Perfect Tommy

Congrats Leo! Don't look now but maximum hunter is gaining on you!

If you have a TB that needs to visit Yankee Stadium as one of its goals, please email me through the website. I am heading down to Yankee in mid-April and will be taking the tour of Monument Park and will be happy to bring your bug along for the ride.

Good point. Also, a lot of caches won't be able to accomodate these flags Depending on the size of the flagpole and its base (if any), I don't think the flag will fit into micros, most mini caches and even some regular caches (such as Tupperware sandwich containers). The number of available caches in play will be pretty thin in urban areas, like Manhattan. The Rules Committee ( ) should double it to 20.

Last weekend I picked up Town & Country so they apparently haven't started to confiscate caches yet at Rockefeller Preserve and/or Rockwood. It appears they may have confiscated a letterbox as QOCMike previously pointed out.

This was like a pebble in my shoe so I checked into it. I should know better than to take an Englisher's word on US geography. Liberty Island is a federal property but is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of New York. Source. Avro might be confusing Liberty Island with Ellis Island. There was a big legal dispute that was finally resolved by the Supreme Court a couple of years ago. As a result, Ellis Island, which is also a federal property, is within the shared territorial jurisdiction of the States of New York and New Jersey. Source. As I recall the Supreme Court's decision, the original island belonged to New York but when New York expanded the island by landfill, that portion belonged to New Jersey. Thus, the landfill portion belongs to Jersey. Seems fitting. By that logic then Staten Island and the Bronx should also be in play. I think that, inevitably, the bugs will fall into the hands of neutrals. You'all should come up with some rules for neutrals who cache in the area or at least set a physical boundary on how far the bugs can wander outside the "playing field" (such as Staten Island, Bronx, Westchester, Rockland and other border counties). This bug would be an interesting template to follow. EDIT: in bold

Well done, Ken. Congratulations!

Yes, the Mother of Exiles lifts her lamp beside the golden door to ... Bayonne. Good opportunity to drive some traffic to Five Star

A suggestion from the Neutral Zone. Why don't you start the flags in the buffer zone (Staten Island, Manhattan, Bronx, or Westchester - I think those are the four counties that share borders with both Long Island and New Jersey). This way no home field advantage at the start. EDIT: I take it that only LIers (Brooklyn, Queens, Nassau and Suffolk) 'cachers are representing the great state of New York in this game? The indignity of sitting on the sideline tortured by the thought of grubby Jersians pawing our state's flag with their (Taylor-ham) greasy fingers is too much to bear.

Springsteen on the obverse; a roll of Taylor Ham on the reverse. That's Joisey.

Then why does she have her back turned on Jersey? EDIT: Still can't figure out those Quote tags

Congrats, Dan. Or should I say "King of New York" since you're found them all in the five boroughs!

T&C is a clear Rubbermaid container with a beige top hidden in the hollow of a tree. The cache described by jonboy doesn't fit the description of any cache in the Park, err, Preserve, although since T&C is the closest to the Park offices, it would probably be the easiest for them to confiscate. Pity about Sleepy Hollow-1: it's the second oldest cache in New York State I believe. I don't want to duplicate effort so is anyone reaching out to Lucien and Hiker guy 1 about their caches? Turning to Rockwood, Evie's Surprise will probably have to be archived and retrieved unless the Tarrytown Horsemen respond to emails. Again, so as not to duplicate effort, is anyone sending the Horsemen an email?

I'm all for local and regional organizations helping NYADMIN in this task (should make for some interesting turf wars) but, IMHO, the notification should come from the listing service which approved and posted the cache in the first place and will have to archive the listing down the road if it does not meet the new permitting requirements. If it helps, I'll be happy to send a list of waypoints of caches on state parks in Westchester County to NYADMIN if that will get the ball rolling. Quid pro quo though, I'll expect NYADMIN to approve without question my new "Free Martha Now!" cache in Bedford.

Although I would commend the local organizations for stepping up to the plate, it seems to me that the listing service would be in a better position to alert efficiently and quickly the cache owners who are effected by this development. They have done such notifications in the past, such as when caches have been banned in certain local parks (Ward Pound Ridge Reservation, Teatown Reservation, Greenwich Audubon come to mind).

Not all cache owners read the forums. Is Groundspeak doing anything (e.g., email notification or admin logs on cache pages) to notify cache owners of the new permit requirements?

