rjb43nh

Besides the page layout really sucking, if I go to "Your [actually MY] Geocaching Logs (Filtered by Log Type)" and select the "Found It" filter, it reports "4950 Results", about 70 fewer caches than I actually have. 55 of those are apparently "Event" caches that are no longer counted as "Found." An event cache has a logbook and isn't any different than a 'regular' cache in that regards so why doesn't it count as a find? I'm not sure yet what else isn't counted. While I appreciate the effort to improve the site, this downgrade didn't do it.

The only person who posted on the original thread that was truly offensive and totally out of line was n3prz, the op. His amazingly crude comment just before the thread was mercifully put to sleep was way over the line. He proved to me that not all cachers are nice people.

It's never too cold, there's just inadequate clothing. I worked for 4 winters at the Mount Washington Weather Observatory (NH) where winds greater than 100mph and temps of -30°F are quite common. Their records are 231MPH and -47°F. I'm used to mildly cool weather but I generally draw the line around 0°F to -10°F for comfort and safety.

Same thing here, I needed the 25th so I went out and found 1 easy cache that was hidden yesterday about 7 miles away. I did get 35 yesterday though.

Whether Atrus is a racist or not isn't in question-res ipsa loquitur. This whole incident could have been taken care of if Atrus had just followed the cache owners request and posted a photo of himself.

I do. Although I don't have any sort of notification, I've beat them over 300 times.

There is a policy which looks like you can't have a geocache in a mailbox that is used for U.S. mail. I just copied this from a thread I Goggled.

Geez, maybe a few of you ought to re-read the title of this thread which is: "FTF Score, For those cachers who DO care about FTF's but don't complain." Please give it a rest so those who are interested in this thread can post without getting buried by the crap you're posting.

The OP, Genegene, and others are using The Stud Mill Road near Old Town, Maine as an example of cache saturation but as I, and a few others have said, this is not the case at all. Here are 2 pictures of the area around Pittsfield, MA, where Genegene lives, and the Stud Mill Road using the same scale. As you can see, the October Mountain State Park has a far greater cache density than the Stud Mill Road. If you look at almost any city, or even a lot of rural areas, you will find the same sort of cache distribution. There are areas that some may feel are saturated but the Stud Mill Road isn't one of them. Most of these caches are about 7 times further apart than the guidelines require.

Part of the problem is that everyone 'assumes' that the Stud Mill Road in Maine is saturated with caches and you can't turn around without tripping over one and this is not the case. The map previously posted in this thread showing the caches along the road didn't show the scale and was meaningless. If you check any city at the same scale you will find that the cache density is far greater in any city than on this 85 mile long dirt road in Maine. To find the aproximately 140 caches along this road and the 3 feeder roads connecting it with RT-9 you will drive about 120 miles (there is about 30mi of backtracking). There are a few locations (including Denver) where you can find a huge number of caches in a day. If you find the idea of a cache run isn't your cup of tea, the solution is simple, just don't do it. I did the Stud Mill Road and had a fun time.

A GPS is one of the standard tools that anyone who works in the backcountry would use, no different than a shovel or an axe. I'm sure they didn't just buy them to hunt down geocaches. I would think that implication was obvious.

We eagerly await your posting the photos of the huge piles of trash you claim they ignore. If you have been reading this thread you would see where I posted: “I had a long talk with the Wilderness Supervisor in another district when the regulations were changed and my cache that was in a Wilderness Area had to be removed.” I know for a fact that my cache was removed when they visited this remote peak to remove a summit cairn, sign, and blazes of an unofficial trail that had been there for many years and it wasn’t a special trip to remove my cache. When the rules concerning Wilderness were last changed for the WMNF they started being more proactive. Yes, they do have an agenda and that is to follow the mandate of the law and do the best job they can with limited funds. While I can’t speak for every instance of cache removal, neither can you, and to insinuate that all Federal employees are lazy and just trying to annoy cachers by removing caches is simply ludicrous. The people I see displaying “charming cluelessness” are some of the posters here who are misrepresenting what the Wilderness Act says and what they speculate the Government employees may be doing just to promote the agency's agenda.

Specifically the act says: Unless you were grazing your livestock in areas that were designated as Wilderness prior to 1964, your livestock will have to graze elsewhere.

Actually I have been the one quoting from the Wilderness act and other official Gov sites while you are the one generating ‘facts’ out of whole cloth. I am also glad to hear that you “work under the authority of a federal agency” which means absolutely nothing. If you like name dropping, I actually worked for the USFS, WMNF and I had a long talk with the Wilderness Supervisor in another district when the regulations were changed and my cache that was in a Wilderness Area had to be removed. I have first hand experience which is far different than working “under the authority of a federal agency”, which sounds like being a second cousin, twice removed. My experience with the Wilderness Supervisor was positive because I understood their point of view and wasn't adversarial like some of the posters here. I will repeat those two quotes here because apparently they didn’t register the first time they was posted. Both quotes contradict your ‘feeling’ that geocaches somehow fit in to the spirit of the Wilderness act. Would you please show me, in those two quotes, where it supports your claim that geocaches should be allowed in Federally Designated Wilderness Areas, as you have claimed? Remember, "you need to read what it says, and not what you think it says, or would like it to say."

There is no National Forest Service. There is the USFS, United States Forest Service, part of USDA. I'm sure if you bring specific examples to the attention of the Wilderness Supervisor in the District Ranger's office, they will see that “peak registers”, if they are in Federally Designated Wilderness Areas, are removed, the same as they do when they discover geocaches that have been there for years.

Wrong. You still fail to see there is a difference between any wild area and Federally Designated Wilderness. Other than your mistaken ‘feeling’ that geocaching should be allowed in Wilderness can you offer any hard evidence that this is a fact? Have you got the point yet?

You are missing the point. While what you say may be true of some Federal areas like National Forest, which have a multiple use policy, Wilderness areas have a different and special designation. As I pointed out in post #24, “…you have to understand there is a difference between wilderness, that is, what most people consider wild areas, and Wilderness with a capital W or Federally Designated Wilderness areas.” Perhaps this will explain it better. WILDERNESS ACT Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136) 88th Congress, Second Session September 3, 1964 PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN USES ( c ) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

First, you have to know which agency is responsible for that land’s management (BLM, NPS, USFS, etc.) as they have different legal mandates. Second, you have to understand there is a difference between wilderness, that is, what most people consider wild areas, and Wilderness with a capital W or Federally Designated Wilderness areas. The National Park Service has basically a blanket prohibition on all geocaching and anything left unattended on their lands is considered to be abandoned property or trash and it will be removed. The USFS is under the Department of Agriculture and they have a multiple-use policy which does allow geocaching. They still can restrict cache placement in environmentally sensitive areas and do ban caching in all Federally Designated Wilderness areas. I had a cache removed a few years ago after they rewrote the Wilderness policy for the WMNF in NH. My cache involved an 18 mile round trip hike with stream crossings, bushwhacking, and significant elevation gain making it the toughest cache in New England. After being contacted by Groundspeak, I went to the District Rangers office to recover my cache container and had a long talk with the Wilderness supervisor. The outcome was that he was interested in understanding geocaching and they monitored geocaching.com. He apologized for having to remove the cache but explained that he had to follow the law. Through this friendly face-to-face meeting we both understood that we could work together to resolve any problems that might arise. After this meeting, if the Wilderness Supervisor or our local reviewer had any concerns about caching I could act as a go-between and make sure there were no problems with new cache placement, etc.. Even though my cache had to be removed I felt geocaching became to be viewed as a more responsible activity in the Nation Forest. My advice is to understand why this policy is there and try to work with the agency to ensure that all caches are placed properly. The fact that the cache in question was placed in 2002 doesn’t exempt it from current regulations. Trying to act adversarial could result in stricter regulations whereas showing them cachers have the same love of the outdoors and concerns for our environment as they do certainly could help.

More tactfully than the HMcF did, and without hubris, I would hope.

There is a network of 100+ miles of dirt roads east of Old Town, Maine that is set up for a numbers runs. I did it and it was a lot of fun. It isn't uncommon for cachers to do 130 to 157 in 10 hours of caching in that area. If you extrapolate that to 24 hours that would be about 377 caches. If caches can be found at that rate mainly on dirt roads in rural Maine, I could see 405 elsewhere.

It is analogous to my saying: "I miscalculated your ability to understand what I posted." That would be considered by most to be an off-handed insult aimed at you. Mind you, I'm only using that as an example to show how the wording reads. If that isn't what he meant then perhaps he should have worded it differently. His replies were somewhat defensive after being criticized by a number of posters.

Wanna have some fun with geochecker? Try this cache Nice puzzle! I like it!

That condescending attitude speaks volumes. Your statement doesn't logically follow. The cache in question here (GC1X4Q7) is rated D1.5/T1.5. That doesn't mean that it is accurately rated or that the local cachers aren't good at puzzles. I have met, and know from reputation, a number of Massachusetts cachers and hold their puzzle solving skills in high regard. The statement "...it appears that I miscalculated the puzzle solving abilities of the local geocachers", irrespective of whether the puzzle is simple or not, isn't intended as a complement.

That condescending attitude speaks volumes.

Ooops, missed reading the last few posts.