Teach2Learn

Yes, when waymarkers are creative, the quality of their listings can equal or surpass many virtuals of the past. I've actually spent several hours completing just a few waymarks in order to meet the requirements and enjoy the experience. I somehow managed to ignore the fast-food ones that day. Of course, you may need to coordinate the video with Groundspeak and the fast-food restaurants you visit for permission. Note: Others' attempts at sarcasm are often ignored by this poster.

TFTS, I did notice you had tried Waymarking, that's why I replied in my earlier post that I hoped you would "enjoy more." Did you miss that part?

Yes, and you can write letters to the editor until you get carpel tunnel about how you want your NEWSpaper to also publish short stories in the sunday edition, and how if they don't you are going to stop subscribing. That doesn't mean they have to do it, or even respond to you. To carry the analogy further, in this case the paper responded by creating a fiction magazine and offering that for sale on the newstand along side their newspaper. Mopar's right. Having worked for a large-city newspaper for about 20 years, I constantly heard people say they would cancel their subscriptions due to a certain columnist or editorial stance. I also recall how the editors and circulation department would laugh when subscription numbers remained steady or even rose during such periods. In the newspaper world, controversy sells, and the number of people who actually do cancel is a small percentage. again is this FOR keeping Virtuals? I am sure the paper didn't remove the column or change its stance. It was there if you wanted to read it. How about the geoworld? If controversy sells, then maybe we are helping people discover the wonderful world of Waymarking! I have been Waymarking and I am sold on it! Well, you removed my next paragraph, eliminating the full context. In that case, you should have included a [snip] indicating such. Of course, I've often done the same. Even so, it's true, controversy sells, but that's already attained here in the forums (as this thread illustrates) with Waymarking in place and virtuals gone unless grandfathered, so no need to bring them back.

Thank you for your willingness to provide the "Fall Into Geocaching" contest. After the debacle at Charlestown, I had intentionally stayed away from Indiana state parks and waited to see what would happen with the DNR caching guidelines. You provide a model for others to follow and the Kentucky parks are beginning to get on board. I have no plans to return to Charlestown due to their rude treatment of cachers who would have helped clean the park and remained respectful of park rules. However, I do plan to visit other Indiana state parks in the future. Next year's "small, round, and shiny" idea already intrigues me. Again, thank you.

Yes, and you can write letters to the editor until you get carpel tunnel about how you want your NEWSpaper to also publish short stories in the sunday edition, and how if they don't you are going to stop subscribing. That doesn't mean they have to do it, or even respond to you. To carry the analogy further, in this case the paper responded by creating a fiction magazine and offering that for sale on the newstand along side their newspaper. Mopar's right. Having worked for a large-city newspaper for about 20 years, I constantly heard people say they would cancel their subscriptions due to a certain columnist or editorial stance. I also recall how the editors and circulation department would laugh when subscription numbers remained steady or even rose during such periods. In the newspaper world, controversy sells, and the number of people who actually do cancel is a small percentage. So, give as much input as you want, but don't expect TPTB to change their minds. It wasn't a knee-jerk reaction to end virtuals and begin waymarks. Jeremy mentioned it over a matter of months/years, requesting and encouraging forum input, and worked diligently on it. Did you miss those discussions? Again, the train has left the station, but it's not too late to get on board at the next stop. Not all waymarks are great, neither are all caches, but I hope you choose selectively and enjoy more. I have hundreds of waymarks I'd like to visit and probably thousands of caches I hope to find.

I like this--be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Remember when just one one or two new caches in your area was more than just a race for FTF? In response to TalesFromTheSurface's criticism of the fast-food restaurant waymarks, I see two choices: 1. Ignore them just like some cachers do lamp-post micros; 2. When traveling, use them. By waymarks, I have found it valuable to know not only location, but that one McDonalds (or similar spot) has wi-fi and another doesn't. That's not always in the phone book or even on my 60csx. Here's another thought concerning virtuals. Reviewers will help you see how a proposed virtual can instead be an offset cache and still achieve the same goal if the view/information is that important. Yes, this is quite possible even in urban areas full of tall buildings and muggles. However, if it's primarily the smiley factor, you probably wouldn't get as many takers, but surely that's not the reason.

