EvanMinn

Evan, before this continues, did you see: knowshad...http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4012764] Post #45[/url] I was also playing devil's advocate with someone who suggested, first and formost, LPCs as an alternative to electrical box-type hides. I agree that we now have enough of that type hide around here that it isn't much more of a surprise to a moderately experienced cacher than an LPC, but they can still be a fun challenge for a beginner. I have to add that I have never heard of anyone getting electrocuted while tryinig to find a geocache. Has anyone else? Ugh, yeah, that is not much of an alternative. I am at a point where I skip most of those unless I am going to be in the parking lot anyway (Although there is one that I passed over multiple times in Richfield's Hub strip mall that I eventually looked for that turned out to be the LPC I've liked the best because of the unusual container). As for whether has anyone has been electrocuted yet, how you would feel if one of yours was the first? While the chances may be pretty darn slim, no one can say there is no chance at all. I wouldn't want to be the one that was responsible for the million to one shot that the roll of the dice came up bad for. But I am not for banning either. I just don't think its such a good idea just as I don't think hiding in an area where people have illegal dumped concrete chunks (I have run across three of those so far) is such a bright idea. I wouldn't ask for a ban but it does kind of make me roll my eyes at the hider.

Based on my two months of geocaching experience, it is my opinion that electrical hides aren't all that unusual either. The question was not whether there are a lot of better, more unusual hides but simply whether there were many alternatives. I fixed this for you Evan 6 electrical hides in an essentially random 250 find sample is not an opinion but a fact. So really to fix it, it should be: 'In the Twin Cities area, electrical hides are not all that unusual' since I can only speak of this area. Evan.. post 21 Reread the thread. My response about 'unusual' was not about screwdriver hides but to someone ELSE (not me, not Knowchad) saying the offered alternatives to electrical hides are not unusual. The linked post is irrelevant.

Based on my two months of geocaching experience, it is my opinion that electrical hides aren't all that unusual either. The question was not whether there are a lot of better, more unusual hides but simply whether there were many alternatives. I fixed this for you Evan 6 electrical hides in an essentially random 250 find sample is not an opinion but a fact. So really to fix it, it should be: 'In the Twin Cities area, electrical hides are not all that unusual' since I can only speak of this area.

Because he kinda looks like a movie star, I won't post the pic I have of Knowschad at an event in Minnesota a few years ago. It is too bad because it would be one of those pictures that is worth a 1000 words. It is of several cachers standing around him, while he explains one of his hiding techniques. I've seen his work and it is very good. Long story short: The guy is a master hider and a very creative mind. He also has a geo-conscious that I wish was contagious. So you are accusing him of being disingenuous when he implies he doesn't know of numerous alternatives to electrical hides? No, but I don't think it is too much of a stretch to accuse you of trying to start trouble I was speaking to his experience, integrity, and skill as a hider because I know he would never do it himself. Because we have discussed urban hides at length together, I know that he has not only seen some pretty cleaver urban hides, he's put out quite a few himself. Maybe it might be helpful to reread his post. He was saying that he has never seen an electrical box that needed a screwdriver to open it. Not that electrical boxes are unusual or that they lack alternatives. Ok, I went back and reread and it still reads the same. People were talking about electrical box hides in general (possibly) being irresponsible because they could encourage unsafe behavior. To which Knowchad responds: So someone posts a few examples of what they consider more appropriate hides. To that post he responds: None of that is about screwdriver caches but is about electrical caches in general. It sure sounds like he is saying there is a lack of alternatives. What other possible reason would there be to repeatedly ask people to provide alternatives? My whole point was the he is saying he needs people to offer some alternatives, you say he is a great hider. That's where things don't quite jibe and makes it seem like you are saying that his asking for others to provide alternatives disingenuous . You again say he has discussed urban hides and has some clever ones. If that is the case, why in the world is he repeatedly asking others to provide examples of alternatives? It just doesn't make sense. And the whole "unusual" thing wasn't anything to do with Knowshad but someone else saying to someone's list of alternatives to electrical hides that only one on the list was unusual and is an entirely different discussion.

And electrical hides aren't all that unusual either. The question was not whether there are a lot of better, more unusual hides but simply whether there were many alternatives.

Because he kinda looks like a movie star, I won't post the pic I have of Knowschad at an event in Minnesota a few years ago. It is too bad because it would be one of those pictures that is worth a 1000 words. It is of several cachers standing around him, while he explains one of his hiding techniques. I've seen his work and it is very good. Long story short: The guy is a master hider and a very creative mind. He also has a geo-conscious that I wish was contagious. So you are accusing him of being disingenuous when he implies he doesn't know of numerous alternatives to electrical hides?

