SE7EN

I'm not a fan of the "cache machine" concept. I'm sure they are fun socially and you can rack up a lot of finds in a short amount of time. I have a problem with the concept. If I'm understanding correctly. A bunch of people show up at the predetermined spot and at a certain time head off to the first cache on a list. The first ones there start looking. Once the cache is found and logged you head off to the next one. So, I take it that stragglers in the group could just be handed the logbook to sign when, in fact, they were never even on site when the cache was found. Then take into account the large number of people concentrated at one spot in a short amount of time, prompting the cache owner to move the cache because of maintenance issues.* I know this has been debated, but I didn't see an answer to the following questions: Can you designate your caches, either directly on the cache page or in your profile, as "no cache machines?" Further, if a cache machine hit a cache that you've declared free from cache machines, can you morally** delete find logs of those cachers? And, if someone did participate in a cache machine and had a log deleted, can they come back later and log it as a find without having it deleted? * Because the surrounding area can be trampled and because cache owners are supposed to be looking for ill effects the visitors are causing to the cache site, a social trail or signs of wear are supposed to prompt a removal of the cache, either permanantly or temporarily. **Trying to side-step the rightfully issue as I already know that a cache owner can do anything he wants with the logs. I'm asking is it can be considered proper among the majority of the community. No religious undertones implied. EDIT: imperfect command of the English language.

What's to happen if a company like Garmin or REI creates or sponsors a site and, say, has sweepstakes? Maybe give away a free GPS or other gear once a month to the best log? Eh, the possibility is there. But you're right, Jeremy could change the site to adjust. That reminds me of Delta airways. Anywhere where they have a monopoly in the market, their fares are three and four times neighboring cities. Buying a ticket at the counter to go to Atlanta? $1200. Take a 90 minute car trip and pay only $225! Real world example! The local chamber was told that because they are courting a value airlines to come here Delta was dropping their chamber membership. When a value airlines moves into a market that Delta has a monoploy, they will lower their fares until the value-based airpline goes out of business. Then they raise them once again. Monopolies are always good for the company and shareholders, but always bad for the consumer.

For your first question, yes absolutely. Jeremy knows first hand about that with the letterboxers. He wouldn't even have to go after you legally, the cachers would hang you! Second, who's to control the individual caches? Would you allow people to sign up and take over their caches? If so, what's to stop them from de-listing them there? Nothing. What if someone doesn't bother with keeping their cache info current on your site? Or worse, creates bogus information to tick people off that use your services? No, using gc.com as seed data is doomed before it even begins. As for your second question; no, not at all. In fact, Jeremy has created a opportunity for someone with talent, knowledge, and wherewithal to come in and trounce him in the market. By going to a form of (near) instant approval, limiting non-approval to illegal caches,* providing popular features, and doing it all for free would create an atmosphere that people would flock to. Jeremy would be left in the dust. Third question. I feel a site outlined above would be just the ticket that gc.com needs to have many fewer headaches. Someone doesn't like a gc.com rule? No problem, just go to another site instead of whining here. No more flame wars, or fewer at least. No more geocides. IMHO, just fewer problems all together. As long as all other sites works from the same page as to what is an illegal cache* all should be well. *Illegal caches would be defined as those that are not permitted on certain properties like NP, terrorist targets, etc. This does not include commercial caches, caches too close to other caches, or a host of other things that are prohibited here. Let me close this with my feelings about gc.com and TPTB. I am grateful Jeremy et al. created this site. I might not have started caching if it wheren't here. It does foster an atmoshpere where newbies can learn with relative ease. I don't like a lot of things that do go on here and I would like to see a few things change. If an another site pops up that I like more, I will go, but geocaching.com will always be where I learned the ropes.

I feel any time a person tries to unilaterally copy a cache list with full text they will not be successful. Far too many people will complain. Hopefully, anyone who has read the history of geoaching will understand that the people wouldn't like it. So, I don't think GJ would even think of trying to do that. However, a more probable scenario would be a stats site. A stats site wouldn't include full text of copyrightable material, it's more like news. News can print copyrighted material, up to a certain amount, things like quotes from a book and titles. Problem with someone using PQs to create a stats sites is it would be a violation of the TOS. You're not allowed to use PQs for anything other that internal use. I have no fear that GJ is creating another geocaching site. It would be doomed for failure before it even started.

