ELECTRICHEADX

Speaking of Medford, looks like RPace9 wasn't the only resident trespassing where he didn't belong (heehee!): http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/12/nj-mayor-chris-myers-resigns-amid-gay-prostitute-scandal Crazy! I hear he made Perez Hilton. It took Rabbi Neulander to put Cherry Hill in the national spotlight, apparently for Medford this small town Larry Craig will be the ticket.

I'm pretty sure this is not the case as I reported him to Groundspeak and am pretty clearly the person he's referring to in his profile, as he seems to have changed it right after receiving my second message and just before he got banned. I only sent two messages and wouldn't consider either one harassing--the first was in response to his initial NA log which I deleted because it was obvious he hadn't even bothered to read the description which warned seekers to use the legal access because much of the area around the cache was posted. I explained to him why I deleted the log and asked that he read descriptions in the future before haphazardly posting NA notes. The following day he stole the cache, and after reading this thread I sent him the following note: Also not harassing, but I'm pretty sure this spooked him into responding with what he wrote in his profile (he never replied to me directly). From the posturing in the profile it seems like I made him nervous, so hopefully this will dissuade him from going to the township because that's really the only way I would know who to report to the police for theft. I also have my doubts that he consulted with the supposed property owner before removing the cache as he claims. When I go to replace the cache and/or move the location in a couple weeks I will check the approach I used for the hide and confirm whether GZ has in fact been reposted since or if this clown just didn't bother to find the right way in. On a side note, wouldn't this make a fascinating case study for a law class if it did become a legal matter? What a tangled mess of bailment law if new signs have indeed gone up since I placed the cache! I have no idea who would prevail in that situation...

Okay. What other issues? Grin and Bear It. Steve the Bear I found the Grin and Bear it cache several years ago. It definitely appeared to be on private property to me. I called the phone number on the sign and it did not match the name, plus the person did not own any property in the area so I let it go and assumed the signs were outdated or invalid. It's ashame as there was a legal spot 100 feet away or so, but now any new placement may get muggled by the maggot. The other spots appear to be semi private, but they never check for badges or ID in those places and it should not be a problem for anyone to be there. I recall your log 4wheelin, and I too tried following up with Schulman at the time but also wasn't able to find him, so I figured that you must have approached from a different way than me with remains of old signage (the land had been donated to the preserve). When I hid the cache it definitely seemed to fall within the boundaries of the nature preserve, from what I recall the opposite side of the trail from the cache was posted but I checked thoroughly for signage in the immediate area on the side I hid it and saw nothing. I warned about staying to the trail and obeying private property signs in the cache description from the get-go. Rpace first requested it be archived yesterday and I deleted the log and sent him a note asking that he check the cache description before crying wolf about an area he obviously hadn't been to. It appears that in response he actually went out there to find the cache and steal it...after reading this thread I'm thinking of contacting him and trying to arrange to have my property returned, and if he refuses he can take it up with Medford PD. Maybe ground zero has been posted since my hide but at the time this was hidden I accessed legally from Hawkins Road according to the directions from the state's own preserve website and chose a location for ground zero that was not posted as required by law for private property (and an area very nearby it was, so it seemed easy to tell which land was the preserve's and which wasn't). I'm going to go back to rehide this soon and will move it a little bit if the original spot has indeed become sketchy...I've been talking to OReviewer to make sure I'll be in the clear and this user has been reported to Groundspeak. Since I'm picturing RPace as a grumpy old fogey I may also have to up the difficulty to something grumpy old fogeys can't pilfer so easily... also, thanks to FobesMan for posting a note to let me know about this thread :-)

i was just about to say the same thing...also just cause you get bitten doesn't neccessarily mean they in ject venom. those pictures were nuts-i actually didn't realize a rattler bite could be such a big deal that they'd hafta cut the entire length of your arm open!

as i pointed out to the appeals person, this is an open-ended puzzle, not a letterbox. there are a multitude of ways to solve it, and only a handful of them are similar to letterboxing. and i guess i won't have to worry about you downloading me to your computer then ;-)

Looking at your cache page, I believe this summary oversimplifies the extended dialogue which took place between you and the reviewer. It is true that, on May 3, your reviewer told you ultimately to appeal the decision to the contact address. But two days earlier, the reviewer told you that a Groundspeak employee was consulted about your cache, and that the thumbs-down decision was thus endorsed by Groundspeak. A discussion in the Reviewer Forum is moot if Groundspeak has already said no to the idea. The reviewers could love a cache concept, but it's Groundspeak's site and we do what they tell us to do. That being said, you are always welcome to bring the issue to the forums, and you have gotten some good feedback here in the thread. Yes, it's an innovative idea -- but it doesn't fit the listing guidelines for what can be published here. it does fit the listing guidlines though. that's what's been so frustrating about this; people keep citing guidlines that it doesn't violate and then basically ignoring me when i point out that it doesn't violate them. the extended dialogue between me and the reviewer pretty much consisted of him copying and pasting generic guidlines that were completely unrelated to my cache, and although he said somthing about discussing it with a Groundspeak employee he still didn't give any valid reason why they had made that decision. it's really weird how people reading this thread look at the cache and see that it's no different from many puzzle and night caches, yet when a reviewer looks at it they don't seem to be able to see this. i got a response to my appeal citing the same irrelevent guidline that the original reviewer had (The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and should be solvable from the information provided on the cache listing). I wrote back a response offering to take down the stickypod reference (commercial violation, that's understandable) and explaining my intentions for the puzzle a little better,and yet again explaining why my cache does not violate that guidline, so I'm hoping they'll compromise and let me list it as the first leg of a multi like i'd previously suggested.