Sounds like the best option in a sticky situation. Thanks for the additional info, TalesFromTheSurface, complementing gpsblake's thoughts. Better safe than sorry might be the best answer for SC's cemeteries and markers, even for Waymarking. However, in regard to the original topic, I'm still not seeing how virtuals are preferable to waymarks (other than one's love of smileys), so I'll defer to TPTB. I don't love waymarks, but I do like them and see their development as a positive solution (to the virtual problems referenced earlier) that is continuing to improve. Waymarking may allow for categories some may consider lame, but I think the variety is more of a pro than a con.

The problem with the cemetery geocaches in SC was that shrubbery was being torn apart looking for micros and photos were published of geocachers sitting on top of tombstones, walking all over gravesites, and such. In one case by a historic church, a cache was placed inside a loose brick, then inside a wall. Obviously, geocachers would have to be pulling on bricks to retrieve the cache. The naming of the geocaches were also disrespectful looking back in hindsight. Several church groups got all upset about these geocaches. I was guilty of going to look for them myself but looking back, I'm ashamed I did. I get a bunch of flack from my fellow SC geocachers over this but Geocaching did the right thing by banning them in SC cemeteries. Had geocaching not done this on their own, I would have supported the bill. But geocaching.com did the right thing by archiving all of them. What HB3777 said was http://www.scstatehouse.net/sess116_2005-2006/bills/3777.htm "It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker without the express written consent of the owner or entity which oversees that cemetery site or property" What's so horribly wrong about getting permission?? It mentions nothing about banning the use of a GPS unit on those properties, only the use of a GPS to hunt a geocache. But I do agree with the USCGA leader that you do have to be responsible for Waymarking points of interest in those areas by not disrespecting the area. In Waymarking for South Carolina historical markers, they do not want photos of you or the GPS in them. Yep, that's what I remember. Thanks for sharing and providing USCGA info on Waymarking historical markers. Makes good sense.

--I still don't view this as a good reason to bring back virtuals. I found some virtuals before the switch and liked them, but I prefer the waymark listings. In my opinion, that's where they best fit and it allows for more variety. They are especially helpful on trips, from libraries to theaters and yes, even fast-food restaurants, often providing more detail/reviews than a local phone book. If you don't like what they list in your area, make them better by creating your own. Follow Lep's advice. --In reference to the SC issue, you can find hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on that subject over a matter of months during the last two years by performing a search of this forum. Most longtime forumites are very aware of it. As I recall, the legislators were also aware of the forum discussion. Personally, I'm not sure that geocaching and Waymarking would be viewed as the same thing even if a waymarker did something stupid, but I realize there's the Groundspeak connection and could be wrong. Perhaps it would be a good idea to avoid it in SC, at least for now. However, I'd also like to hear the view of someone with legal experience and background knowledge of the SC issue like CoyoteRed or another of the SC cachers. Right now, I concur with Ambrosia, they're not banning Waymarking as it's defined.

Please don't get upset. We may tease one another, but we are not truly trying to be grammar police. However, I do think briansnat's earlier point in this thread about communicating clearly is significant and responds to your question. Actually, no. It was quite difficult at times to understand PyroDave's message due to his poor spelling/grammar. In fact, I believe it may be part of the reason his earlier communication with Groundspeak failed when he tried to report a problem. Of course, we can and probably should overlook minor typos and spelling errors, but ignoring them on a larger scale (way more than just a "few mistakes") can lead to more problems. As a result, the issue actually may hinder PyroDave's ability to resolve the environmental issue he was trying to address. That's why I can't agree that spelling and grammar are trivial. To stay on topic, I hope you still read the last part of my posting concerning a solution to the environmentalism/caching issue. I think if he's able to specify the cache and problem, then communicate it clearly, then the TPTB have repeatedly shown their willingness to work with land managers.

