn't really that long. No worries at this point. But if Kansas Stasher stays away for, say, three months, would the comments still be off topic? If a container gets stolen, and the owner is no longer playing, should the cache remain active? I always thought a missing cache and a missing owner was reasonable grounds for being archived.

But it ccould be argued that Mingo is not your average, ordinary cache.

If Kansas Stasher does stay away, (I have no reason to think he will, just asking), should an exception be made to keep Mingo alive? After all, there is a cache, of sorts, at ground zero, though it wasn't placed there by the owner. Perhaps a better question would be, if a cache has significant issues, (such as being stolen), and the owner is MIA, and the community is willing to keep it alive, should it be archived?


Depends. If somebody else replaces the container within the guidelines, then sure. Should the cache be "saved" just because of it's old status? Nope. Caches die, it just so happens that Mingo has lasted longer than any other cache up to this point. Maybe it's met it's end, and that's okay. Now there will be a new oldest active cache that people will pay more attention to than it deserves. After that one dies, there will be another. Then another.

Or maybe this whole thing is just a joke, or being blown out of proportion. We'll see...

#28 User is offline   J the Goat 

  • Pasture Dweller
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1395
  • Joined: 04-June 09

Posted 27 June 2011 - 05:48 AM

I just read the log. Replacing a container like that is commendable, logging your replacement isn't so cool. Just my pair of pennies...

#29 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 17432
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 27 June 2011 - 05:57 AM

View PostI!, on 26 June 2011 - 10:30 PM, said:

View Postdfx, on 26 June 2011 - 03:15 PM, said:

Shouldn't be a problem to get it replaced or fixed.
One would hope so; but ...

cache page said:

A 6" round container buried in the ground. Only the lid is exposed.
... there might be a Guidelines issue here!


Grandfathered. Big-time.

#30 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 17432
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 27 June 2011 - 06:05 AM

View Postbriansnat, on 26 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:


He placed a throwdown and logged that. Been two new finds since then, too.

#31 User is offline   4wheelin_fool 

  • A113
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5303
  • Joined: 31-January 02

Posted 27 June 2011 - 07:09 AM

View Postknowschad, on 27 June 2011 - 06:05 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 26 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:


He placed a throwdown and logged that. Been two new finds since then, too.


I don't see any problem with that. He was aware of the exact location and it was definitely missing, so he hid a replica. It's not like 2 caches or a throwdown film can is there.

#32 User is offline   Team GPSaxophone 

  • Smurfy Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 13332
  • Joined: 21-April 02

Posted 27 June 2011 - 07:15 AM

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

View Postknowschad, on 27 June 2011 - 06:05 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 26 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:


He placed a throwdown and logged that. Been two new finds since then, too.


I don't see any problem with that. He was aware of the exact location and it was definitely missing, so he hid a replica. It's not like 2 caches or a throwdown film can is there.

Something wrong with just posting a DNF and letting the cache owner handle it? <_<

#33 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38056
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 27 June 2011 - 07:17 AM

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

View Postknowschad, on 27 June 2011 - 06:05 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 26 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:


He placed a throwdown and logged that. Been two new finds since then, too.


I don't see any problem with that. He was aware of the exact location and it was definitely missing, so he hid a replica. It's not like 2 caches or a throwdown film can is there.


What did he find though?

#34 User is offline   dfx 

  • CDJ Abuser
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8107
  • Joined: 06-April 07

Posted 27 June 2011 - 07:17 AM

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

I don't see any problem with that. He was aware of the exact location and it was definitely missing, so he hid a replica. It's not like 2 caches or a throwdown film can is there.


Spoken like a true powertrailer :ph34r:

(Why isn't powertrails on the forum schedule?)

#35 User is offline   Mr.Yuck 

  • He Hate Me
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 9364
  • Joined: 19-August 03

Posted 27 June 2011 - 08:14 AM

View Postbriansnat, on 27 June 2011 - 07:17 AM, said:

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

View Postknowschad, on 27 June 2011 - 06:05 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 26 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:


He placed a throwdown and logged that. Been two new finds since then, too.


I don't see any problem with that. He was aware of the exact location and it was definitely missing, so he hid a replica. It's not like 2 caches or a throwdown film can is there.


What did he find though?



