southdeltan

Oh yea, hope you read German... sd

Here's the cache in question: No Members Please sd

My opinion is that stupid logging requirements are.. well... stupid. If the cache was near me, and I found it, I would log it. If he deleted it, I would relog it. southdeltan

No offense man - but your logic is... well wrong. The main GC.com page: www.geocaching.com : is THE most viewed page on this website. I'd wager that it's the most viewed by FAR. I actually am sitting here doing the same thing. sd

It wasn't a rule, just a suggestion. Those aren't the only 2 reasons people post duplicate threads, but I digress I'll lock this thread now. sd

While reading this thread, I had a suggestion for the problem RK aludes to in his editorial take on the "locked thread paradox". The topic of the thread may not have been clear and it was taken off topic in my opinion. Here is the original post: My suggestion is this: Create a new forum that everybody can read but only moderators can post to. Move all moderator locked threads to this forum. Leave a "shadow topic" in the old forum (IE, the "This thread has been moved link.) The moderator that closed/moved the topic could (perhaps) post the name of the forum where the topic was originally posted in a "final" post. I'm not suggesting this because I have a problem with threads being closed or because I think the guidelines need to be changed. I think this would be beneficial to those people that come on and post something not knowing it'd been posted and locked for whatever reason. (Duplicate threads, violoating forum guidelines, etc). Sometimes the moderators ask people not to post duplicates of locked threads... and even if they don't - knowing what threads were locked recently would help cut down on repeats. This won't solve the people starting repeats to be buttheads (Oops, to try to prove their point)... but it'd solve problems for people that aren't intending to be buttheads. This doesn't necessarily apply to threads that are locked by the OP (original poster, or thread starter). Of course - this might not truly be a big issue - but I figured I'd mention the suggestion anyway. southdeltan

To serve as a confusing, false example to others, to do the same in the future? Yeah, that's really what we need. It's funny how people talk about wanting consistency in cache approval, and then complain when they're not allowed to break the rules. I agree. Grandfathered caches are a double edged sword. This clearly isn't grandfathering. The rule existed and the approver slipped. It happens. People make mistakes - and if possible they correct them. (Hopefully...) I saw this quote earlier: What about the other guidelines? Are you also saying they should also be enforced UNLESS the approver makes a mistake? Lets say there's a cache that's on private property. It gets approved. It's later discovered that it's on private property - and you have to jump a fence and walk past dozens of "no trespassing" signs. The "SBA" log is used. Should it be archived? I mean... it's breaking a rule... but it was already listed so we have to keep it... right? Is that what you're saying? Either you're for the "no charity" rule or you are against it. You can't mix the issue of a particular guideline with enforcement of guidelines in general. southdeltan

Pot, meet kettle. sd

Thanks Markwell. I was thinking of that specific thread but I couldn't remember enough about it to come up with search criteria (rating systems are a fairly regular suggestion around here, I'm sure there are many threads on this). I really like the final version of this as J mentioned in that thread. sd

Editted to remove dribble. The Sax man said it far better than I did. I agree with him totally. southdeltan

I couldn't resist but maybe I should have I thought I saw somebody (perhaps you) mention something about making "temp disable" a log type. I think that will be a big improvement. Thanks! sd

It can be justified in some instances, but generally it's not the normal practice. Some possible reasons for removing a cache that doesn't belong to you temporarily: You were seen with the cache and couldn't replace it at the time due to onlookers. You are maintaining the cache for the owner. The owner is inactive and you, as an active part of the community, is taking care of it yourself (these usually lead to adoptions). I'm sure there are others good (or better reasons) than those. But, like I said, it's not normally accepted - if you don't have a good reason - you should leave the cache where it was. southdeltan

I read about this cache on page 55 of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Geocaching. southdeltan

Maybe it would be a good idea to go ahead and trigger a message to the owner. As an owner, I would be interested if people were wanting to ignore my cache instead of find it. I don't think so. This should be the one single log option which is entirely private. Moreover, it might be temporary: you could delete your ignore log after a while, like any other log. While I agree that WHO is ignoring a cache should be private info, I think the cache owner should know HOW MANY people are ignoring their cache. Just like with watching a cache. I don't know WHO is watching my cache, but I know HOW MANY. I think the # of people ignoring a cache would be as valuable, or even more valuable than how many people are watching it. I agree with IV totally. I'd think that owners should be the only ones that could see the TOTAL number of people ignoring, not WHO was ignoring. southdeltan

This is one of my top feature requests. There are caches that I will NEVER do for a variety of reasons. I use the "nearest unfound cache" page very heavily and these caches make it so I have to scroll one or more (especially in the near future as I clear out some more of the caches I want to find and/or can find). I've heard the 3rd party software solution time and time again - and it's just not a solution for me. I hear people get told time and time again when they complain and/or suggest something "Play the game the way you like to play". I like to play using the "nearest unfound cache" page to plan my hunts. southdeltan