"on" (couldn't resist!) As with all scripture, it applies to all mankind. Yes I read and yes I am guilty. That, my friend, is why we celebrate this great Holyday (misspelling intentional). John 3:17 (any version you choose) Just pointing out the irony, nothing more wasn't intended to offend. I too find it annoying to read all the various papers and articles with glaring mistakes on a daily basis. I have learned to laugh at them and they often "make my day". One of my coworkers always writes "due" when he means "do". I sometimes write back repeating the mistake to "poke fun at him" (which he does not even realise). At least I can readily tell who wrote that memo if he didn't sign it. We all make mistakes and actually the forums are such an insignificant medium that taking the time to check out everything you type is a little overboard and unnecessary. While the post in reference had a LOT of glaring "typos" and misspellings, the poster DID state that he had a "disability" that contributed to the problems. Several have "jumped on him" for the speelelllng situation and I believe, while your suggestion that improving his spelling andd grammer would benefit him in the long run, we need to give him the benefit of the doubt relative to the "disability". And perhaps he could be a good land manager with a good secretary and solve the problem admirably. The following corrections are provided by the punctuation police. ...they often "make my day." ...always writes "due" when he means "do." ...relative to the "disability." realize, not realise I'm assuming that other errors were intentional. A person is responsible for his or her own ability to communicate and to cache with respect for nature and for others. Learning disabilities create more challenges, but most can be overcome. Yes, I work with LD students at school. Everyone makes mistakes; at least I do on a daily basis. Some mistakes may even exist in this posting . However, that is no reason to rely on someone else to solve our problems in relation to punctuation or property damage. Asking for help is fine; just don't play the victim. I doubt PyroDave meant to create that impression with his excuse for poor spelling. I also do not believe that undiscovered meant to personally attack him. Hopefully, this post won't make you feel that way. PyroDave, it's not a battle between cachers and environmentalists. Obviously, miscommunication occurred in your previous situation as briansnat and Lep referenced. If a problem exists with a specific cache, identify the cache and the problem, then keep seeking resolution with discussion and reason, not prohibitions against those who could best assist your cause.

Add me to the list for "Object reference not set to an instance of an object" errors when trying to log in/reach my account page.

However adding a feature that is already present is redundant. The logs already offer an overview of those who have found it with much more detail than any rating system could do. Yes, the logs work, and I enjoy reading them, but I may have to spend many hours (and have done so) to read logs for caches located in travel destinations when I'd rather be caching/making other trip plans. The bookmark lists definitely have been helpful (when/where they exist), quite useful to me on a recent trip to Canada even though I still ran out of time. I think Markwell's ribbon-award system (not a ratings system) would be helpful as well. If there's a limit similar to the one he proposes (a percentage you can list as a favorite), I don't see a major problem developing, nor do I consider it redundant. Jeremy liked Markwell's proposal, if you read his posts in the November 2004 linked thread, though admittedly with a bookmark list approach first--that's good enough for me.

The main issue I'd check is to make sure it's compatible with your Magellan GPSr before purchase. Here's a link to Compusa selling it for $99, though a Froogle search will result in a long list of vendors. Oops...a bit more research reveals that the Explorist 210 is compatible with Mapsend DirectRoute Europe. It provides some autorouting (turn-by-turn directions) at street-level detail from what I can tell, though it may cost a bit more than the Mapsend Streets Europe. Here's a description: Mapsend DirectRoute Europe.

Magellan's MapSend Streets Europe software CD provides street-level detail (down to 200 meter scale) for all of Europe. I've used it on my faithful backup Meridian Platinum for three years. In France, it does provide street level detail for your destinations of Nice and Corsica (though I doubt it shows all streets on the island). It shows the names for most streets of any size in cities like Nice, Cannes, Paris, Ajaccio (main town on Corsica), etc., and all major roads in the rural areas. Do you need it to cache? No. Will it make it quicker for travel? Probably. You're allowed to upload 4 regions at a time with a memory limit per region. However, that shouldn't be a problem if you have an SD card for your unit. For upoading to your GPSr, it's a lot quicker to use a memory card reader. It does allow for search by address/town. The main issue I'd check is to make sure it's compatible with your Magellan GPSr before purchase. Here's a link to Compusa selling it for $99, though a Froogle search will result a long list of vendors.