My question would be probably be, "so what?" So what if you're downloading the entire database. Other that it's against the TOS, what harm is there in it? It's not as if you're downloading all at one time. Heck, I've probably run that many or more PQs--okay so there are only maybe 20 or so different versions, but again, so what? That is, unless we see a new site called "grizzlycaching.com!" Then I might take exception.

At the risk of being banned, I had to remove mine.

CITO! Looks like a fence post. Go to your local hardware store and buy a fence post cap and a hack saw if you don't have one. Go cut the fence post off close to the ground and put the cap on. No need to bother the park managers, just do what needs doing. If you are uncomfortable with cutting the post, just put the cap on. Do your part in keeping your parks clean. You do CITO when you get a chance, right? As for your injuries, my caching partner isn't happy unless she comes home with some type of cut, scrape, or bruise.

If anyone is really serious about stopping the cheating then there must be something in the cache that you take which is not easily reproducible and is unique to that cache. Something that you can't take back to your friends and pass around. Or it has to be something that you leave that someone else can't reproduce. So if a codeword can be given out to friends and series of codewords can taken and given to friends, then take is out. So any ideas of what that can be?

Seeing as you're the one who came up with this idea, apparently you do. No, problem. Call me a liar to my face in a public forum. However, the evidence is just above that shows either you didn't read the whole post much less the whole thread, have problems with reading comprehension, or just want to stir the pot. No wonder people choose to lurk instead of post. But, that's okay. I'll take my warning with this parting shot and leave you to your own devices. Closing thread as many people have made their opinion known and this is not popular. Withdrawing the idea. Start another thread if the discussion is important to you.

Personally, I don't like long drawn out cache descriptions--it makes for harder reading on the PDA. However, here's another idea. Post general coords to the town. Write clues that get a person to the area that Joe Hill was killed and have them find a prominent landmark like a tree or swingset. Have them mark that spot and then give an offset to those coords i.e. "Mark this spot and then add .035 to the latitude and subtract .007 from the longitude. Go there to find the cache." You could add other elements to the cache to force more research depth. Some say it's about the hunt, some say it's about trading, and for others it's something else. It could be about getting out, seeing nature, or a whole host of things. For me, it's about the adventure through time and space. Give me an interesting adventure and I'm happy.

Okay, but I didn't think you were a pirate. A pirate would have called himself Treasure Hunting Pirate or some such.

No, I don't sit around thinking of ways to keep people from cheating. Like I said in the opening post this idea pretty much just came to me in a flash after posting in another thread. Codewords of various natures have been discussed many times and always shot down for pretty much the same reason. This is a new twist on getting people to stop false logs. It's less work on the owner, less work on cachers who don't care is someone cheats, allows community involvement, and creates another layer of "authority" so someone might think twice before falsely logging. Me, I'll stick to what I've said before and at least one poster above said, print the cache sheet, actually go to the cache site, and compare. I don't have a problem with taking responsibility for my caches.

Wow. With the opinions expressed here I get the feeling we could do away with logbooks and find counts. How about it?

No offense taken. You are most probably right. The effort would outweigh the benefit. This was really a mental exercise. But, since, we're not doing the work to get it programmed... If Jeremy were doing it all over again, do you think it would be a good way to cut down on cheating and the resulting complaints? My significant other does accuse me of wasting time. I call it workin' the noggin!

While I just got through posting a note about the idea of using codewords to prevent cheating, I came up with another idea. This idea solves a couple of problems, absentee owners and cheaters that take advantage of it. Here's how it works: There is a button on each log that says "I Challenge This Log." The button is only visible if you've logged a find on the cache--some protection from false challenges. Once the button is clicked, there is a place to put the reason for the challenge. The challenge can optionally be anonymous, but it will probably be obvious who it is. There is an optional, cache-owner-set password to issue the challenge--further protection against false challenges. The cache owner or an approver can clear the challenge, but the challenge is never removed. The ruling will always stand. Reason: to head off future challenges of the same nature. The challengee can refute the challenge publicly or privately. The challenged can't return the challenge until cleared. Advantages to this scheme: Normally a cacher will not need the code word, therefore no extra work on a normal cacher. If he is not checking the log, then there is really no need to have the code word. Allows for anyone to challenge the log, not just the cache owner. Gets the community at large involved in policing each other and keeping people honest. No need for anyone to run to TPTB and complain "so-and-so is cheating." The question would be, does a challenge temporarily remove that person's find? I'm leaning towards, yes. While the find in dispute, it shouldn't count. He can leave it and loose the find. The challengee can refute the challenge. He can go back out and take a picture of the cache page and post it to his log. Other cachers can go out to check the log and post notes that indeed he signed the log. Then if the owner or an approver is satisfied the find is legitimate, the challenge is resolved and the find re-instated. In the meantime, the cache is returned to the search list with a question mark in place of the check mark to show he has a cache log in dispute. (Or maybe a ! instead.) Thoughts?