-bump- Jeremy? Yes? No? Maybe? Bugger off? sd

Not only do I like an accurate representation of my finds (As the hider said himself - "My finds are for me". Well, mine are for me too) but I also depend heavily on the "Nearest unfound cache" page. I think it's unfair that players can force people to play the game they want to play. I use the nearest unfound cache page (Please don't suggest 3rd party software - I hear time and time again "Play the game the way you like" and I like to play my game using the nearest unfound cache page). While I don't live near this particular cache, since thiere is precendent I guess it's only a matter of time before I have one near me. It's one thing to not be able to log a cache because you can't find it - it's another to not be able to log it because of some assanine "logging rule". Do you plan on adding an 'ignore cache' feature? Aside from that, I suppose I would just log the find every time it was deleted. I guess I still stand by my original post in the now locked thread, found over here. southdeltan

In another thread, "Archive or Disable cache?", the problem of accidental and/or innapropriate "owner" archivals was mentioned. Archival confirmations were subsequently reworded to provide a clearer (beefed up, as one person put it) explanation of what will happen when you archive a cache. I think that was a step in the right direction. I have a suggestion that may help to furthur decrease the number of unnecessary or unintentional archivals: Another reason people get them confused is they don't see the link for 'Temporarily Disable'. Yea, I know it's obvious... if you already know where it is. Most of the other actions dealing with caches are in the upper right of the cache page. I vaguely remember hearing somebody mention that "Temporarily Disabled" might be changed to a log-type. I'm not sure if this is the case. That would require 2 new logtypes actually: Disable and Enable. I'm not sure if that's in the works or if you even want to get into that... But how about you move the link to "Temporarily Disable" from here: to the upper right of the page... over here: I'd suggest adding it between "Upload Images" and "Archive this cache". southdeltan

This is inconsiderate, to say the least. One of the main tools I use to geocache is the "Nearest unfound cache" link on my cache page. It's there to be used, and the site admin didn't intend for it to be there, they'd remove it. I don't want to hear the "3rd party software" crap - I don't like to cache like that (That being said, I do use it for somethings - but I refuse to use it for this - and that's my right). I don't give a dadgum how somebody else likes to cache. ("Cache the way you like to cache"). This would drive me insane, especially if I FOUND the cache. I suppose I would just post a log find every day. I found it, I want accurate records and *I* use the website to keep my records. (Again, I don't care how other people keep theirs). Perhaps the owner wouldn't like this - I don't like being told how to play the game. I'm sure I'm not alone in this. I know plenty of folks that are fairly serious about keeping a radius around their home clear as well. Some people like FTFs, some people like hiding lots of caches, some people like travelbugs - well some like to keep their area clear. It's bad enough there's caches I can't physically find because of special tools - but this is just pointless and rude. I hope for an ignore feature every day. (It'd be nice if the cache owner saw "X people are ignoring your cache" - maybe they'd get the clue). southdeltan

I agree totally. sd

CR, I agree with you totally. I think Mopar has a, while controversial, possible solution. I don't think you should hide a cache if you can't take care of it. It's one thing if it's at your childhood home and your parents are going to look out for it and you will be returning to the area - it's entirely another if you have to go search out somebody you do not know to maintain it. southdeltan

If you are serious about confronting her, I'd suggest actually going to the law firm and asking to speak to somebody in person. If a previous poster is correct, she's not a partner - possibly she is the person who answered the phone. I'd think the fact that you showed up there and mentioned theft and the authorities, in front of her bosses, would scare the hell out of her. I doubt anybody would admit they did it at that point - of course you could mention whereit is and that the person lives there and that'd narrow it down. I wouldn't be rude about it. I'd be honest and to the point. Of course, that could be to confrontational (and perhaps it isn't the best and most realistic idea). Perhaps a well thought out letter addressed to several of the partners explaining what happend and that you called and recieved no help from the secretary... That might get you somewhere. Perhaps call the secretary and say "Please help me, or I will make sure I mention the lack of help from you when I send letters to the partners". Personally, I think it's stealing - but realistically you'd have a hard time proving it in court or anything. It wouldn't be worth it monetarily, but I see your point about the principle of the matter. Oh well - at the very least make it a "MOC". Don't give up. If the preserve has no rules against geocaching - the general public has no right being the "cache police". southdeltan

Seems like this thread has served it's purpose. Perhaps it should be locked now? sd

-bump- Not even a - no? sd

You really should start seperate threads to discuss these 3 things. Numbers 2 and 3 are not related at all. It's often hard enough to discuss 1 topic in a thread without it going off-topic, not sure how 3 different things will be discussed. southdeltan