Burn off most of the waste in breeder reactors (100x less waste in fact), and the remaining waste is only dangerous for a couple hundred years. That's easily stored underground for the duration. I'm also partial to the idea of dumping that into a subduction zone.

Let the waste sit in place for decades to decay away much of its radioactivity, dig a hole in a geologically boring mountain away from people, dump waste in the hole.

Alternative first step: build breeder reactors to recycle most of the waste into nuclear fuel and dump the smaller amount of leftovers in the mountain.

> dig a hole in a geologically boring mountain away from people

Where?

Where on Earth will you find a place that will still be like that in 200,000 years.

Nuclear waste doesn't need to be sequestered for anything like 200,000 years.

After a few hundred years it's no more radioactive than the rocks from which it came.

You seem to have the common misconception that "long half-life" = "more radioactive", when in fact "long half-life" = "less radioactive", by definition.

200,000 years is not much on geological timescales. Here's one example of a place with very stable geology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Shield

The other main thing to remember when burying nuclear waste is that it's important to keep it away from aquifers and generally any flow of water under the ground. Obviously you'd probably want to seal it in waterproof containers anyway, but it's better to not have to rely on the container staying intact over long spans of time.

Deep holes in mountains in deserts in tectonically boring locations in the middle of plates.

Ancient geologically stable rock formations exist