hycam

test

I must live in make-believe land, then. I think a reasonable definition of first-to-find can include the logical qualifier "once the cache is made public". I believe that better reflects the intent of most cache hiders. Of course, if all you're interested in is the strictly semantic definition, then I'm forced to agree with you.

Is this maybe the case where the couple are actually beta-testing the cache for the owner, so are just indicating that it still needs a FTF from the general public?

Test

So, other than the fact that the 60CSx supports tide tables, what are the major differences between the 60CSx and Vista HCx? Looking at the Garmin site, I don't see any obvious differences - but the price gap is large, so what am I missing?

No real impact. I drive a Toyota Camry Hybrid, and have been known to get better than 40 MPG, so I figure I'm (using really loose arithmetic, so don't bother citing me for it) paying about half what I would be paying typically.

Some caches are more warped than others. (sorry)

At the risk of sounding repetitive - The real issue is not one of permission. The issue is to understand whether it is appropriate to be looking on private property for a particular cache. Here's the distinction: I know that wherever you've hidden your cache, you have permission (it's in the rules). But if my GPSr tells me the cache is on private property, I'm going to be wondering if I've made some mistake and I'll be hesitant to actually venture on the property to search. If you've told me in the description that it is in fact on private property, I'll be much more comfortable in going there. That's all there really is to it. It will just help me to know I'm making the right decision in venturing there.

Thanks, hycam, that is exactly the point I was trying to make. Perhaps the rule of thumb might be: "If a cache hide location is "private enough" to require permission from the landowner, then it is "private enough" to need a "Placed with permission" advisory on the cache info, so cache searchers know they have permission to search on private land" ? So I'm thinking that maybe the phrase "Placed with Permission" is not the best choice of words, given the real concern that you are expressing. This is why all of these discussions about trust are being had. In effect, what you (and I, for that matter) are really looking for is an indication that the cache in fact has been placed on private property, to avoid confusion. Perhaps the simple statement: "On Private Property" is all that is required. Permission can (and should) be taken for granted by the cacher, since that is already covered off in the rules. Also, I don't advocate making this kind of statement required, simply that those cache owners that use it will be adding value to the hunt. Although writing it in the description would be enough, if it were an attribute, it would be even more helpful.

I think what's really happening is that the owner sent out two separate moose, each with the SAME TB number. This would lead to the need to grab the TB from someone else that found the other twin, since if someone else had already logged that number, you couldn;t do a simple retrieve from the cache. So as long as everyone that finds one or the other twin logs it as a grab, it'll all work out - more or less. It'll really screw up the distances, but if the owner doesn't care, why not? It's wierd, but I can see how it would be fun.

