MnGCA Home MnGCA
Minnesota Geocaching Association
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   User listUser list   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Metro bomb scare
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Draconisdax
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Nov 2007

Posts: 982
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AustinMN wrote:
ArcherDragoon wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
Pear Head wrote:
While I'm sure the cache owner meant no harm, I'm also sure the cache owner failed to notify the owner of the sign (either the local municipality or MnDOT) of the cache's existence, so the local PD wasn't aware of the cache. I could quote the guideline requiring permission here but it would be a waste of breath as everyone knows it.


Umm...this doesn't square with the original post.

MN.Fruitcake wrote:
The cache was apparently identified by MnDOT as a geocache before it was blown up.


Why would MnDOT identify it as a geocache if they didn't have some reason to know it was a geocache? Sounds to me like proper permission was obtained.

Austin


I take it to mean a crew working for MNDOT found it and "played" with it. Just because a crew found it and decided to have fun with it does not mean with was approved by MNDOT...


I see...and he did that while the bomb squad watched?


There is nothing in Fruitcake's post that states the DOT people were "playing" (my words) with the cache while the Bomb Squad was there. Had DOT been there while the Bomb Squad was there, the cache would have still been blown (and DOT would have been stopped by the Bomb Squad)...I would rather have them "error" on the side of safety.

DOT people doing maintenance stuff...found a cache...signed a log...nothing new about that. Bomb Squad having something reported to them as suspicious...error on the side of caution and blow it up...nothing new about that...

I think it is just a coincidence that both parties had "found" this cache...and it was treated in two very different ways.

And...on a personal note...can we please stop with this whole argument about using this to artificially inflate budgets...it has nothing to do with this thread or this incident...off-topic and only succeeds in flaming the thread...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Draconisdax
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Nov 2007

Posts: 982
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

schmittfamily wrote:
I am bit fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing - this would be an undesirable log?

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=3ef68dae-f466-48ab-8426-8cc145883cfe


(FYI - according to logs this cache was under review at the time and apparently was deemed ok)


Use your best judgement on the cache...if you think there are issues...at the very least post a NM log...

If you think it needs immediate reviewer attention (either for archival or more review)...most an NA...posting an NA does not get a cache automatically archived...sometimes there is additional info the reviewer has that the owner did not post on the page...other times it is a simple misunderstanding

If you are "worried" about community backlash...email a reviewer...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Boreal Walker
Geocacher


Joined: 14 Aug 2008

Posts: 224

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The best advice when hiding and finding a cache can get you far in life:
Don't be dumb and use common sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AustinMN
Geocacher


Joined: 21 Mar 2012

Posts: 108

PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ArcherDragoon wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
ArcherDragoon wrote:
AustinMN wrote:
Pear Head wrote:
While I'm sure the cache owner meant no harm, I'm also sure the cache owner failed to notify the owner of the sign (either the local municipality or MnDOT) of the cache's existence, so the local PD wasn't aware of the cache. I could quote the guideline requiring permission here but it would be a waste of breath as everyone knows it.


Umm...this doesn't square with the original post.

MN.Fruitcake wrote:
The cache was apparently identified by MnDOT as a geocache before it was blown up.


Why would MnDOT identify it as a geocache if they didn't have some reason to know it was a geocache? Sounds to me like proper permission was obtained.

Austin


I take it to mean a crew working for MNDOT found it and "played" with it. Just because a crew found it and decided to have fun with it does not mean with was approved by MNDOT...


I see...and he did that while the bomb squad watched?


There is nothing in Fruitcake's post that states the DOT people were "playing" (my words) with the cache while the Bomb Squad was there. Had DOT been there while the Bomb Squad was there, the cache would have still been blown (and DOT would have been stopped by the Bomb Squad)...I would rather have them "error" on the side of safety.

DOT people doing maintenance stuff...found a cache...signed a log...nothing new about that. Bomb Squad having something reported to them as suspicious...error on the side of caution and blow it up...nothing new about that...

I think it is just a coincidence that both parties had "found" this cache...and it was treated in two very different ways.

And...on a personal note...can we please stop with this whole argument about using this to artificially inflate budgets...it has nothing to do with this thread or this incident...off-topic and only succeeds in flaming the thread...