The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has conducted DEET safety tests for decades, far more extensive than those organizations (unless more info can be provided) and came up with decidedly different conclusions, as did the New England Journal of Medicine. EPA's testing results have consistently provided the same results concerning DEET. Here's the link: facts on DEET provided by EPA. The New England Journal of Medicine's stance and testing concurs with the EPA. The NEJM provided 40 references in relation to their study. The testing link provided earlier in the thread is also a result of the study. Related quotes from the NEJM study: --Despite the substantial attention paid by the lay press every year to the safety of DEET, this repellent has been subjected to more scientific and toxicologic scrutiny than any other repellent substance. --DEET has a remarkable safety profile after 40 years of use and nearly 8 billion human applications. --No correlation has been found between the concentration of DEET used and the risk of toxic effects. --As part of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision on DEET, released in 1998, the Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the accumulated data on the toxicity of DEET and concluded that "normal use of DEET does not present a health concern to the general U.S. population." --When applied with common sense, DEET-based repellents can be expected to provide a safe as well as a long-lasting repellent effect. --Until a better repellent becomes available, DEET-based repellents remain the gold standard of protection under circumstances in which it is crucial to be protected against arthropod bites that might transmit disease."

Be careful with this one. Brian uses his mod account for personal posting. Any views that he has expressed may not be the official view of GC.com. Either way, I believe this to be largely a non-issue. sbell111: Good point about briansnat's postings...I'll try to honor that and hope I didn't cross any boundaries as that certainly wan't my intention. I would also agree that it's usually a non-issue and hopefully won't rear its ugly head in the form of an over reactive muggle. For me, I view it as better safe than sorry. cheshire frog: --Unfortunately, I think the problem is primarily with the "real world." I concur with Renegade Knight's earlier assessment: we shouldn't have to do anything to the ammo boxes because there's no real danger, but too many real-world muggles don't realize that. We don't have to like or agree with their skewed perception, but it still exists. I think the best way to deal with it is to label the container and cover the markings. --Since the idea of a container's "perceived danger" is part of the "Hiding/Seeking a Cache" guidelines, I do think that a reviewer appreciates knowing that it is labeled (with military markings covered IMO ) and that the place to include such info belongs in the "Notes to Reviewer." One reviewer sent me an email thanking me for providing such details. However, you're right that it's not required info to submit. Enough of my ramblings...let's go hide some caches!

Finally! Something we can all agree on. Nobody's ignoring the intent, which as stated is to mark the containers appropriately. Neither however are we trying to read into or add to the intent that it meant to remove any frivolous or extraneous inconsequential markings. Offer it as your recommendation, yeven your belief but please don't use guidelines as your reason. Some appear to have been confused enough by what is really written there. Obviously, I'm not alone in my belief that the military markings can be "perceived dangerous" if you read the first page of this thread. The first eight posts (with others to follow) concur that military markings need to be covered. Briansnat stated military markings were "begging the bomb squad to be called in." That sure doesn't sound like he views the markings as "frivolous" or "inconsequential." Neither did others who called it "irresponsible" not to cover them. Considering briansnat's experience as a moderator/reviewer(?), I believe his opinion on such issues is credible and reflects the intent of the guidelines as stated. Thus, I see the need to say so to provide clarity, not propagate the confusion which actually allows people to do whatever they please in spite of consequences that can affect the larger caching community. Most of the disagreement in the thread resulted over whether anyone should take matters into their own hands and spray paint/cover others' hides. Hopefully, no one would do that. However, most agreed that markings shold be covered and provided examples/illustrations of how this could be done. Again, if in doubt, ask the reviewers about military markings the next time you submit an ammo box hide for cache review. If it's not a problem (and it may not be for deep woods/mountain hikes), why would it hurt to ask? However, if it is the intent of the guidelines, you should abide by it. If I'm wrong, more power to ya, but as more than one cacher in this thread has stated, it's an "irresponsible" act as far as I'm concerned because it could hurt caching simply due to public perception. I would never write on, cover, or spray paint another owner's cache--I just want to create the best public reputation for caching. At this point, I feel like I'm echoing myself and many others, so I'll let it go and hope for the best.