What difference does it make? Just because no one named many alternatives to electrical type hides doesn't make all those legitimate concerns about them go away. Even if there were no alternatives, that has nothing at all do with whether they are irresponsible and/or encourage unsafe behavior. 'I can't think of any thing else' is a pretty weak argument in support of them. But just to play your game: I have only been doing this for a couple months and found plenty of urban hides that don't involve anything electrical: in gaps in walls, in sign and fenceposts, and magnets stuck everywhere: on signs, railings, sculptures, freeway footbridges, etc. etc.. There are also a couple of really good and creative ones I don't want to mention how they are hidden because it would give too much away (including a Butcherandswimmer one that I think is truly great that I see you also found) but it appears there are at least a few people around the Twin Cities who can think up ways to make urban hides without resorting to electrical things.

The one that bothered me was one that was one of those magnetic sheets stuck to a power company box with big power cables running into it. I really was not comfortable feeling around that thing looking for the cache (it is not clear it is a sheet on the outside and not some nano stuck somewhere). Sure, if everything is in working order it is safe but I would hate to be the one that finds out for the power company that there is a short they didn't know about. Not to mention even though it is on public land, technically that box is private property and I find it hard to believe that the power company would like having caches hidden in or on that for just those kind of liability issues.

I believe you don't split up and search for separate caches simultaneously but I'll be dollars to doughnuts that you split up while searching for a cache (e.g., you check over there, I'll check over here). That means no one individual found the number of caches stated. They found some and just signed the logs that someone else found for others. I'm not saying it is cheating just that I am not all that impressed by group caching numbers because of that. The larger the group, the less time needed at each individual cache because of the division of searching power, so the easier it is to rack up high numbers. Which also not to say I don't think it couldn't be fun anyway. Searching with others adds a social aspect that solo caching doesn't have. Just that the raw numbers don't mean much without knowing how many people were involved. A powercache with two people is quite a bit different from powercaching with four which is quite a bit different from powercaching with eight. When the solo cachers get 100+, now THAT I am impressed with. Especially if they don't have a driver and are not in their home territory.

Solo or in a group? I would think having multiple people would make it much easier to get high numbers than someone doing everything by themselves so much so that it always the first question that pops into my mind when I see someone say "I" found X number. Having multiple people searching for the same cache at the same time would be a huge advantage over someone having to check every possible hiding place themselves.

While I own a good set of hiking boots, I don't have weak ankles so only use them when carrying a heavy pack. For geocaching and hiking without a pack, I use these waterproof trail-running shoes: http://www.salomonsports.com/us/#/footwear...-ultra-gtx-ss09

It must depend on where you cache because I have only been doing it for a couple months and have run into other cachers 7 times. Three of those were FTF attempts but the other four were just random encounters. And it happened twice in the last week. I am working on a photo project for my non-geocaching friends showing some of the more interesting caches I found. I wanted an example of a fake rock cache so stopped by a park where I had found one. As I was walking to it, there was a guy looking at a full-sized notebook computer on the trail. Turns out it was a guy and his young son trying for their very first find. They were way off base on where it was and even when I showed them the general area of the cache, a fake rock turned out to be too much for first time cachers. I showed them the cache and gave them some advice about starting out trying for ones with lower difficulty ratings and talked a little about some common hiding places and camo and some other miscellaneous advice. And then just a few days ago, I was picking up some caches on my way home from a Sunday brunch. As I was walking down the trail a family of five was coming in the opposite direction and the mom and dad were staring at their iphones. I cut over to where I showed the cache being and, sure enough, here they come. Turns out they are fairly new too but their three young girls (probably ages 4 to 9) seemed to be having fun. So, at least for me, running into other cachers has not been all that uncommon (I even think I am forgetting a couple).

... Just the smarmy attitude towards cachers this one poster seemed to have. This cacher appears to think very lowly of cachers who don't play the game to his level. ... I don't see a single negative adjective and thus nothing to support your conclusion about what they think of power cachers. They are simply describing the facts (as they see them) about what most power cachers do without making any sort of judgement about it at all. Looks to me more like you are just seeing what you want to see whether it actually exists or not.

The PDF at that link says: "geocaching may be permitted [in these unit classifications] (when approved by the District Superintendent):" For you to say so unequivocally that it meets those guidelines, you must have some evidence that the District Superintendent approved geocaches in that park. Just send the reviewer that evidence. If you don't have such evidence, then you aren't really being fully honest with the reviewer (or us) because you don't really know for sure that it meets the guidelines but are telling them (and us) it does.