OK, now I am really confused. I would assume that "The cache was apparently identified by MnDOT as a geocache before it was blown up." means MnDOT prevented it from being blown up.

Was this cache blown up or not?

MN.Fruitcake wrote:
We recently (earlier this week) had a cache that was nearly blown up by the bomb squad in the metro area. I'm not clear at this point as to which cache it was, but I know it was in the SE metro.


Austin[/b]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Draconisdax
Geocacher


Joined: 02 Nov 2007

Posts: 982
Location: Southeastern Minnesota

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yep...my bad...
.
.
.
...That being said...had it been blown up (had DOT not been there)...I would still rather have the authorities "error" on the side of public safety...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beagleboo
Geocacher


Joined: 06 Sep 2007

Posts: 163

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ArcherDragoon wrote:
I would still rather have the authorities "error" on the side of public safety...


+1
From powder to plastics, fuse to proximity, labeled or unlabeled. Its the bomb squad officers call.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AerosmithPA
MnGCA President


Joined: 19 Nov 2005

Posts: 1054
Location: Grand Rapids

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

beagleboo wrote:
ArcherDragoon wrote:
I would still rather have the authorities "error" on the side of public safety...


+1
From powder to plastics, fuse to proximity, labeled or unlabeled. Its the bomb squad officers call.


After nearly a week of discussion the topic finally comes full circle. I believe the initial post was a caution to not let geocaching get to the point that highly trained and expensive officials are called out to make disposition on our little containers. The game we know today will not survive that scenerio.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dornole
Geocacher


Joined: 03 Apr 2006

Posts: 458

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Geez, and here I was wondering this whole time why, if they identified it as a geocache first, they still blew it up. Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
I Spy.
Geocacher


Joined: 16 May 2008

Posts: 142

PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Boreal Walker wrote:
The best advice when hiding and finding a cache can get you far in life:
Don't be dumb and use common sense.


Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
schmittfamily
Geocacher


Joined: 21 Sep 2012

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is there a flaw in the requirements from groundspeak? I have only one cache placed but the flow was place cache, fill out paperwork, and then get GC number. When was I suppose to put the GC number on the cache?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tonkaMN
MnGCA Board


Joined: 10 Jun 2009

Posts: 851

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

schmittfamily wrote:
Is there a flaw in the requirements from groundspeak? I have only one cache placed but the flow was place cache, fill out paperwork, and then get GC number. When was I suppose to put the GC number on the cache?


You can start to fill out the cache page, get the GC code, place the cache and finish the cache page.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
schmittfamily
Geocacher


Joined: 21 Sep 2012

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

True - but that isn't the flow for placing a cache as listed by Groundspeak.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
King Boreas
Geocacher


Joined: 16 Dec 2002

Posts: 2438
Location: Exploring Minnesota

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

schmittfamily wrote:
True - but that isn't the flow for placing a cache as listed by Groundspeak.


Where?

I guess you could do it that way, then return to mark it. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
schmittfamily
Geocacher


Joined: 21 Sep 2012

Posts: 111

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is what I ended up doing 6 months later.

I am probably fixating on the GC code part. The flow I was referencing was: http://www.geocaching.com/about/hiding.aspx

BTW- I think quoting the placement flow to the most prolific hider around gave me a rash. That or poison ivy from last weekend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mn-treker
Geocacher


Joined: 15 Sep 2011

Posts: 33

PostPosted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who says that you HAVE to place the container first.
I have Map software that came with my GPS.
I locate a spot on that map, then find out ownership.
I place a mark where I might hide then get coords from the map.
Then go through the placement process. I then have a GC number.
Granted I have not placed it on the container unless required.
But at this point I could write the name and GC number on the container.
I should mention that I do not check the submit button.
I then go out to the hide location with the container. I find a good spot and hide it. Take some new coords. Open the cache page for this hide and alter the coords to the correct ones and submit.
GC does not require you to place it before creating the cache page.
They require you to place it before submission.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    MnGCA Forum Index -> General All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Geocaching Cache Icons, Copyright 2009, Groundspeak Inc. All rights reserved. Used with Permission.