| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Haggis Hunter
Founder member
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 2487
Location: The building site formally known as Edinburgh!
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:36 am Post subject: Please Delete Your Illegitimate Finds! |
 |
|
I have been watching a cache in East Lothian, that I have had a feeling was going to turn out to be controversial. The owner has just posted this disablement log.
It appears from the log that the owner is saying that underhand dealings are happening and that his cache should have been disabled, but has oddly became active. He has requested that all of the cachers who have found the cache, that they delete their logs as their finds are illegitimate.
As I have been watching the cache, since a log of mine was deleted by the owner (not a find I may add), and the cache was very much active then, and I have never received a disablement or enablement email, then I am a bit confused about the whole log and why people need to delete their legitimate finds?
Should these people delete their logs or leave them? 
_________________
Let me know if I say anything that offends you
I might want to offend you again later  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mrs I
Member
Joined: 03 Oct 2005
Posts: 284
Location: Falkirk, Scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Leaving it, found a live cache
_________________
Carol
x |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Haggis Hunter
Founder member
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 2487
Location: The building site formally known as Edinburgh!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mrs I wrote: | | Leaving it, found a live cache |
Quite right too! 
_________________
Let me know if I say anything that offends you
I might want to offend you again later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Firth of Forth
Founder member
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1493
Location: East Lothian, Scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
er um...it's in West Lothian, not East Lothian. 
Pedantic FoF
PS And it's ridiculous to ask cachers to delete their logs of caches which they have actually found, unless the cache page states that there is something else that they must do, and haven't done, in order to find the cache.
_________________
Utterly smitten by a Captain
And now Mrs Aubrey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghiribizzo
Member
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 510
Location: Ferryport-on-Craig. The Kingdom of Fife.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I read intrigued and when (pedantic) FoF mentioned West Lothian I thought... I bet...
Well whaddya know.
Nothing like an easy life, eh? 
_________________
Anyone for a Hot Cross bun and a Creme Egg? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ghiribizzo
Member
Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 510
Location: Ferryport-on-Craig. The Kingdom of Fife.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just had a look at it again - as Mrs I says: "it says the cache is at 55° 56.461'N 3° 41.DEF'W, while further up the page it mentions the cache is at 55° 56.461'N 3° 41.D75'W. and the only puzzle we needed to solve was for D. Not sure what E&F refer to."
Looks like the whole cache could do with an edit for simplicity. 
_________________
Anyone for a Hot Cross bun and a Creme Egg?
Last edited by ghiribizzo on Sun Oct 22, 2006 6:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wildlifewriter
Founder member
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 948
Location: Norn Iron
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:37 am Post subject: Re: Please Delete Your Illegitimate Finds! |
|
|
| Haggis Hunter wrote: | | Should these people delete their logs or leave them? |
I'd just leave that up the individual finders.
Bearing in mind that the cache owner has very little clue about the true purpose of geocaching, (and none at all about how to include coded co-ords, it seems) his judgement on this - as on most other things - is likely to be flawed.
His assertion that the cache was disabled earlier (there's no record of it) and then mysteriously re-activated by shadowy and inimical Powers will not surprise those of us who know his past record.
-Wlw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coolCal
Member
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 379
Location: Glasgow
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's a long rant by the cache owner about it on another forum, which I felt was very unfair, particularly as he made comments about folk bagging finds on this 'disabled cache', which, like HH said, we have never had a notification about . It's also on our watch list and the first e-mail we have had about it being disabled came this morning.
Mrs cC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Haggis Hunter
Founder member
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 2487
Location: The building site formally known as Edinburgh!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ooops yes silly me 'West Lothian' (no wonder I have been struggling to find caches recently??)
I think he is pointing fingers where they shouldn't be pointed at. At this rate I would be surprised if his other caches get approved. If they don't and he doesn't enable this one, then within a month or two this one will get archived along with all the others that get left disabled.
It's a good job I never had any plans to rush out and do this cache.
_________________
Let me know if I say anything that offends you
I might want to offend you again later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wildlifewriter
Founder member
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 948
Location: Norn Iron
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| coolCal wrote: | | There's a long rant by the cache owner about it on another forum, which I felt was very unfair, |
2 x Tautology: It's impossible for The Forester to produce short rant about anything.