I can't decipher the OP. What in the world is this thread about? Phony logs. I almost thought BrianSnat's count-down post was going to be prophetic on a nostradamus scale for a second there. I don't understand his post, either. Is there some sort of tool that everyone is using to decrypt this thread? Yes, there is. My reply will appear first in English and then in TXT (annoying as it is!) and then in L337 (aka Leet) ~~~~~~~~~~ ENGLISH VERSION OF MY REPLY: I agree with you that the original post was extremely hard to read, and even harder to understand. I personally find such types of messages to be rather annoying. However, what I do, when I encounter such things, is to go to one of the many online TXT to English (and English to TXT) translators and plug the text in there to see what comes out. One of several really good online translators may be found at: http://www.transl8it.com/cgi-win/index.pl?convertPL However, many "texters" also mix in another language, often called "Leet" or "elite" and thus you may also need to employ a Leet-to-English translator as well! ~~~~~~~~~~~~ TXT VERSION OF MY REPLY: zOMG! you r teh winz!!one!!eleven! I agrE w U dat d orignL post wz extremely hard 2 rED, & evN harder 2 undRstNd. I personLlE find such typz of msgz 2 b rather anoyN. Eleventy! howevR, wot I do, wen I encounter such tngz, iz 2 go 2 1 of d mNE on9 TXT 2 eng (& eng 2 TXT) transl8rz & plug d txt n ther 2 c wot cumz out. 1 of sevrl rly gud on9 transl8rz mA b found @: http://www.transl8it.com/cgi-win/index.pl?convertPL howevR, mNE "texters" also mix n NothA lngwij, ofn caLd "l337" o "l33t" & thus U mA also nEd 2 employ a Leet-to-English transl8r az weL! u R teh r0x)r!! ~~~~~~~~~ L337 VERSION OF MY REPLY: 1 49r33 \/\/17|-| j00Z 7|-|@ 7|-|3 0r191|\|4L p0$7 \/\/4$ 3><7r3/\/\3L'/ |-|4rD 70 r34D, 4|\|D 3\/3|\| |-|4rD3r 70 U|\|D3r$74|\|D. 1 p3r$0|\|4LL'/ Ph1|\|D $U(|-| 7'/P3$ 0Ph /\/\3$$493$ 70 b3 r47|-|3r 4|\||\|0'/1|\|9. |-|0\/\/3\/3r, \/\/|-|@ 1 d0, \/\/|-|3|\| 1 3|\|(0U|\|73r $U(|-| 7|-|1|\|9$, 1$ 70 90 70 0|\|3 0Ph 7|-|3 /\/\4|\|'/ 0|\|L1|\|3 7><7 70 3|\|9L1$|-| (4|\|D 3|\|9L1$|-| 70 7><7) 7r4|\|$L470r$ 4|\|D pLU9 7|-|3 73><7 1|\| 7|-|3r3 70 $33 \/\/|-|@ (0/\/\3$ 0U7. 0|\|3 0Ph $3\/3r4L r34LL'/ 900D 0|\|L1|\|3 7r4|\|$L470r$ /\/\4'/ b3 Ph0U|\|D 47: |-|77P://\/\/\/\/\/\/.7r4|\|$L817.(0/\/\/(91-\/\/1|\|/1|\|D3><.PL?(0|\|\/3r7PL |-|0\/\/3\/3r, /\/\4|\|'/ "73><73r$" 4L$0 /\/\1>< 1|\| 4|\|07|-|3r L4|\|9U493, 0Ph73|\| (4LL3D "L337" 0r "L337" 4|\|D 7|-|U$ j00Z /\/\4'/ 4L$0 |\|33D 70 3/\/\PL0'/ 4 L337-70-3|\|9L1$|-| 7r4|\|$L470r 4$ \/\/3LL! ~~~~~~ End of all text. The End. . That is outrageous! ...and I mean that in the best possible way!

Saw the "needs archived" note. I think you should use the "Needs Archived" type, instead of a note, if you want the reviewer to be notified.

I think that the point of the OP was not that he doubts that the cache owner got adequate permission. Rather that in a case where the cache has been placed on private property, it would simply be useful to know that from the cache description - in this way we could look for the cache on the private property with confidence that it really is appropraite to do so. The alternative being of course that maybe our GPS is way off and we are venturing where we shouldn't. That to me would be the real benefit of a "Placed with Permission" notice.

For me, I think the meat of the policy is contained in the words I bolded in the quotation. From your explanation, I don't think there is principal or even substantial intent of soliciting. To enforce a no ads policy as you describe it does not serve any useful purpose. IT seems fairly arbitrary. Also, as you point out, Groundspeak itself includes google ads in its own forum - very much the pot calling the kettle black. Further, in most forums I have participated in, once I pay for a membership, the ads disappear. Doesn't seem to be the case with Groundspeak. Nope, I'm having a really hard time agreeing with them on this one.

Likewise.

The only thing I edited was the web site address. This is the original topic. Edited due to complete stupidity on my part. It ws the OTHER thread I read before....

I can SO relate to that, having just used a Nuvi 270 for three weeks during our vacation in Europe. It did so much sound like she was losing patience with my directional ability that we also were adding "...you idiot!" to the end of everything she said.

7777

1027