While many people don't care about the numbers, many others do. By allowing some to cheat it detracts from the game for others. Who did you put the cache out for, cachers or cheaters? I think a main issue for trying to keep people from cheating by using site contrived mechanisms is not wanting to do cache maintenance. Simply print out a full logs cache sheet of your log, go check on your cache, check the logs, and mark the cache sheet log for log. Go home and ask (tactfully) those who have logged online, but not the cache log, why that is. While you're at the cache site don't forget to do a site survey for signs of wear, remove trash, replenish swag, and CITO. It's your cache, take responsiblity for it.

Here is one story. Here is the text for archival purposes: Cyclists Mauled by Mountain Lion in Orange County Fri Jan 9, 8:35 PM ET The PIXPage Staff The condition of a woman mauled by a mountain lion in Orange County was improving Friday, while an autopsy was set for a second possible victim. The 30-year-old woman was cycling in Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park Thursday when a mountain lion pounced on her. The woman's friends helped fight the animal off, and she was airlifted to a hospital where she was in serious condition. The mountain lion that attacked the woman was tracked down, shot, and killed. It weighed more than 100 lbs. After the attack, officials found the body of a man in his 30s nearby. An autopsy will determine if he was also attacked by an animal, and if it was the same cat who mauled the cyclist.

This is seriously disturbing. Not just the intent of our pirate friend, but the actions of some of the posters here. Carleenp made the best response to date. (Why would anyone be surprised?) Alot of the others... Well, I know I've made comments in the past that upon reflection I've been embarassed to know I've made. There are plenty of posts made on this issue that should fall in that category. Does anyone not see that the actions of a select few posters here might have caused the problem in the first place? If all of the responses to Subigo's original post had been civil, then he might not have taken offense and gone into action. Yes, I know, he might have done it anyway or further down the road, but we don't know that. Further, it is obvious that he is fairly articulate and bright. But what's to happen the next time the forum bullies create a pirate and this time he is even more savvy than those that have come before? Quietly creating bogus accounts using proxies, creating overseas web accounts under false names or using protected domain name accounts, remailers, collecting email addresses from user's home pages, and quietly referring all malcontents to this new fully anonymous pirate site. I'm not going to post the complete recipe of how it can be done, but it very well could be unstoppable and larger than you can even possibly imagine. It could very well destroy all caching activity in active areas. Yeah, it's quite bit of a "Chicken Little" scenerio, but then again, so was the idea of someone threatening to steal caches. I'm not a fan of heavy-handed moderation, but there shouldn't be open season on newbies who complain. I sincerely hope a lesson has been learned here.

What if some joker replaces the coin with one of a different year?

Yep, exactly! So, what is the difference between getting "code" from the environment and putting the code there? There isn't one. Code word caches should be considered virts.

Do a search on the forums and you will find plenty of arguements of why it's not a good idea once you think it through. Basically, it comes down to it would cause all caches to become "Codeword Caches." People would stop seeing the need for a logbooks, then swag, then maintenance, then containers. Next thing you know, a cache is just a slip of paper thrown on the ground.

Norton Ghost is a wonderful thing. It's saved me tons of work. Just do a basic install, include all of your drivers and programs for your basic computing needs, make an image, and put it on a CD. There are other "drive imaging" programs out there that work well also. I just prefer Ghost. Do this and you'll never worry about lossing all of your caching info.

When caught like this it's best to explain what you're doing. However, it is also very important to always move a distance from the hidding spot before opening the container. The less time at the hidding spot the less likely someone will spy you and return to vandalize. Then, as you return the container, you're full attention can return to not getting caught.

A month and a half is nothing. Try a YEAR and a half. Personally, I like looking for caches that haven't been visited in a while. I find it creates a bit of uncertainty not knowing if the cache is there or not. Consequently, when I do find it there is more of a sense of accomplishment. Would I be opposed to a regulation that limited the time a cache is valid? VEHEMENTLY!

"Most beautful woman?" Jessica Biel is certainly a very attractive young woman. However, I choose this shot because cropping it this way gives a less sultry, more mysterious look. It's hard to read the expression. Is it a "come hither" look? Or is it something more sinister? Is this the last image the doomed man sees?