southdeltan

I have read that post, as well as every post in that thread since then. I am supposed to be ashamed because of blatant lies, misinformation, and inaccuracies that were presented as facts? If you read it, you would have seen that in the beginning Ms. Ceips and her supporters made references to geocachers damaging and robbing graves. In the LAST discussion of this - she admitted she had no evidence of that. So, tell me why in the heck am I supposed to be ashamed? Also - while I do agree with you that it is common courtesy that one speak to the manager of a park, many don't interpret that rule as meaning that. It also is not enforced to mean that unless there is a known policy in the park. sd

Yes, I've been very excited about this, even though I am not a birdwatcher. I live near (and my family has land adjoining) the Delta National Forest in Mississippi and for years people have been very adamant that this bird still exists here. There have been no verifiable sightings however. This discovery in Arkansas gives us even more hope that the Lord God bird (as the locals here call it) is still around and can be verified HERE. I have family members and many friends that have claimed to have sighted the bird. As for a geocaching link - aside from the name Cache River, the researchers used GPS devices in their research. I have several caches in the Delta National that are in likely habitat for this bird. southdeltan Editted to add *Here*.

Mrs. CacheNCarry and I refer to "Law&Order:Criminal Intent" as "CSI:Edgar" because: 1) All the L&O / CSI shows look the same 2) It's hard for us to see Vincent D'Onofrio and not think of "Edgar" from "The Men In Black" (in our house "L&O:Special Victims Unit" is known as "Law&Order SUV".) Edgar: That's Eg-ur, not Edgar. sd

Your reply is unrelated and utterly ridiculous. Junglehair is just doing her duty by helping caches stick to the guidlines. I guess this means that the "rules" can be broken if you have money? Perhaps YOU should read the guidelines. There are no guidelines against religious based items in caches, that includes travelbugs. You should also read the fine print about solicitation. It's not soliciting if they're working with Groundspeak. sd

I would have no problem with it. Regular geocachers send religious TBs out all the time. Big deal. If I can help move them, I do. If I can't, I leave them in the cache. sd

I generally trash out logbooks that have red, blue, green, or yellow covers. Those items offend me and I don't have the self control to ignore them. sd

You might try the benchmarking forum. If I recall there's a bookmarked thread. Groundspeak has also created a forum for the National Map Corps - another NGS project. From what I've seen the NGS seems to be very receptive of geocachers "recovering" (finding and reporting the condition) of benchmarks and other structures. sd

I agree. sd

This may be true, but nobody else that attended recieved credit for the "hide". sd

I haven't met any in Mississippi and we have the highest % of black residents of any state. (And the highest % of black elected officials.) I only know of one family that geocaches (and is a forum semi-regular). It doesn't seem to be an activity that's very popular with Americans of African descent. southdeltan

I haven't done any caching that far west in Arkansas, but I know where you can get more information: That Arkansas Geocachers Association website: www.arkgeocaching.org They have many friendly cachers that can provide you with information about specific caches. southdeltan

Let's not forget that logs can contain spoilers. While some geocachers want every find to be a "gimme" - not all geocachers want their hunt ruined by unnecessary hints or outright directions on how to find a cache. southdeltan

Swamp Thing, I don't know if you are going to the meeting tomorrow, but I hope you are able to attend. You make several valid points. sd

Perhaps I'm missing something. Doesn't geocaching.com approve earthcaches too? Why would they approve a cache as an earthcache if it didn't meet some other requirement? sd

Hang on... this is not what is being discussed here. I am looking to hear from people who have already gone through this process - and not looking to go through it just yet. We (I initially, then another community member) approached the British approvers but were rebuffed. However, my initial approach was a simple query rejected on volume levels, and the second ended in semantics and dissection of individual caches, and neither were very productive. I realized that after I posted, but was too lazy to go back and edit my post before people replied. As far as I know, there have NOT been any people who have selected their approver. Of course, after reading this furthur - you intitially asked on volume. If the second issue was THE issue, why not approach on that? It seems like you just want another approver, while that may not be the case. I know what you mean, and I am not going to encourage discussion on the matter, and hope others do not follow this path. However, a reason I chose to post here was because this area of the forums are frequented by US cachers who's immediate focus on the issue I am highlighting would not be political. Apparantly you do not know Americans that well. Just because people don't live in your area (or even your country) doesn't mean this won't become polarized. Trust me on this. sd

