[GeoStL] Re: Should I keep up the Moving Cache?
- From: "Jim Bensman" <junkmailno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 21:37:46 -0500
-
Its up and going again. I put a note on the front of the log book
indicating it is a moving cache and if you are looking for another cache,
this one may be close to it. So keep looking.
Jim Bensman
"Nature Bats Last"
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:geocaching-
> bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve Bromley
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 12:10 PM
> To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Should I keep up the Moving Cache?
>
> -
> Jim,
>
> My vote is to "keep it". It is one of a kind in this area.
> I agree with other comments about hating to see virtuals and
> moving caches go out of existence because "when they're
> gone, they're gone." If you have trouble maintaining it,
> I'm sure that some of us can lend a hand in keeping it
> going.
>
> javapgmr
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Bensman" <junkmailno@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [GeoStL] Should I keep up the Moving Cache?
> Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 10:45:47 -0500
>
> >-
> >The final for my Moving Cache in Forest Park got muggled.
> >I am seeking input on if I should shut it down or replace
> >it.
> >
> >GC1D0F
> >
> >It is a popular cache with 175 finds and 18 people watching
> >it.
> >
> >I placed it in 2001. For those who have not found it, it
> >is a two part. You find the first part which has directions
> >to the second part. After you find the second part you
> >move it and then update the direction in the first part.
> >You are allowed to find it again after 10 others find and
> >move it.
> >
> >I thought it was an interesting concept. I hoped it would
> >give people an opportunity to practice doing a cache
> >without having to own it. Since you move the second part
> >after finding it, you can put it in a public area with lots
> >of mugglers.
> >
> >They will not allow a cache like this anymore. It is
> >grandfathered. That is one reason I tend to think I should
> >keep it. However, the reason why they don't allow this
> >kind of cache anymore is you could move the final close to
> >another cache or a waypoint. I think they want to be able
> >to approve all cache locations. In 2001, that really was
> >not an issue as there were hardly any caches. Now Forest
> >Park is full of caches and waypoints. So it is a major
> >issue for the cache today. The last time I moved it, a
> >short time latter I found a waypoint about 100 feet from
> >it.
> >
> >If they would allow these kinds of caches, I would shut it
> >down and set it up in a park with far fewer caches. But I
> >cannot do that.
> >
> >Someone recently logged another one of my "historic" caches
> >and indicted they really enjoyed finding a cache that had
> >been around so long.
> >
> >So I am torn on what to do with the cache.
> >
> >
> >
> >Jim Bensman
> >"Nature Bats Last"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ****************************************
> > For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including
> >unsubscribing from this
> > list, click ----->
> >//www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> > Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived
> >http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
>
> Steve
>
>
> ****************************************
> For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from
> this
> list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
****************************************
For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this
list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
Other related posts:
