rjb43nh

You may want to reconsider having it just for Halloween. Many people would probably go for the cache all year round, if it is set up properly. Also, here is a quote from the guidelines on placing a cache. Hope this helps.

As a gun owner I believe this is a topic that belongs on a gun site, certainly not here. I have seen threads like this started on other sites and they are always started to promote an agenda. It will only degenerate into the pro-gun people quoting NRA propaganda and saying carrying is their God-given right, while the anti-gun people call them Bambi killers and criminals. Please don't do this here.

Sometimes when we write something it is crystal clear to us but cryptic to others. One of my favorite hints was: "at the base of a birch tree", for a cache that was in a dense forest of birch trees. I checked the listing that prompted this and it did say you should use a compass and gave the bearing, but the hider didn't say that they had used "true", not magnetic. Most simple compasses obviously point to magnetic north and you can only mathmatically correct for declination, which in the area of the cache, is about +15 degrees. The second finder, who I know to be an expert bushwhacker and real mountain climber, assumed and used magnetic and found the direction to be 15 degrees off from his reading. He gave the reading he found specifically and correctly. There is still some confussion about whether ALL parts of the cache are public even though the entry point may well be. It would probably help if the listing was reworded to clear up some of the points in question. I'd rather give too much information than too little, unless the lack of information is one of the elements in a puzzle cache.

No problem. I was ready to poke one of your three eyes out-but I won't now! (meant as jest, no person or 3-eyed cat was to be harmed)

I appologize if anyone found my statement to be an insult, at any level. What I have found, with my limited experience, is that questions like the OP asked just don't come out of the blue- there is some other reason for asking such a question. In this case the real question was whether an existing approved cache on government property should have been allowed. To phrase the question the way it was phrased was intentionally misleading, and the OP has since posted his true reason for posting which I wholeheartedly agree with. I will stick by my original statement: -the OP's original post WAS amazing, and it couldn't be true on face value. I sure others were thinking the same thing as well. Perhaps both the OP's and my statement should have been worded differently. Unfortunately the written word doesn't carry the nuances of the spoken word and both his post, and mine were read "flat", without conveying the intended meaning. My post may have been brutally blunt, but it wasn't intended to be insulting or rude.

I'm really amazed that someone with 2500 finds, 43 hides, and many posts in the forum would ask a question about hiding a cache at the Post Office! Just like school zones extending beyond the physical buildings, I wouldn't hide a cache anywhere near a forbidden zone like a Post Office, airport, or federal building. With all the places to hide a cache, you certainly can find a legal spot to hide. Drop this bad idea, please.

Unless you want to p.o. a whole lot of people, forget it. If I were you I'd also delete the second note you posted suggesting that some people go back and redo your cache. The cachers that found the log sheet and the container (ziplock bag) did it in good faith and aren't at fault. Just post a note that you have done cache maintainence and everything is now as it should be. Don't mention that a few cachers found it in what you considered the wrong place. Put this behind you, it is the regal thing to do.

Actually I think you're missing something by implying that someone getting FTFs is somehow wrong. Playing nice in the sandbox also means not whining if sloth prevents you from being successful doing something that you’re vilifying others for doing. You have stated that: “I'm just not willing to compete for it.” You have chosen how you want to ethically play the game and the FTFers have chosen how they want to ethically play the game. To complain about their way of playing the game when you admit that you have chosen not to play that way is petty. The best advice I can give you is to follow your own advice: “I play nice in the sand box by allowing others to play as well.” Let them play their game.

Let me get this straight because I'm a little confused. 1) Someone places a cache with the expectation of it being found. 2) An inspired cacher follows the rules of the game and finds the cache first, and this is somehow "bad". 3) Another cacher eventually get to the cache days later, and this is somehow "good". Am I missing something or do some cachers just like to complain about any minutiae?

I agree with Harry Dolphin. Using Ratone's logic you could argue that archived physical caches no longer match the "spirit" of the game or were "mistakes" and should no longer be counted in your totals. This is, of course, ridiculous, and I am not seriously suggesting it but it makes as much sense as removing LC and virts from your counts. If the caches were legal when you found them, they count-period. My question is, Ratone, what is the real reason you brought this subject up?

I wtote-"Ah, ifishaz has got even with all us nay-sayers by archiving all his caches today" You sat to-mar-to, I say tomato; What part of "archive" don't you understand????

Ah, ifishaz has got even with all us nay-sayers by archiving all his caches today. Very mature.

This has been an absolutely amazing thread. I had to check twice to see if I had accidently read a joke thread by mistake! I'm afraid there is no advice I could give ifishaz without them taking it as an insult. All I will say is repeating a bad idea enough times (as they have) will not make it anything but a bad idea. Find another location- the tribe has spoken.

OP excerpts For something that is no big deal, you have taken the time and effort to start a thread profiling another cacher as a low-life then want advice on "the problem" from others. I ask you: who really has the problem with FTFs? Look in a mirror.

Try this site.

While the A.T. is a "National Scenic Trail", the ownership of the majority of the trail is not NPS. There are 2 big NPs in VA but in NH, for instance, the A.T. goes through the WMNF(White Mountain National Forest, Dept. of Agriculture) and NH State park land, etc. In the WMNF, the Great Gulf Wilderness Area has much more restrictive rules than the rest of the WMNF. In PA there are State game lands, etc. The trail also goes right up the streets of towns like Hot Springs, NC; Damascus, VA; Dalton, Ma, etc. The point is that the ownership of the footpath is a patchwork quilt formed by various owners. You have to know what the overseeing organizations rules are before placing a cache along a particular part of the A.T.. If you check some of the caches along the A.T. north of Duncannon, PA, you will see that the cache owner got permission from the appropriate agency for 2 year placement of a cache, other area will differ. As to caching while thru-hiking, I wouldn't do it, but it would be doable with some extra effort. I've hiked about 5,000 miles of the A.T. (yes, I know it is 2174mi, I've done it 2.5 times) and I think that caching along the way would interupt the flow of your trip plus a number of hikers aren't too keen on caching, especially along the A.T. What caches I've done on the A.T. have been when I was doing shorter sections at a more relaxed pace, generally with others who were into caching as well. Only the footpath is marked by 2"x6" white blazes, rarely is the actual corridor boundry marked and that is generally done by someone owning adjacent land, not by the A.T. maintainers. And some of the caches are very close to the trail, I know one you can touch without leaving the trail.

I noticed there was a FTF on the 13th and they reported the coordinates they downloaded were 400 feet off from where they found the cache container. You might want to check whether the last 2 digits of latitude are "29" or "92". I was FTF on a cache once where there was a DNF log was saying that they couldn't find anything to match the hint. Well it seems the owner had fat-fingered the keyboard and the original listing was at least 20 miles off. I down loaded the listing after the owner noticed the error, corrected it, and everything was just fine. Keep in mind that these errors do happen to us all.

Owl's Head?

I've found that simple method works great. You can also enter the place name or some other unique word describing the item you want to check in the "Find What" box. Sometimes this will narrow it down faster, or at least it is a good way to double check. It only takes a second. Quite often you will find several cachers have claimed the same object, probably because they were checking the logs manually and missed the object was already logged, or they just didn't want to waste the time scanning through 1000 log entries.

rusty_da_dog: I'm afraid you are doing exactly what the OPs in the “Need Input Of The "community" About A Virtual” and “Unapproved Cache(s), Would like a consensus and some opinions” threads did, and this will end exactly the same way. In both these other discussions the OPs had come up with an idea for a cache that they thought was great but the reviewers said didn’t meet the guidelines. Instead of accepting that decision, or trying to modify the cache to meet the guidelines, the OPs traded several e-mails with the reviewer trying to “prove” their caches were an exception to the rules. When that failed, they decided to start a thread because they felt that other cachers would also think this was a great idea for a cache and back them up. However, what they got was an obvious overwhelming response backing the reviewer. I suggest you read those threads before you waste any more time and emotions on what will turn out to be a lost cause.

I found this thread interesting and very similar to the “Unapproved Cache(s), Would like a consensus and some opinions” thread. In both discussions the OPs have come up with an idea for a cache that they think is great but the reviewers say don’t meet the guidelines. Instead of accepting that decision, or trying to modify the cache to meet the guidelines, the OPs have traded several e-mails with the reviewer trying to “prove” their caches are an exception to the rule. When that has failed, they decided to start a thread because they feel that other cachers will also think this is a great idea for a cache and back them up. However, when they get an obvious overwhelming response backing the reviewer they say something like: Translate “comments….of a non-constuctive nature and seemingly condesending” as any reply that disagrees with them. I think if fluffy&itchy reread their own posts they will find they unwittingly answered their own question when they said: Score: mtn-man- 1 , fluffy&itchy- 0

I'm across country from the cache location but the solution it isn't that bad if you read what is there and do a little research. You don't even need the clue, but it does confirm your guess, if your guess is correct. The cache owner has 60 puzzle caches and seems to enjoy placing them. Looks like the cache is pretty close to a major street, that's all I'll say.

I think you've answered this one yourself. The Mars Rover (which I have logged) ONLY moves into existing approved caches, it is not just placed in totally random spots. So although it is moving, it isn't like your idea at all. I guess I don't understand your trying to make the rules fit your cache rather than making your cache fit the rules.

uperdooper, you hit the nail on the head with your last post. Can't be a troll, that implies intent!

Let me get this straight. CreekFalls90 hates low rated caches, but their one hide is rated 1.5/2.5 and their one find is about the same level. I agree with what Cache Test Dummies said: Unlike CF90 with only one find, Cache Test Dummies has lots of finds and can speak from experience. I know they have found the most difficult cache in New England (which is mine). I have hid high rated caches and ones that are wheelchair accessible. There are families with smaller children, older people, hikers, all sorts of people who cache so what is wrong with having caches suited for all? Someone (not the cacher, Ansel Adams ) once said: "Variety isn't the spice of life, it is the very stuff of it."