Face it, advocating throwdowns in this forum is a losing proposition. :laughing: I do actually agree, doing for this historic cache doesn't seem as bad as tossing out a film can on your average cache because you can't find it.

I'll tell you what though, sign me up for the conspriracy theory of this and the Ape cache going missing in such a short time period not being a coincedence. Watch out Beverly, State Gamelands #109, The Spot, etc...

#36 User is offline   4wheelin_fool 

  • A113
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5303
  • Joined: 31-January 02

Posted 27 June 2011 - 08:47 AM

View PostTeam GPSaxophone, on 27 June 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

View Postknowschad, on 27 June 2011 - 06:05 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 26 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:


He placed a throwdown and logged that. Been two new finds since then, too.


I don't see any problem with that. He was aware of the exact location and it was definitely missing, so he hid a replica. It's not like 2 caches or a throwdown film can is there.

Something wrong with just posting a DNF and letting the cache owner handle it? <_<


Many cache owners would welcome such a thing. The cache owner is also the one who decides whether his actions were OK, and is free to delete his log. Considering that it was a cache worth perpetuating, I'd say his actions were fine. Perhaps he should let the DNFs pile up and let it get archived? I can't speak for the cache owner, but neither can any of you.

#37 User is offline   Team GPSaxophone 

  • Smurfy Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 13332
  • Joined: 21-April 02

Posted 27 June 2011 - 09:01 AM

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

View PostTeam GPSaxophone, on 27 June 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

View Postknowschad, on 27 June 2011 - 06:05 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 26 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:


He placed a throwdown and logged that. Been two new finds since then, too.


I don't see any problem with that. He was aware of the exact location and it was definitely missing, so he hid a replica. It's not like 2 caches or a throwdown film can is there.

Something wrong with just posting a DNF and letting the cache owner handle it? <_<


Many cache owners would welcome such a thing. The cache owner is also the one who decides whether his actions were OK, and is free to delete his log. Considering that it was a cache worth perpetuating, I'd say his actions were fine. Perhaps he should let the DNFs pile up and let it get archived? I can't speak for the cache owner, but neither can any of you.

Yeah, the first guy that doesn't find it would equate to letting the DNFs pile up and having the cache archived. Wow, that's some stretch. I realize Mingo is one of the easiest caches to find as there's nowhere to really hide it (which is why it was buried) but if you can't find a cache just post a DNF. Give the cache owner the chance to take action rather than just assuming he'd want you to replace it. Maybe your GPSr was wonky that day and you were looking at an identical hole 200' away. You never know.

#38 User is offline   4wheelin_fool 

  • A113
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5303
  • Joined: 31-January 02

Posted 27 June 2011 - 09:10 AM

I'd agree with you in most situations, but every scenario is a little different.

It's odd that the same people that say that the numbers don't matter, are the first ones to jump to the conclusion that he's just trying to boost his and get annoyed over it. Or perhaps there is a plan to get rid of the grandfathered partially buried caches, and he just threw a monkey wrench in there. :ph34r:

#39 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20214
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 27 June 2011 - 10:33 AM

View PostTeam GPSaxophone, on 27 June 2011 - 09:01 AM, said:

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 08:47 AM, said:

View PostTeam GPSaxophone, on 27 June 2011 - 07:15 AM, said:

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

View Postknowschad, on 27 June 2011 - 06:05 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 26 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:


He placed a throwdown and logged that. Been two new finds since then, too.


I don't see any problem with that. He was aware of the exact location and it was definitely missing, so he hid a replica. It's not like 2 caches or a throwdown film can is there.

Something wrong with just posting a DNF and letting the cache owner handle it?<_<


Many cache owners would welcome such a thing. The cache owner is also the one who decides whether his actions were OK, and is free to delete his log. Considering that it was a cache worth perpetuating, I'd say his actions were fine. Perhaps he should let the DNFs pile up and let it get archived? I can't speak for the cache owner, but neither can any of you.

Yeah, the first guy that doesn't find it would equate to letting the DNFs pile up and having the cache archived. Wow, that's some stretch. I realize Mingo is one of the easiest caches to find as there's nowhere to really hide it (which is why it was buried) but if you can't find a cache just post a DNF. Give the cache owner the chance to take action rather than just assuming he'd want you to replace it. Maybe your GPSr was wonky that day and you were looking at an identical hole 200' away. You never know.