What about that second link scares you? Is The Man really coming down too hard on people who kill others? What I noticed in that second article is that they say "...to unpeel a banana,...". Now that I hear that, it kind of makes more sense than to say 'peel a banana/orange/potato' but I don't think I have ever heard anyone say 'unpeel'. Is it a UK thing?

Those are all shorthand for, "I am too lazy and inconsiderate to write a real log." Hmm, that thinking seems to imply that the cache is so wonderful that it is absolutely impossible that in someone's subjective opinion, that is exactly all the cache deserves. So impossible the only logical conclusion is that there must be something wrong with the cacher themselves. Sounds more like emotion than logic to me.

Begin pendantic, useless information dump - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Actually, things like TFTC and TNLNSL are not acronyms: "a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words" I.e., acronyms are not pronounced as individual letters but as word. Some examples: NASA OPEC NATO Words where you say each letter are not acronyms, but initialisms. Some examples: FBI NBA TFTC Technically though, acronyms are a subset of initialisms so all acronyms are initialisms but not all initialisms are acronyms. End pendantic, useless information dump - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am having a hard time fathoming why a cache owner would "wish" someone would log a missing cache as a find. I have heard of many, many instances of COs saying someone CAN log it as a find but never that that they really want them to; implying that if they don't they are going against their wishes. Again, I am having a hard time thinking of any reason why a CO would WANT that as opposed to simply being ok with it if the 'finder' wants it. And if the owner is just ok with it, then NOT doing it is hardly going against their wishes.

Not that different. You still logged a found on a cache you did not find. Ah, but there IS a difference. The Cache Owner told me to log it that way. The cache owner is the final say if you log it found or not. Wouldn't you agree? The CO can give you permission but after that, YOU have the final say. I found a cache where the cache itself was gone but I found the magnet that attached it to its spot. I took a pic of it and sent it to the owner and logged a needs maintenance. The CO told me I could log a find but I didn't. To me, I didn't find it but just found a little piece of attaching material and not the cache itself. I wouldn't say other people in the same circumstances shouldn't log a find (it was a close to finding it as was possible), but I don't care about the numbers and to me, I didn't find the cache so I didn't log a found the cache log. The point is that it is only PARTLY up to the CO. It is also up to you to decide what your standards are for what constitutes a find in questionable circumstances.

And other subcultures use it for people that aren't part of their subculture too: knitters, hackers, pagans/wiccans, Lindy Hoppers, etc., etc., etc.. That's more why I don't really like it: it is just so uninspired and unimaginative and a bit childish. But it is so ingrained in the geocaching community now, it is here to stay.

I see what you mean and I forgive you for taking my GA bashing thread seriously. I'm not making a serious point. I made an observation in my OP of how the defenders are referred to on other more serious threads and hit the ball back over the net/fence thoroughly tongue in cheek. I try not to take myself, or my pursuit of all things geocaching too seriously. After all, it's jusssst grown-up idiots lookin' fer tupperware in the bushes fer crissake. I know you weren't serious: note that I pointed out that you were clearly exaggerating. And I agree with your overall point. This is not the first subculture I have been involved in. The same kind of 'sturm und drang' goes on over at BoardGameGeek and every forum I have participated in even going back to the pre-Internet days of BBSs. But jokingly belittling and mocking someone else's viewpoint is still belittling and mocking. Just saying your not serious doesn't make it any less so to people who (rightly or wrongly) feel strongly about it.

While I agree with the sentiment, you lose me when you use the False Dilemma logical fallacy to support your point: If people complain about inaccurate coordinates, they are asking for Tremble unit laser prefect coords. If people complain about lame swag, they are asking for Tiffany level swag. Etc., etc.. The logical fallacy is that these things are presented as if there are only two options: flawed caches or absurdly high standards. That is a false dilemma because those are not the only two options as there is a lot of room in between those two positions but it is written as if there isn't. I have been active on the website BoardGameGeek for years. Over there, when people submit pictures for a game, they have to be modded by users to be accepted on the website for a game's DB entry. There is a constant stream of threads in the forums from people who have their picture declined and they can't understand why. When people point out it is not quite in focus or needs to be cropped or whatever, someone invariably says that means people are asking for professional level photography. This is the same thing: if someone complains about something not being quite good enough, someone exaggerates the standards they are asking for as a way to belittle their position. Turns me off as it shows they aren't really listening to the other side and are only interested in mocking the other position even if to do so means they have to seriously misrepresent their position. And remember, I agree with you. I just think the point could have been made without belittling or mocking other peoples' position.

