Jump to content


Photo

Another new statute from PR


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 log dawgs

log dawgs

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • LocationThe Woodlands, TX

Posted 09 February 2013 - 08:54 PM

Just in case you didn't know this as I didn't.   PR stated this to me just now.

I said there is precedent.

"That's from years before the Challenge guidelines were even written. Please note from the Guidelines: "Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches. This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is."


Posted Image
Posted Image

#2 ohl hockey guy

ohl hockey guy

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,152 posts
  • LocationFriendswood, TX

Posted 09 February 2013 - 09:46 PM

That has been around for years. I remember being told that 4-5 years ago or more.


Posted ImagePosted Image

#3 cachestacker

cachestacker

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,002 posts
  • LocationClear Lake

Posted 09 February 2013 - 09:51 PM

It's in the knowledge books.  Reiterated in the Challenge Cache section.  And - it's PR's favorite catchphrase!  I expected it on my Benchmark Types Challenge that published the other day.  Never had a challenge cache publish so quickly.  Was unexpected.


Posted Image

#4 log dawgs

log dawgs

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • LocationThe Woodlands, TX

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:14 PM

Well I guess I am just a moron


  • Baytown Bert likes this
Posted Image
Posted Image

#5 HoustonControl

HoustonControl

    Charter Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,878 posts
  • LocationBaytown

Posted 09 February 2013 - 11:35 PM

Yeah, never try to point to an existing cache as reason PR should publish yours.  He'll trot out that "no precedence" line...


img.aspx?txt=What+in+the+Hell?&uid=1dd8c

#6 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,263 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 10 February 2013 - 04:46 AM

Maybe we can start a "Nighttime Moron" group, cause I am an expert.  LOL


TXGA SETX Representative


#7 log dawgs

log dawgs

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • LocationThe Woodlands, TX

Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:28 PM

Well I pull the precedence punch a lot.  Old law school habits die hard.  Considering in 98% of the world it does matter.


  • Baytown Bert likes this
Posted Image
Posted Image

#8 log dawgs

log dawgs

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • LocationThe Woodlands, TX

Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:29 PM

Maybe we can start a "Nighttime Moron" group, cause I am an expert.  LOL

Let's do that Bert.  I think we could be the charter members.


  • Baytown Bert likes this
Posted Image
Posted Image

#9 Baytown Bert

Baytown Bert

    Short fat dude with good hygiene

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,263 posts
  • LocationBaytown, Texas

Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:19 PM

Well, you're good with me, my friend.  Peace!


TXGA SETX Representative


#10 2katz

2katz

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 595 posts
  • LocationSpring

Posted 11 February 2013 - 08:46 AM

I'll join, I'll join!!      A perfect fit for me!!


  • Baytown Bert likes this
Posted Image

#11 ProMed Rick

ProMed Rick

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • LocationOrangefield, TX

Posted 12 February 2013 - 10:40 AM

Prime Reviewer seems to me to be a split personality, for most of us he interprets the "guidelines" in the strictest way possible. But on occasion he will completly ignore the most enforced of the "guidelines". Some examples include a blatently Commercial Cache placement Zumba'd Out of Here! GC2VE24, a cache placed less than 50 feet from an existing (disabled) cache roger Roger GC421HG was placed while Roger! GC18KBR was still active on GC.com, and the latest Quick and Easy GC457A7 placed less than 80 feet from a very active railroad track.



#12 HoustonControl

HoustonControl

    Charter Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,878 posts
  • LocationBaytown

Posted 12 February 2013 - 01:32 PM

Yeah, Duck Crossing #3 got published while the old Duck Crossing #3 was still active 65' away!  Sure, it was temporarily disabled, but it still showed on the map.  Not sure how that happened either.


img.aspx?txt=What+in+the+Hell?&uid=1dd8c

#13 Eagles1181

Eagles1181

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 884 posts

Posted 12 February 2013 - 01:57 PM

Yeah, Duck Crossing #3 got published while the old Duck Crossing #3 was still active 65' away!  Sure, it was temporarily disabled, but it still showed on the map.  Not sure how that happened either.

It pays to have friends in high places.

 

Eagle


Posted Image

#14 log dawgs

log dawgs

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • LocationThe Woodlands, TX

Posted 12 February 2013 - 01:57 PM

Yeah, Duck Crossing #3 got published while the old Duck Crossing #3 was still active 65' away!  Sure, it was temporarily disabled, but it still showed on the map.  Not sure how that happened either.

Yes that was a funny one.  A new cache in GBP published last week 100 feet from a puzzle final which is only a few years old.


Posted Image
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users