Based on this - I would say the "General Forum" is not the place for this thread. The "Geocaching.com Website" might be more appropriate - but I feel that if this is something that British GC.com approvers have discussed with locals in your area - and are in agreement with you - this should be handled internally. Emailing Hydee and/or contact@ would probably be a better way to go about this. You're VERY likely to see people start arguing the sides of the problems that are the causes of the "problems" in your country. (No offense meant). southdeltan

Forgive Mopar. He means well, he's just grumpy He is correct. Groundspeak makes these decisions. It is a private listing company. However, due to the unique nature of geocaching, it seems that locals would have more say than they do. Of course, locals have plenty of say - they just don't get to select approvers. There are several sides to the arguement: 1) a local will know more about the local caching scene. I agree this is probably true in many cases but not every case. 2) Locals should be approvers. An approver should come from outside of an area so everybody in the area has a "fair" chance at finding the caches. Approvers might cheat if they approved a cache in their area (especially multi and/or puzzle types). 3) Groundspeak is a company and will do what is in the best interest of the game (and consequently their finances). They know what they're doing - be patient and they'll take care of it. If there's a legitimate need for more approvers, Groundspeak will add more. They just might not be the people you think they should be. This of course has caused a bit of friction among regions and Groundspeak in the past. I'm sure it will continue to do so. It does seem that for the most part the way they are currently doing things has been successful in most (if not all) situations. southdeltan

You can. From your profile (My Cache Page) there is a feature that allows you to email other geocachers using their username. There is also a feature on the search page (Hide and Seek a cache) that allows you to search for caches a user has found. If they haven't found any, it should show up blank. IF their user account does not exist you will get an error message. southdeltan

In your area??? There are TWICE as many caches within 100 miles of a cache you found that in my whole state. There are over 60 caches within 10 miles of that cache. You've found a total of 14 in 4 years (unless A) you don't log or B.) this is a sock puppet). Doesn't sound like a problem of numbers to me. sd

Any legislation restricting our sport is a bad thing. Any cacher who suppodely violates a graveyards needs to be policed No, any PERSON who violates a graveyard should be prosecuted. There are ALREADY laws in place for this. sd

I don't know if many of the NOLA bunch (or LA bunch, for that matter) are regular readers of this forum - so you might try visiting their local website: http://www.lageocaching.org/ It's the Louisiana site, but it is a bit N.O.-centric. sd

It's not tresspassing unless nobody is allowed there. If the entire issue isn't visitors but a dislike for the cache itself, that's best dealt with by the local cache group. They should have the direct knowledge and should have sought out the land manager. That means they remove the cache on behalf of the land manager, and they do the same for any future caches. Land manager? It's a private cemetary. If it's private it's private. If you're going to place a cache, you better be d@mn sure that permission is not required and it is a public space. If I was the average person and found a geocache on my land, why would *I* be responsible for contacting GC.com or a "Local cache group" ? I would very likely know nothing about geocaching. It's not my responsibility to contact the participants - just to contact the authorities. A "local cache group" has no authority over MY private property and wouldn't have permission to go onto it to remove any caches. sd

Unfortunately, we've not been having much success getting problem caches archived even with photographic proof of activity that's beyond questionable. The SBAs just haven't been working. A note to Hydee seems as though it's what it takes to get a cache archived. That's bizarre. I too find it sad that instead of the landowner seeking prosecution on current laws (tresspassing for sure, possibly vandalism??) they seek to have new laws passed. However, I do not think it is the owners obligation to contact GC.com. They are not geocachers and the objects were placed on their property without permission. This is why caches should be marked clearly, with contact information in or on the cache, and why permission should be obtained. I knew it would be a matter of time before the lack of permission would come back to bite us. Where there any other comments by the Representative about this? Is this something that can be fixed? sd

No, the state pretty much likes us as we've been pretty responsible in those areas up to this point. I've spoken with Representative Ceips, the person who introduced the bill. At issue is specifically a series of caches that have you visit cache placed without permission in private cemeteries. I've already shot over a note to Hydee requesting more information on how to proceed. How to proceed? Private property without permission? SBA? sd?

Phones have been used in mystery caches before: Long Distance Call and Long Distance Call There are some others too. sd