It's also unlikely that any rant of his will contain comments that a fair-minded person would regard as "fair."
-Wlw |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Haggis Hunter
Founder member
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 2487
Location: The building site formally known as Edinburgh!
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ghiribizzo wrote: | Just had a look at it again - as Mrs I says: "it says the cache is at 55° 56.461'N 3° 41.DEF'W, while further up the page it mentions the cache is at 55° 56.461'N 3° 41.D75'W. and the only puzzle we needed to solve was for D. Not sure what E&F refer to."
Loks like the whole cache could do with an edit for simplicity. |
In my log that got deleted this had actually been pointed out to him -
On an upbeat note however the cache area does look like a good one. I look forward to visiting it when I get the chance, and of course once I understand why the cache co-ords are listed twice? Once with just a 'D' to find and again with the letters 'DEF' to find. However I may be blind but I can't see any reference to clues 'EF'????
He then sent me a rather disturbing email, which I won't go fully into, but in it he said -
Thanks for pointing out my silly blooper with the alphanumeric co-ords. It was a result of the original format for all six of the caches being a six-part layout (each). Originally there were six intermediate points, for the three decimal places of Lat and of Long. It was pointed out to me by TPTB that there is a new rule which now applies the same rigorous "proximity" rule (0.1mile exclusion zone) around the intermediate points of multis as was already applied to physical cache locations.
That email was sent to me on the 5th September, before the cache was found. Looks like he isn't too bothered about updating the cache to avoid confusion for others to find. Or maybe Mrs I's log has jogged his memory and this is now an elaborate excuse to blame the approvers for his mistake??
P.S. I haven't got a clue about the proximity rule that he is going on about, he must have a waypoint near another caches waypoint or another cache? As multi WP's can be as close as you want, as long as they are for the same multi!! or have I got that wrong?
_________________
Let me know if I say anything that offends you
I might want to offend you again later |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jacobite
Founder member
Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 459
Location: Longformacus, Scotland.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read this cache within days of it being published. I found one comment in the cache description to be deeply offensive, thus making me not want to do this, or any cache belonging to the cache owner. I had put the matter to the back of my mind, which is where it's now going to be put on a permanent basis.
Enough said! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wildlifewriter
Founder member
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 948
Location: Norn Iron
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Haggis Hunter wrote: | | P.S. I haven't got a clue about the proximity rule that he is going on about, he must have a waypoint near another caches waypoint or another cache? As multi WP's can be as close as you want, as long as they are for the same multi!! or have I got that wrong? |
It's a different cache.
The confusion exists only in his own mind (as usual) and in his tortured use* of English. The allegedly 'unpublished' rule is, in fact, part of the standard guidelines and the relevant section can be found HERE
The Forester was perfectly well aware of this condition when he set the cache, and chose to ignore it - because no other location would allow him to make the malicious point that was the reason for the cache in the first place.
His complaint now is that this rule - along with other rules regarding behaviour, honesty and consideration for others, presumably - should not apply to him.
-Wlw
*-The word 'tortuous' also applies - but I have not made a mistake, here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Firth of Forth
Founder member
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1493
Location: East Lothian, Scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jacobite wrote: | I read this cache within days of it being published. I found one comment in the cache description to be deeply offensive, thus making me not want to do this, or any cache belonging to the cache owner. I had put the matter to the back of my mind, which is where it's now going to be put on a permanent basis.
Enough said! |
This cache will be on my ignore list. I certainly wouldn't want to be accused of doing something 'illegitimate', like only finding the one piece of information that's required.
_________________
Utterly smitten by a Captain
And now Mrs Aubrey |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dino
Member
Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 68
Location: Killygordon, Co. Donegal
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 22, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: Re: Please Delete Your Illegitimate Finds! |
|
|
| Haggis Hunter wrote: | | I have been watching a cache in East Lothian, that I have had a feeling was going to turn out to be controversial........ |
I must be totally thick or else I'm completely missing something. Why would this cache be controversial (personal conflicts aside which I am aware of)?
_________________
No one is listening until you fart! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Games