The mere fact that someone replaced the cache doesn't preclude the cache owner from taking any necessary action.

#40 User is offline   4wheelin_fool 

  • A113
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 5303
  • Joined: 31-January 02

Posted 27 June 2011 - 10:50 AM

Suppose that someone had came upon the APE cache, and noticed it missing. Instead of posting a DNF, they ran out and replaced it. Sooner or later someone would figure out that the container was different, but it probably would not have gotten archived. A counterfeit container on a popular cache is harder to archive, then a missing one. :ph34r:

#41 User is offline   hzoi 

  • When in doubt -- bushwhack!
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1966
  • Joined: 23-February 07

Posted 27 June 2011 - 11:41 AM

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 10:50 AM, said:

Suppose that someone had came upon the APE cache, and noticed it missing. Instead of posting a DNF, they ran out and replaced it. Sooner or later someone would figure out that the container was different, but it probably would not have gotten archived. A counterfeit container on a popular cache is harder to archive, then a missing one. :ph34r:


Not so much. This was tried on at least one of the older A.P.E. caches. Didn't work. I'll let you do the research if you want to figure out which one(s).

#42 User is online   NYPaddleCacher 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 8205
  • Joined: 08-January 07

Posted 27 June 2011 - 12:03 PM

View PostFamily of Goats, on 27 June 2011 - 05:48 AM, said:

I just read the log. Replacing a container like that is commendable,...


I can't say that I agree that it's commendable.

We don't know who took the container. As I see it, there are three possibilities.

A muggle.
A muggle or former/current geocacher with an axe to grind.
The land manager/owner (or a representative of the land manager).

The fact that the hole was refilled with dirt sometime after the container was taken leads to me that it wasn't a muggle that just discovered the container and tried to take it.

Someone with an axe to grind about geocaching and/or Groundspeak is a possibility. I took at some of the oldest caches and Beverly was last found June 23rd, The Spot, GC12, and Beaver Cache were last found on June 25th, and GC16 was last found on the 26th. The last "real" find on Mingo was on the 25th and apparently went missing on the 26th. A conspiracy theorist might suggest that GC12 and GC16 might have gone missing around the time the APE cache was taken as they're much closer to the APE cache than Mingo. As an aside, I checked Beverly, GC12, and The Spot earlier in the day but just went back to see if there were any new logs and created a short "Oldest Caches" bookmark. That got me to thinking...wouldn't a "recently visited cache pages" feature be kind of handy? Yes, I know that I can bookmark cache pages, but it would be nice if the system remembered cache pages that I had recently looked at.

So, what if the Mingo was removed and replaced by the current land manager/owner? I honestly don't know what the actual location looks like, but the mention of "it's on the other side of a fence" earlier in the thread implies to me that one or both sides of the fence are private property. Is it possible that the land owner got tired of people stopping there to grab the cache and decide to remove it and filled the hole so that it wouldn't be replaced. Or, perhaps the road workere mentioned in recent logs pulled a NVDOT manoever and removed it as part of their road maintenance. Either way, if the land manager doesn't want it there, putting another cacher there after the hole was refilled (and digging out the dirt to do so) is not commendable as I see it, and could cause strife between the land manager and geocaching.

This post has been edited by NYPaddleCacher: 27 June 2011 - 12:04 PM


#43 User is offline   knowschad 

  • Charter Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 17432
  • Joined: 20-May 05

Posted 27 June 2011 - 12:04 PM

View Postbriansnat, on 27 June 2011 - 07:17 AM, said:

View Post4wheelin_fool, on 27 June 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

View Postknowschad, on 27 June 2011 - 06:05 AM, said:

View Postbriansnat, on 26 June 2011 - 08:34 PM, said:

I'm confused, the guy logged a Found It. That means he found the cache. Yet he complains it was missing? :blink:


He placed a throwdown and logged that. Been two new finds since then, too.


I don't see any problem with that. He was aware of the exact location and it was definitely missing, so he hid a replica. It's not like 2 caches or a throwdown film can is there.


What did he find though?