I see no prohibition against a cache hider delegating his responsibility to conduct the biannual check of his cache to another 'cacher. A cache seeker, familiar with the Park's new guidelines, could check on another's cache, (hopefully) upload a picture of its contents and post a note that the contents were in compliance with the Park's guidelines. Why couldn't the cache owner rely on such a report, particularly if from an experienced and trusted fellow 'cacher? There are already many conscientious 'cachers out there who maintain and often upgrade caches of others. Although the cache and its contents remain the responsibility of the cache owner, perhaps we can help the cache placers fulfill their biannual obligation by, as part of a find or note log, providing detailed reports on the condition and contents of the cache. Just a thought.

Teeth are overrated. Dental prosthetics at least come with a warranty. Keeping this on topic, also enjoyed helping Tigger, one of the first travel bugs, complete his mission.

My favorites? All of mine, of course. Like ideas and children, there are none more wonderful than your own. As to ones I have stumbled across in my wanderings, I enjoyed my travels escorting The Jack Report around to the major news outlets in NYC. I also enjoyed la Clef d'Hormel if only for the reason that I find myself using the term "wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot bargepole" with greater frequency in daily conversation.

Congratulations Ed and regards to Dillinger.

Yes, but then you may be running afoul of someone's trademark rights!

You are partially correct. Since Beethoven's works are in the public domain, they are free for use by all and you are free to make a "jazzed up" (anybody remember "Fifth of Beethoven"?) version. You try to create a version of a more current work that is still covered by copyright (such as the Beatles), you may be running into trouble. Copyright extends not only to making copies of the work itself but extends to derivative works as well, such as a "jazzed up" version. Unless it's a parody, you probably will need permission from the copyright owner. This assumes that use of the Creed requires their consent - because they are the owners of the Creed. I don't think their ownership claim would hold up in court if challenged. You/Kai Team claim ownership and are seeking to license the work. That, in my view, is commercial exploitation. Your commercial goal apparently is to be the sole owner and licensor of the Creed, to the exclusion of all others. If I am mistaken, then just tell us what your intentions are. Here's an analogy to chew on: I post a thread (like this one) in the forums asking 'cachers to share their photographs of sunsets. The copyright in the photos belong to the geocachers. I then compile the photos together, including a few of my own and make a nifty calendar. Although I added my own copyrighted photos and compiled the other photographs to create the calendar, I have still violated the other 'cacher's copyrights in their pictures. As a disclaimer, I have no stake in this since I didn't contribute to the Creed thread but find the copyright implications interesting.

The thing that is off-putting to me about this situation is that a topic is posted to a public forum soliciting input, ideas and language from the geocaching community to create the "Creed" (in substance an obvious collection of common sense observations about geocaching). Other geocachers freely contribute to this (pinned) thread, helping to create the finished product. Then the thread's O.P. compiles the contributions and now makes a proprietary claim to the work as a whole and seeks to exploit it commercially. I'm sure many of the contributors to the "Creed" thread didn't foresee this development. They may not have contributed if they knew of the OP's ownership claim and commercial goal, to the exclusion of their rights in the work. Has a registration for the Creed been obtained from the Copyright Office (you won't be able to enforce your rights in court without it)?

In the event the creed has any economic value and is ever successfully licensed, you can be sure that every person who posted to the creed thread will come out of the woodwork the moment that first royalty check is cut. They no doubt will believe they too are co-authors and co-owners of the copyright. This is an interesting question for a law school copyright class. Who owns the work? Is it even copyrightable? With all due respect, I think a good copyright attorney could punch some serious holes in your claim of ownership. P.S. If there is any litigation over the ownership of the copyright, you may want to remember that what you post here will be used against you - in the quote above you've already conceded that Jeremy has "rights" to your work and that you are not the sole author.

I note that Voncachstein's cache was approved. I'm still puzzled however why a cache that commemorates a Medal of Honor winner can be considered as a "heavy agenda promoting the medal of honor." The MOH is awarded by Congress for conspicious acts of gallantry on the field of battle. Many of the recepients receive their medal posthumously. As you may note from the citation set forth in the cache, there is no reference to the receipient's race, creed or color. It is awarded for bravery. You don't get the medal by belonging to some political, civic or religious organization. I would hope that a geocacher's efforts to honor the sacrifice and valor of a member of his community would be encouraged by Groundspeak, not suspected as promoting some type of agenda. How does one promote the MOH anyhow?

Here's another article from yesterday's Journal News. It appears that the two hikers he met on the trail were not involved in his death.