snowfrog

"Come on" by "The Panderers"

I'd cover all of them. So if you grind off "Colt" from the weapon,or grind off "Face toward Enemy" from the claymore mine, it will be seen as less threatening by some who may stumble upon it.Think anybody would pick up a stick of dynamite to read the label or just assume that it what it looks like. I would think that most folks could identify U.S. military ammo boxes without any trouble. The fact that labels are removed won't make them less threatening.........most civilians can't interpret the military lingo anyway. It just an ammo box, call the cops!The cops show up if a threat is perceived,.....the bomb squad blows it up whether it has a label or not.In some rare instances, geocachers have helped LEO's indentify cache containers found by accident, but you want to chance it?Eliminate the chance of legal action against you, rare though it be, just say No to military containers. There are too many other options that are cheaper anyway. Cheapest I see, is $5-$20 a piece at most surplus stores or flea markets.What if you get pulled over by LEO's on the way home from the surplus store, and they spot a dozen ammo boxes in the back seat, you will be "detained". I think it all goes to WHERE and HOW you hide these ammo cans. If they are out in the middle of the woods, nobody will give them a second thought. But if they are next to a built up area or possible 'target' location it may be viewed a bit differently. I have no issue with military ammo cans used in the way they are, heck the first ammo can I seen was full of rusty tools Yes, it is reccomended that the markings be taken off, but more importantly I think that Geocaching markings be added. And as to ammo being recalled because of an incident off post, I think it is highly unlikely. It takes a few incidents at a range or other location before a whole lot is suspended for use, and that is only after it has been determined that it is the ammo and not the weapon that is at fault. In the woods probablyyyy not. Doesn't have to be near a target though to get unwanted attention. For the same reason we shouldn't put caches near schools or playgrounds is because the container and/or activity involved in searching, is suspect, and you as a seeker are a perceived threat. So we avoid it, right... because they're are plenty of other places to hide them!

Huh? I'd cover all of them. So if you grind off "Colt" from the weapon,or grind off "Face toward Enemy" from the claymore mine, it will be seen as less threatening by some who may stumble upon it.Think anybody would pick up a stick of dynamite to read the label or just assume that it what it looks like. I would think that most folks could identify U.S. military ammo boxes without any trouble. The fact that labels are removed won't make them less threatening.........most civilians can't interpret the military lingo anyway. It just an ammo box, call the cops!The cops show up if a threat is perceived,.....the bomb squad blows it up whether it has a label or not.In some rare instances, geocachers have helped LEO's indentify cache containers found by accident, but you want to chance it?Eliminate the chance of legal action against you, rare though it be, just say No to military containers. There are too many other options that are cheaper anyway. Cheapest I see, is $5-$20 a piece at most surplus stores or flea markets.What if you get pulled over by LEO's on the way home from the surplus store, and they spot a dozen ammo boxes in the back seat, you will be "detained". Why does Vinny's post say 'snowfrog'?

Cat stole my thunder. It was very well liked by all, until the city's newest expansion project dozed over it.I believe there was only one mention of wet drawers in the logs, followed by thumbs up.

I'd cover all of them. So if you grind off "Colt" from the weapon,or grind off "Face toward Enemy" from the claymore mine, it will be seen as less threatening by some who may stumble upon it.Think anybody would pick up a stick of dynamite to read the label or just assume that it what it looks like. I would think that most folks could identify U.S. military ammo boxes without any trouble. The fact that labels are removed won't make them less threatening.........most civilians can't interpret the military lingo anyway. It just an ammo box, call the cops!The cops show up if a threat is perceived,.....the bomb squad blows it up whether it has a label or not.In some rare instances, geocachers have helped LEO's indentify cache containers found by accident, but you want to chance it?Eliminate the chance of legal action against you, rare though it be, just say No to military containers. There are too many other options that are cheaper anyway. Cheapest I see, is $5-$20 a piece at most surplus stores or flea markets.What if you get pulled over by LEO's on the way home from the surplus store, and they spot a dozen ammo boxes in the back seat, you will be "detained".

Ok They didn't publish the cache they made it hard (a hassel) ok I don't need a hard time about a cache I even changed the name and he still said he couldn't approve it that is a hasselThe other cache making me wait 5weeks thats not a hassel? it's suposed to be fun and somtimes the reviewers can make it not fun waiting 5weeks was not fun and having to think about waiting 5weeks again not fun now do you get it. I archived it. So, a reviewer explains that they have no choice but to refer commercial caches to Groundspeak, and you still think they are trying to hassle you? Sounds like you're just whining because they didn't try to break the rules for you. Sounds like you are the hassle. Hassle Hassle Hassle It's "le" not "el"!! The rules you are complaining about are there for a good reason. If it weren't for rules, I'd have to worry (more) about some nutcase coming to kill me because they didn't like this post. If it weren't for rules, there would be people driving down the "wrong" side of the road, except it wouldn't be wrong... but they'd still be dead when they had a head-on. Rules are important, especially the ones that protect others, even if it is only protecting me from having to read your commercial cache. What is a Helmut? Is that a manservant from Germany? No, it's a dog who resides in the fiery depths. Oh wait, that's a hellmutt....sorry.

While I think there should provisions in place to insure that cachers who have limited abilities or mobility, can have opportunities to enjoy the sport as well,....we provide handicapped parking for those who need it. The sad fact is that it is too often abused by people who "borrow" somebody else's sign or sticker, thus denying those who actually deserve it. Sadly, I can see the same thing happening here, if softening of the guidelines becomes frequent. The reviewers job is difficult enough and I can't imagine enlarging the gray area. IMO, guidelines are too subjective anyway and 10 different people will interpret those guidelines in different ways, both the hider and reviewer. Some things just need to be flat out rules, for or against, to avoid the broad interpretation and chaos that will result from that. I personally think the 528' rule is too much, but that is precisely the problem, because many will not agree. Guidelines lead to inconsistency, the honor system just doesn't work, that's why there are moderators and reviewers. Rules should be in place and the hides should be expected to meet them. However, if in the present guideline form, a cacher is denied a placement and wants to be reconsidered or granted an exception, perhaps a better way to resolve it would be to have the decision made by a three reviewer panel, and hopefully limit the inconsistency or different interpretations of the gray area.

I agree totally. It's a deadly combination of two things-1) Incompetent people being elected or given a post to satisfy the PC requirements in communities, 2) We are losing the war against drugs, and rather than city councils putting in effect resources (i.e. spending more money), that law enforcement needs to fully combat (and it is combat) drug manufacturing and trafficking, they instead pass useless legislation that will enable them to say to the public that they are committed to stopping it. Outlaw bags??????? Don't forget to outlaw spoons,mirrors and glass,aluminum foil,matches/lighters/bunsen burners. I have a better idea.....make all city blocks go circular in structure. No more 90 degree corners on sidewalks anymore. If there are no corners for dealers (or ladies for hire for that matter), then they we all become confused,lose income,have to get an education,get real jobs, and become upstanding members of their communities. With the money saved from combating drugs, the money can be used to build more parks which will lead to massive expansion of geocaching.

So you deleted a legit found it log because he complained about bugs and thorns? Wow. That was one of the reasons, because it wasnt hid in any thorns the cache was probably 50 feet from any thorns that shows you how far off he was. There are many factors that cause coords to "be off", this is very common. The bottom line is this, you hid it and they looked for it. Their comments or tone may have offended you but ......you hid it and they got to look for it. The fluff doesn't really matter, so try to look past it. If you're too quick to delete, you'll find yourself in a cyberargument, much like now, and it won't change how you or they, feel about it.

Well said! I think I understand the point of the OP, but would stop short of name calling. Perhaps a better way to say it would be that some are too quick to blame or overly critical of the cache owner, for their own lack of patience. While many, including me, are not fans of micros in the woods, there are some that like the challenge. The catch is a proper description and rating on the cache page so we can choose to do it or not., and I think it's safe to assume that some newbies (That's not name calling.....is it?) lack the experience to properly do that. I put out a cache a few years ago at the end of abandoned bridge which had two approaches, 1) Park within 50 yards,walk on even asphalt up to within 25 feet of cache, or 2) Park in cemetery,walk past "No Trespassing" sign, bushwhack through woods,down hill for 150 yards to cache. My listing clearly said "Do not park in cemetery", and I rated it something like 1-1, but one of the first dozen finders flamed me for it being underrated because he stumpled down hill. I call it "blameshifting", my kid isn't a brat, he's a victim of his enviroment. Or in this case, I'm smarter than you, so since I didn't find it, you listed it wrong. One piece of advice: If you're going to hide caches or post in the forums, get thick skin.

I'll stop placing ammo cans when they pry my cold dead fingers from offn the handle! I'd be willing to bet that all that it would take would be the sound of a gavel striking home and a guy in a robe saying " The court orders you to pay $$$$$$$$ and perform ............. hours of community service.

Trapshooting by individuals in a place specifically for that purpose is not perceived as a threat, despite the fact that dangerous weapons are present. The problem is the "implied or perceived danger", of an unknown military looking container, in an area most would think it should not be in, or fear of the unknown. I have thought for years that the days of actual military containers are numbered. I have discussed this very thing with other cachers and some think the fear the container may provoke in non-cachers is a " common fallacy". I suppose they conducted some sort of poll and because they disagree, that means it isn't true? IMO, military containers were made for two reasons, to transport and protect munitions or supplies for later use. AMMO cans right! The general public will always be suspect of ammo cans, and they may even invite a response from authorities because they pose a perceived threat of munition/explosives. The removal or outlawing of ammo cans may not occur in the near future, but after a few cachers are publicly charged with inducing panic and forced to pay local authorities restitution, and the caching community begins to hear about it, then their use will decline for that reason.

Limit the number of letters in each adjective and also the total number of words used in a sentence while in the forums, to less than the sum of his/her own assumed and unverified IQ, divided by the daily average of words used by the poster which they never speak in public and only use in the forums to impress people (and most likely just learned the definition to, the more syllables the better), and of course bonus words awarded for warnings received. Whew..just made it!

Don't forget......even though i didn't read the listing and/or park where you said I should, i reserve the right to criticize YOU for my having to bushwhack and thus your rating of terrain is wrong. It's not a 1, it should be a 1 1/16th. Plus the cache container lid wasn't closed all the way, lead pencil was broke off, the log book was upside down in the container, i found the swag offensive to my personal beliefs, and my mosquito bites are all your fault too.

Don't think I would apply this logic globally, .......we didn't buy into it, it was purchased and payments are still being made , by those who serve.

With regards to guidelines, some read (and cross my heart double pinky swear to use good judgement)-some don't. With regards to common sense, some have-some don't. And as for following rules or laws, some will-some don't give a schtick. Simple as that, and that ain't going to change. Mother Nature is resilient and so some bushwhacking, while maybe inconsiderate, it is often unintentional and she recovers quickly. We all know that GPS can send you in circles sometimes. Rule or law breaking may be unethical,leading to bad PR for the sport, but I have a bigger pet peeve. Cache placement that encourages destruction of historical structures. If you put a cache container in a 150 year old, hand built, creekstone wall, what do you think will happen to it?????????

I realize that anything other than status quo is sure to be unpopular, aside from politics in which change is welcomed with open arms. The "don't fix what ain't broke" mentality is the path of least resistance but also does little to encourage new innovations or challenges. Your points, though stated ever so eloquently, would have allowed no transition from the early days to the game we have today. Very early on if the charter members had resisted the evolution of the sport because.....more paperwork for approvers, necessitated rule changes, extra storage/band width, multiple containers, or for that matter the suggestion that we.....god forbid.....allow different shapes and sizes of containers, and the madness of camouflaging them, then where would be? I would hardly consider a multi, complicated or cumbersome, and I also disagree that the type of cache contributes to the lack of maintenance. Slightly more time involved yes, but maintenance is a committment or choice, the owner makes, to do or not. It's the attitude not the containers. Furthermore, yes the concept of multi's already exists that satisfy my parameters, no big headline there, and you can choose to prefer that any new hides must fit into pre-established definitions or.....it's too cumbersome.But this discussion is an attempt to present the idea of, something new or at least that the game can still continue to evolve. If you have been around for a few years, you have seen changes to the game.....right? What you see as extra work, others may see as new challenges. So you prefer to make the cache fit the game, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that, but I prefer to see the possibility that the game might accomodate a new type of cache. If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.......Ben Franklin

I'm all for innovation and new ways to play the game, but I wouldn't support any idea that allowed caches to be placed closer than the 528' rule. In my understanding, that rule isn't in place in an attempt to keep the number of caches down, or to keep creativity to some level, or reasons like that. It's only to keep one cache from being mistaken for another. Placing a Level 2 cache 50 feet from a Level 1 cache will not result in having players "pass right by it" on their way to the level 1 cache. Instead, you'll have players signing the field log for the Level 2 cache, and then logging online on the Level 1 cache page that they'd found it. A better way to play the game would be to keep the Level 2 and higher caches as separate caches that anyone is allowed to find whenever they want, but people that want to cache in Levels can choose to find them in order. I mentioned before that level 2's would have to be clearly indentified. I never proposed that they should be on the same listing, just contain links to each other, that you can view or not. Mistaken identity would of course be a concern, but fake logs already are, the difference being one is unintentional and the other perhaps not, but both are equally inaccurate. There is no log police, and I certainly would not want to confuse seekers or skew the numbers or logs of other placements. I think the best way to put this is that you are simply asking permission to turn a cache into a multi, but with different cache listings of varying difficulty, and most likely unknown to seekers of the host cache, kind of like another category of multi. The mistaken indentity thing could be ironed out.

So, we could have two different games going on at once with the same game pieces (or at least some of the same pieces)? What's the point of having a rule "if you want to"? Seems you could try this on your own geocaching listing site. Although the idea of having "another level" actually sound like a good addition to the game, it seems that it would have to be the game across the board to be accepted on this site. Not at all. Some people prefer to find ALL caches within a 10 mile radius, and keep that area clear. Some people really try to be FTF while others prefer a cache be found a few times before going after it. Some people exclude micros from their PQs and never hunt for them, ever. Some people are in a wheelchair and some of them only go for terrain 1 caches. Etcetera. So, if some people want to find all the difficulty 1 caches in a zone before finding any level 2's, and then follow up by finding the 3's, and so on, why does everyone "across the board" have to participate for it to be "accepted on this site"? Mushtang, you're following me, but to clarify to others, I'm not saying that a level 2 would simply be placed within 527' in any direction from a level 1, that would be too simplistic and a little boring. My intent is not to circumvent the 528' rule but rather allow a new level to the game and create an arena in which camo-masters can strut their stuff. I'm saying a level 2 must be placed within very close proximity, say 50' or less, and maybe even in such a way that level one seekers would most likely pass by it in their search for the level 1 cache. It would then require ultra camo and very creative hides. Let's admit it, some like their caches to be found easily and others like to try to foil or challenge. First, a listing for a level 2 would have to be accepted by the host cache owner before placement. Or more easily, an option for new cache submissions to express their acceptance of any level 2 placements in close proximity of the original, at the time they submit their initial listing. if you say NO, then no it is. Existing caches could be sent an invitation for a parasite placement???, and if declined, it could be reflected on the host listing page to discourage others from inquiring. It would also help with timely maintenance, as level 2 owners could also check on the host cache when checking the level 2.

Interesting to me that the reasons the DNR requires closing (geolove), are largely considered invalid in the forums. Not a Greenpeacer but many consider a cache location as a piece of property, and defend the right to stay thar 4ever A little Hatfield and McCoy don't ya think? DNR's reasons ARE invalid as far as I'm concerned. Geotrails heal miraculously over time. Most caches do not even cause them to form to begin with. They are a phenomenon of unusually heavy foot traffic and are only of concern on those caches that are very active. Few are. The "damage" caused by a few people going off trail, unless on an everyday basis, substantially repairs itself between visits. Also this "damage" is of nowhere near the intensity of animal trails because the animals are there full-time and habitually use the exact same paths. We're typically talking trampled weeds and nettles here... hardly anything to shout "the sky is falling" about (but environmentalist whackos will anyway- that's what they do). The "property rights" thing is extant in the hobby. This is part of the objection to the thread's proposal, but not all of it. There really is no need for an artificial limit on cache life and removal of a cache does "open up" the territory for a new and exciting cache hide, but there is no guarantee that one will be hidden. That was my point in pointing out the "space" I freed up over a year ago which no one has come forward to fill. I do not know the reason why no one has taken the space but I do have my hunches, one of which is that nobody wants to go through all the trouble to place the cache, get a permit and then go pull it after a year. I think the DNR policy effectively killed new caches in the state parks- or at least seriously slowed them down. Perhaps that was the intention of the one year rule? And even if the "freed-up space" was immediately filled, there would be no guarantee that the new cache would be better than what it replaced. In fact, the evidence of current trends and forum discussions would suggest that the chances of a GREAT cache replacing the old one are diminishing rapidly as the hobby seems to be relentlessly shifting toward a simple numbers game. I really think the only thing we can do to get consistently good new caches locally is play our own local game outside of GC. It is a cinch you will never get acceptance of any cache quality standards or sunset rules in these forums. Amen brother...........preach on.....literally

Geez, so the 3 dimensional is a play on words.How about we call it "a secret higher level of other hidden, more challenging, and really hard to find nearby, that you're probably standing next to and don't know it" caches. Or how about "layered", or cloked, or ninja, or parasite, or whatever.

That's a very good point, higher level finds may be logged but "parked" in limbo, for lack of a better term, and would not appear on the cache page or increase your find total until later. But in all reality, it's just a game and if you choose to not be honest or follow guidelines, that on you, and no harm done anyway.

Would we use these to get the caches at the higher levels? If allowed by original hider, it is within 528' of 1st hide and would therefore become a new level cache.

Hypothetical levels for lack of a better term, of cache hides, which allows some overlapping of 528' placements. The difference being varying levels of placements and difficulty. Say for example: you must log all finds placed by calendar year (Level 1) within a square mile, with Level 2 not even being revealed to you until you log all Level 1. Hence, Level 2's can overlap Level 1's.Now before you flame me for denying you access to all caches, let's say participation is voluntary. At least we could keep the old and enjoy some new in same areas. Say one level 2 allowed to overlap each level 1 within 528'.More challenging hides within close proximity of level 1's. More ultra camo opportunities.....Obviously Level 2's have to be clearly identified as being that in case they are found by level 1 seekers. How fun would that be, trying to foil other level seekers?

Wow, I have never heard of this sort of local policy before. I wonder how common policies like this are? How aware is your local geo-community of this requirement? Anyway, local policy and Geocaching policy are separate subjects. The OP is suggesting a new Geocaching policy, one which I find entirely objectionable; however, this does not change our obligation to follow local laws. Bring this cache to your local reviewers attention immediately. Allow the reviewer to archive if necessary. This thread started with: My take: I believe this is an awful and ultimately unnecessary idea. We already have the ability to SBA caches that are not properly maintained. Layering would only increase cache density in areas with caches already in need of archival. Proper, responsible and fair use of the SBA option should be all that is necessary. If your local geo-community feels the same as you, why not simply choose to archive your older caches collectively? If they do not share your feelings, what right do you have to impose your restrictions on others? If you are referring to geo-trash (caches that are not maintained) then simply use the SBA option to open up new space. I respect your right to disagree, as most have, but remember hoss.........this is just a discussion and I have no plans to impose my selfish and evil restrictive wishes onto my local community, or to take over the world for that matter.Just so you know