A store that had similar containers, I guess. :P

#44 User is offline   nikcap 

  • Buzzard Boy
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 1157
  • Joined: 27-August 01

Posted 27 June 2011 - 12:28 PM

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 27 June 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

...
So, what if the Mingo was removed and replaced by the current land manager/owner? I honestly don't know what the actual location looks like, but the mention of "it's on the other side of a fence" earlier in the thread implies to me that one or both sides of the fence are private property. Is it possible that the land owner got tired of people stopping there to grab the cache and decide to remove it and filled the hole so that it wouldn't be replaced. Or, perhaps the road workere mentioned in recent logs pulled a NVDOT manoever and removed it as part of their road maintenance. Either way, if the land manager doesn't want it there, putting another cacher there after the hole was refilled (and digging out the dirt to do so) is not commendable as I see it, and could cause strife between the land manager and geocaching.


Exactly, and I thought buried caches were illegal. Something like that would get archived (and rightfully so) as soon as it was learned about by our local reviewer.

A cache is Location+Container+How it's Hidden. Changing any of these elements makes it a different cache.
If MINGO was replace with a Nano on the other side of the fence, would it be the same cache?


Either way, time to break out the tin-foil hats and get into geo-conspiracy mode. :lol:

#45 User is offline   Team GPSaxophone 

  • Smurfy Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 13332
  • Joined: 21-April 02

Posted 27 June 2011 - 12:31 PM

View Postekitt10, on 27 June 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

View PostNYPaddleCacher, on 27 June 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

...
So, what if the Mingo was removed and replaced by the current land manager/owner? I honestly don't know what the actual location looks like, but the mention of "it's on the other side of a fence" earlier in the thread implies to me that one or both sides of the fence are private property. Is it possible that the land owner got tired of people stopping there to grab the cache and decide to remove it and filled the hole so that it wouldn't be replaced. Or, perhaps the road workere mentioned in recent logs pulled a NVDOT manoever and removed it as part of their road maintenance. Either way, if the land manager doesn't want it there, putting another cacher there after the hole was refilled (and digging out the dirt to do so) is not commendable as I see it, and could cause strife between the land manager and geocaching.


Exactly, and I thought buried caches were illegal. Something like that would get archived (and rightfully so) as soon as it was learned about by our local reviewer.

A cache is Location+Container+How it's Hidden. Changing any of these elements makes it a different cache.
If MINGO was replace with a Nano on the other side of the fence, would it be the same cache?


Either way, time to break out the tin-foil hats and get into geo-conspiracy mode. :lol:

The buried part was grandfathered a long time ago. Even the very first cache was buried.

#46 User is offline   SwineFlew 

  • Nobody
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2912
  • Joined: 23-September 09

Posted 27 June 2011 - 12:44 PM

I know this cache is grandfathered, but if the hole was refill, and you dig the dirt out, is that breaking the guideline? <_< :blink:

This post has been edited by SwineFlew: 27 June 2011 - 12:44 PM


#47 User is offline   Team GPSaxophone 

  • Smurfy Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 13332
  • Joined: 21-April 02

Posted 27 June 2011 - 12:57 PM

View PostSwineFlew, on 27 June 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

I know this cache is grandfathered, but if the hole was refill, and you dig the dirt out, is that breaking the guideline? <_< :blink:

The hole had been mostly filled in when I found it years ago. Would it be against the guidelines to scoop the loose dirt out back then?

#48 User is offline   Castle Mischief 

  • Unjustly Accused Since 1348
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4093
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 27 June 2011 - 01:12 PM

Wasn't the container replaced on this one in the past?

#49 User is offline   CanadianRockies 

  • CanadianRockies
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 2226
  • Joined: 08-May 09

Posted 27 June 2011 - 02:30 PM

In a way, I hope the person who walked off with A.P.E. is the same person who took MINGO. Assuming the cache owner is still active and is willing to replace the container and assuming the thief lives far away and is not immensely wealthy, then it's unlikely that the replacement container will go missing (at least not very often).

A worse scenario is that there might be a local with an axe to grind and is willing to repeatedly steal any replacement containers.

This post has been edited by CanadianRockies: 27 June 2011 - 03:07 PM


#50 User is offline   tmwed4 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 53
  • Joined: 10-December 09

Posted 27 June 2011 - 02:34 PM

It stinks this one's gone. I know when we found Hawg (GC1D0), second oldest in Tennessee, the real thrill was the original container and logbook being there after 10 whole years!! Gotta replace and fight against these thieves!

Share this topic:


  • (13 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked