Subterranean

Overall greatness?? Don't you read these forums? It's obviously Criminal. Criminal is definitely one of the funniest! I'll vote for him! He has my vote for both. EDIT: ah, nevermind.

Overall greatness?? Don't you read these forums? It's obviously Criminal.

Oh, okay. Thanks.

Typical forum behavior... first you lynch the guy, then you ridicule him when he stops kicking.

So why ARE caches near railroad tracks banned? I assume it's because of the danger factor; or is it because of the looking-like-a-terrorist thing? I think the OP has brought up an interesting point. If caches near RR tracks are banned because of the danger involved, then I'm actually surprised that GC.com HASN"T banned caches that are too near freeways and other fast-traffic areas.

I think it would be cool to come up with a word that used only symetrical letters, A H I M O T U V W X Y, and then spell it backwards so that people looking in their rearview mirror can read your front liscense plate! You could also use "3" for "E." "4" for "P," "Z" for "S," etc.

That's kind of a cool idea. Long before geocaching, hikers/campers used containers stashed along the trail for similar purposes. The only problem with a geocache of this purpose is that a camper could never, with 100% confidence, depend on the cache or any particular item in it to be there when they need it, essentially voiding it's purpose. Unfortunately, most cachers would treat this cache like any other, and replace useful items with McTrash.

Luckily, I almost never get ticks. Some people attract 'em, some don't, I guess.

Bingo! I get exposed to enough advertising in my daily life... can I please have one activity, like geocaching maybe, where it's not forced down my throat suggested that I buy some company's product?

I'm reminded that human beings suck.

If there weren't people that log these kinds of caches, there wouldn't be these kinds of caches. If you find a crappy cache, don't log it! If you need to express your opinion about the cache to the cache owner, send them a polite email. It'll make them wonder why their cache was found by you, but wasn't deemed worthy of a "found it" log. Maybe it'll make them think? Other than that, we must let people play geocaching how they choose to play it.

I can see how someone logging a find when the cache may not have actually been there could affect others. The effect would be that you intended to take a nice walk in the woods and find a geocache and instead, because of someone's misleading log, you ended up being only able to do the nice walk in the woods part. Bummer. But other situations have absolutely NO effect on other cachers. For example, if I choose to log the same cache multiple times, it simply does not affect anyone ...any more than what I had for breakfast does (flatulence excepted)! Period! Er.. Exclamation point!

It's amazing how few people actually understood the point of this thread (the few who did posted some amazing responses, by the way. Thanks!) Just to clarify, the original "Frisbee Rule" --the one that deals with the issue of permission to hide a cache-- was not my idea. You see, I took their Frisbee analogy and used it to... ah, nevermind.

Seriously??? Okay, nevermind then. Human beings suck.

The analogies are not meant to illustrate the ways in which Frisbee is similar to geocaching. The point is that geocaching is an activity with as much significance as Frisbee. (And of course the only reason I used Frisbee as an analogy was because it’s been used before to make the “permission to hide a cache is rarely needed” argument… by some of the same people who could benefit most from this thread.) I’m attempting to put things in perspective, that’s all. The analogy does not have to be watertight in order to illustrate the point I’m trying to make.

I’ve been thinking a lot about how so many people criticize other geocachers because of how they play the game. It has been going on a long time, but it seems to have escalated in recent months and I think it has gotten out of hand. So, I propose a new adaptation of “The Frisbee Rule.” The current Frisbee rule applies to placing caches. When determining whether permission is needed in a specific location to place a geocache, one should ask themselves, “Would I play Frisbee here without feeling a need to first ask permission?” That seems like a pretty good guideline. After all, geocaching is really no more intrusive than tossing around a Frisbee. But, I propose the adoption of “Frisbee Rule 1.02.” This rule shall state that whenever faced with the dilemma of whether or not to criticize another geocacher for how they play the game, one should ask themselves, “Would I criticize someone so harshly for how they play Frisbee?” Let’s face it, even though some of us put on a costume that looks like we are about to go into combat every time we “play” geocaching, geocaching is really no more significant of an activity than Frisbee. Would you call someone a cheater or a liar for how they played Frisbee? Would you ridicule someone who feels that throwing a Frisbee back and forth twenty times constitutes playing Frisbee not just once, but twenty times? How harshly would you come down on someone who said that they played Frisbee today, but never actually caught the disk? If someone marks the outside of someone else’s Frisbee with a permanent marker, they have been inconsiderate, sure, but have they really committed a crime against the game of Frisbee? Let’s focus our criticisms on more important things in life and let people “play” geocaching how they choose. Thanks for reading.

Ummm... I think then you are a cache pirate, not a geocacher. You might want to review the guidelines again.

Imagine a world where a box could be checked that would make everyone else's find count unknown to you. All the people who wish GC.com would remove find counts altogether could just check this box and (while reading logs on cache pages, for example) wouldn't need to see any cacher's find count ever again. Brilliant!!!

Criminal, your post is displaying an equal degree of antagonism. In fact, this entire thread is extremely antagonistic. Is there really nothing better to discuss? This game is not worth getting so worked-up over.

Oh.

Here's an example of a cache that used cds. The cache owner was constantly thinking outside the box, if you will, when it came to creating caches. MANY people in our area were huge fans of his caches, but for some reason this one never received very many logs. That could be either because not many people have access to portable cd players or because not many people thought they could identify the artists.

That's a great picture... care to post the others?

I don't think it was ever possible (without the help of a forum mod, at least).

Unless the puzzle is designed to be solved by searching for help on the internet, you're obviously not going to experience the cache the way it was intended. Why not try to solve the puzzle on your own, pulling plenty of hair out along the way, and feeling true satisfaction when you finally figure it out? I say either solve the puzzle on your own, or put the cache on your ignore list. ...perhaps the one acceptable place to get a hint (if you truly need it) is directly from the cache owner.

That's the most original geocaching idea I've seen in a long time! So, when a postcard is picked up by a cacher, are they supposed to take it directly to the destination geo-post office, or can they place it in a regular cache that is in the general direction of the destination geo-post office, hoping that another cacher will in turn pick it up and move it even closer to the destination, etc. (similar to moving a TB closer to its goal)?