This was Icehouse Clams ( GCM9MV ) I go up there frequently and have been looking at what caches are around there but wasn't planning on caching this time. I've never been on the part of the river that Clam River Secret is on. A kayak is even better than a canoe. There are lots of logs just below the surface that you can power over because they are slick with moss (or some sort of aquatic equivilant). I think a canoe might have a harder time of it. Because of all the tricky parts, the river is a challenge to navigate but I like it. That's part of the fun. And, at least the parts I have been on, it is never so deep you can't get out and walk your craft if you run into a blockage you can't get around.

I wrote the story below for something else and just cut & pasted it. I left all the non-geocaching stuff in just to keep it in context: - - - - - - - - - - Sunday, 11:15 am: Left the Atlanta area with two vehicles (both towing loaded trailers), three drivers, one grumpy passenger and a big dog. Monday, 11:10 am: Arrived in Webster, WI. The trip took probably at least a couple hours longer than it should have because one of the vehicles got such poor mileage towing that trailer, we had to stop almost every three hours for gas. We also got caught in a storm where it was raining so hard, we had to pull over for a bit because we couldn't see. It was decided Dan & I would stay the night and be driven back down to the Twin Cities in the morning. I didn't want to totally screw up my sleep schedule and wasn't feeling too bad so I decided to take a solo kayak trip down the Clam River. The plan was that I would do what Tony does: when I reached the bridge at Ice House Road, I would call the house from my cell phone to be picked up. Even though the river is very low, I managed to navigate the maze of downed trees, submerged logs and shallow spots only having to get out of the kayak twice to haul it over spots where deadfall blocked the route from bank to bank. I reached the bridge and quickly discovered that while Tony's Verizon phone make work from that spot, my AT&T phone doesn't get a signal. After about five minutes, I flagged down a passing car. Their phone didn't work either and they didn't have a paper and pen. I didn't want to ask for a ride since they were going the wrong direction, my clothes were wet and I would have to leave the kayak unattended. The car left and I pondered what to do. Then I had an idea: I knew there was a geocache nearby because I had showed the satellite photo of where it is to Tony. Even though I had no GPSr, I used my memory of that satellite photo and my 'geosense' and searched for it. It took me about ten minutes, but I found it! I used the pen and paper from the log in that cache and wrote a note with the house's phone number and my name and that I was ready to be picked up at the bridge on Icehouse road. I flagged down the next car to come by. While their phone didn't work either, they promised they would take the note and call when they got home. After about 15 minutes of aimless pacing (I couldn't stand still or the bloodsucking, biting flies would start attacking), my rescuers arrived! Then it was off for All-You-Can-Eat tacos at the Yellow Lake Lodge, followed by a relaxing evening on the computer and watching tv and now for an early bed time. It's been a loooong day! - - - - - - - - - - Now, I was in no real danger of being stranded - my pickup would have come looking for me when it was obvious I was overdue - but knowing that geocache was there, finding it, and using the pen & paper saved me from having to stand around on the side of the road for 30-90 minutes I might have had to otherwise.

Not speaking for flask, but I don't get offended to the point of outrage. I get offended on the scale of when I'm following a stranger through a door and they don't look back to see if someone is following and let the door close in my face. Yep, that's a bit rude, but I just shake my head and move on. Some of the posters here are pretending that we all of the opinion that simply using a cache as a stepping stone is rude are foaming at the mouths and hopping mad. You're not, but we can still recognize it as rude. We certainly are not going to deny that it's rude or pretend it's okay simply because you can't stop it. But it appears that at least some of your perception of rudeness stems from your assumptions about what people that are doing the cache as part of a challenge are thinking: "...the only reason someone found our cache is because they're only interested in "bigger and better things." "A finder who finds one of our caches to fulfill a challenge's criteria is not finding our cache because they want to experience our cache, but to be able to legally log someone else's cache." "many of us don't put out cache simply to be found, we put them out to be enjoyed." "our efforts are sometimes boiled down to nothing but a stepping stone to a "bigger and better" cache" "Did you hunt that cache solely for the v and got nothing out of it because you failed to find, and thusly was unable to claim that v? Problem." You have no way of knowing for sure whether they chose your cached because they ALSO thought they might enjoy it. You also are assuming they only look at it as a tick off a list and not as an enjoyable cache. All of that smacks of mindreading. I think if you started giving people the benefit of the doubt - that they see it as MORE than just a tick on a list even if it is also that - you might not even be as mildly offended as you are. Unless you actually can read minds, why assume the worst in people?