I would try the MIGO (Michigan Geocaching) forums for better responses: MIGO website link.

Nowhere in your quote of the guidelines does it say anything about removing any markings, it says it should be clearly labeled. If you don't think of military markings as something that can be "perceived dangerous" since they appear on most ammo boxes (the item that could perceived by muggles as possibly dangerous), then you're right. Read briansnat's quote. I simply think people are trying to ignore the intent of the guidelines. I'm not debating the true nature of ammo boxes, just the perception communicated to non-geocachers by the military markings that I feel the guidelines are addressing. Of course, most cachers would probably realize the danger isn't reality, only perception, and that's great, but that dismisses part of the reason for the guideline. Of course, it's a hider's choice not to agree or abide by the guideline's intent, since they can claim it doesn't spell out that a specific part of an ammo box's "perceived danger" is the markings. It shouldn't have to, but obviously some won't believe it unless it does. That's fine. I just disagree. All of my hides are ammo boxes, some are camoed, and all are labeled because I think that's what the guidelines require. If I'm wrong, I don't see how it can hurt and some of the benefits were discussed earlier. For owners in doubt, I would suggest asking a reviewer their opinion regarding ammo boxes' military markings and the guidelines next time they submit a cache. If they say no big deal (and maybe they would for caches hidden in the hills/forests), I'd be surprised, but more power to ya.

Nobody's saying they exist--at least I hope no one claims that. It's simply common sense and in keeping with the guidelines to label your container and, from my understanding, to cover the military markings. Of course, this is more important in urban hides, but I don't see where the guidelines say it's okay elsewhere, even if it would probably not raise a single eyebrow. Here's one of mine with a label covering the former military markings. It's hidden in a good-sized park (over 700 acres), just off trail. (edited to add photo and correct number of acres)

Not sure if you intended to quote my message, since this didn't seem to apply to what I wrote. In either case, no one ever said do not label it. It just not that big a deal to cover everything else since it won't matter one wayor another to someone already has a "Gladys Kravitz" complex. Sorry, I think it applies even to those without a Gladys Kravitz complex. I haven't panicked, reported, or spray painted over them when I've found them. However, the second part of the guideline emphasizes the idea of information that could be "perceived as a danger." Military markings fit that description. Cover/remove them...and add labels. I think that's quite clear. See briansnat's earlier post in this thread for more of the reasoning: "What is a non geocacher to think when he uncovers a box that says ".50 cal tracer" or other military markings. Its begging for the bomb squad to be called in." It seems like a moderator (and possible reviewer?) wouldn't recommend that unless it was supported by the guidelines, unless you feel he's a "Gladys Kravitz." At least we can agree she should have left Samantha, Darrin, and Tabitha alone. (edited to add briansnat quote)

As Scotus noted, they may overreact, but that shouldn't affect the cache owner's responsibility. As the majority in this thread have noted, the military markings should be covered/removed to minimize the reaction (even if you don't agree it will have the intended effect). In addition, if you wish to follow the guidelines, the choice is clear: "Clearly label your physical containers on the outside with appropriate information to reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as a danger to those that are unaware of our sport."--quoted from the Hide/Seek a Cache guidelines Not only should the markings be covered/removed, the containers should be correctly identified.

Perhaps someone who is annoyed by the fact that another person in another country who has only cached for a year or two has found a thousand caches or more while the someone who has cached for five years hasn't found more than 500 or so since the difficulty level is higher in their area. I'm not sure why they'd care unless the numbers really mattered to them. (edited for grammar)

Sounds like an interesting survey. Are the results posted anywhere online or could you provide them here? One day I hope to attempt your "Polly Takes The Plunge" (GC34FB) cache after reading the description and rave reviews of the past. (edited to add link)