well, i finally got an email from the reviewer. i'm a little dismayed at how dismissive he's been. he never responded to any of my requests for suggestions on getting the cache approved or my request that he post the cache in the reviewers' forum (as it says to do in the guidlines). instead, he just told me i could appeal his decision at contact@geocaching.com. and i just did, including the url to this post in the link. hopefully everybody's opinions on here combined with the fact that my cache doesn't actually break any guidlines will convince them to approve it. i think it's great that gc.com includes the suggestion to post here as part of the guidlines, it encourages a more democratic environment where we the cachers can have a say in what should be allowed. Thanks everybody for your opinions! that's a funny coincidence--my videoventure takes place in Voorhees, NJ

for some reason i often seem to have trouble with quicktime, no matter what computer or browser i'm using. also i'm using adobe premiere and that tends to produce really bad results when t comes to quicktime compression. even so, i was planning on eventually adding a quicktime version and maybe trying to clean up the compression to reduce the file size or even making a high and low quality version. i just decided to wait and see if it would get approved before spending the time on the render. if it does get approved, i may put an uncompressed version on cds with the cache printout as an insert and leave them in nearby caches.

they do.

hey thanks, i tried searching for others but couldn't come up with any. guess i'm not the first. i know the guidlines don't allow for precedents, but at least i can use this as an example of where they're applying inconsistent standards, as this guy had his video remote linked as well and it looks like his also relies more on the video than the gps to guide you to the cache. not to mention the documentary screencaps look pretty funny--i'll hafta watch this later!

GOOGLE EARTH PLUGIN! i can't get over how convenient and useful of a tool this is, and when i encounter other cachers many seem not to know about it yet. it's so useful that it surprises me that its not a members-only feature, to be honest.

Hey i wrote a philosophy paper on the FSM! good stuff! glad to have my topic touched by your noodly appendage... i actually suggested to the admin that maybe i could make the current cache location the first leg of a two-part multi to incorporate more gps use. however, it does seem that there's plenty of puzzle caches where all you need the gps for is finding the initial coords and the puzzle takes you the rest of the way, so i'm not sure why mine is a problem in that respect.

Hey everyone, I've created (to my knowledge) the first videocache, but I'm having problems getting it approved. Under the cache guidlines, it suggested soliciting opinions in this forum on new or novel cache ideas if you're having trouble getting them published, so here I am! This is a puzzle cache where you have to use a video to help you find your way from the start coordinates to the final cache location. Since the listing is currently disabled, I can't link you to that, but I recopy the important info here, which will give you a very good idea of how this type of cache would work. The admin's objections were that the video is hosted on a remote site (which I don't get; the guidlines allow for puzzle caches to require research from outside sources), and that not enough gps use is involved. He said that it's against the guidlines for you to have a link that navigates the user away from gc.com, however, since I remote linked to the video on my cache page this isn't a concern as clicking the link will merely cause an open/save file dialog box to come up. As far as the gps use goes, I know there's other puzzle caches where you pretty much stop using your gps after arriving at the start coords. I think that from the viewpoint of a puzzle cacher, this would be a fun and challenging puzzle that could be solved with a variety of approaches. Just so you have the full picture, I'll reproduce the text of the cache page below. If you think this is a good idea for a cache and should be allowed, please post a response and let the admins know! Here's the cache: Sturbridge Videoventure N 39° 49.264 W 074° 55.435 This is an experimental video puzzle cache. Figure out a way to use the video to find it. Difficulty will vary depending on your knowledge of the area and ingenuity. Get the video here! Please right click the video link and save it to your computer to conserve bandwidth, because you're probably going to be watching it more than once! Watch me take a fast-motion drive from the listed waypoint to the final cache location. This should prove a real challenge to people who don't have a way of taking the video out into the field with them. There are many ways you could try to solve this one, but keep in mind that the cache is somewhere within the Sturbridge developments (Woods, Estates, and Lakes), and that the video may not show the most direct route to it. Also, you can't really see it in the video, but I AM holding the cache in my hand when it ends. Note: I just noticed that I misspoke in the video and said "the three sturbridge woods developments" instead of "the three sturbridge developments" (sturbridge woods only being one of them). Just to confirm, the cache may be located in any of the three developments, and if you follow the video route you will go through all three on your way. Special thanks to stickypod.com for both their fantastic camera mount and free video hosting. [end of cache page] Thanks for your opinions and (hopefully) support!

try my new cache It should be able to fit a paperback http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=65598

quote:Originally posted by mogolloyd: quote:Last time I checked the Troma HQ is in NYC. In the middle of Hell's kitchen. It is, but it's roots are in NJ The company is in NYC, but Toxie is known as the First Superhero from New Jersey... i have the DVD and it says that really big on the front. The only problem with making a Toxie or Troma themed cache is that there aren't that many little trinkets of Troma stuff to be had.