Mopar

quote:Originally posted by Lil Devil:Don't worry. Jeremy and Elias are just trying to download your Quicken files, credit card numbers, and nude pictures of your wife. Everything interesting that they have found has been posted http://www.lildevil.org/nav/. Lil Devil http://www.trailbikesportsmen.org/images/lildevil.gif Well, whatever it is getting posted at that link, it sure ain't geocaches! That site has 9 caches within 50 miles of me, geocaching.com shows almost 600. Hmmm, which one should I chose Illegitimus non carborundum!

I'm crying with ya Mark, dont know what else to say..... Illegitimus non carborundum!

Basically APRS is something ham radio operators have been doing with our GPS's for years. Its sorta like the features of the Garmin Rino with the range of ham radio. There is even an APRS enabled cache that can be tracked via a website. We have a forum here for geocaching hams where you can find out more about APRS and ham radio. Illegitimus non carborundum!

I'm trying to submit a log and I'm getting an error page: The page cannot be displayed There is a problem with the page you are trying to reach and it cannot be displayed. Please try the following: Click the Refresh button, or try again later. Open the www.geocaching.com home page, and then look for links to the information you want. HTTP 500.100 - Internal Server Error - ASP error Internet Information Services Technical Information (for support personnel) Error Type: Microsoft OLE DB Provider for ODBC Drivers (0x80040E57) [Microsoft][ODBC SQL Server Driver][sql Server]String or binary data would be truncated. /seek/cache_logfind.asp, line 278 Browser Type: Mozilla/4.79 [en] (Win95; U) Page: POST 6745 bytes to /seek/cache_logfind.asp POST Data: ID=13434&LID=&date_visit=8%2F20%2F2002&logtype=2&URL=www.njrnr.org&lat_ns=1&lat_h=&lat_mmss=&long_ew=-1&long_h=&long_mmss=&comments=Find+%2345+07%3A00pm+%0D%0AI+had+to+run+an+errand+in+Freehold+today. . . . Time: Wednesday, August 21, 2002, 1:59:12 PM Illegitimus non carborundum![/list

quote:Originally posted by jnc1991:Whether it is useful or annoying or not I dont see why it is a problem...doesn't seem worth addressing to me. I hope that does not sound to sarcastic, I dont mean it that way! JNC 20 feet apart is way too close. Given the error inherent in the GPS system, its very likely you could find cache #1 at the exact co-ordinates given for cache #2. Also, it would seem that the actual virtual cache is the same, they just have 2 slightly different ways of verifying it. Since the database is already calculating the distance to the other nearest caches, I would think something that close to an existing cache should throw up some sort of red flag. I'm not saying to automatically reject caches closer then x number of feet, but at least tag it for extra attention by the approvers Illegitimus non carborundum!

And point him to this thread. Maybe if every other cacher deletes HIS found logs, he will finally understand. Illegitimus non carborundum!

Email him back, tell him if he has a problem with the cache, he is welcome to remove it. Ask him to notify you when he does, so you can come down and pick it up. Illegitimus non carborundum!

Email him back, tell him if he has a problem with the cache, he is welcome to remove it. Ask him to notify you when he does, so you can come down and pick it up. Illegitimus non carborundum!

Geocaching around Europe, huh? Can't even get ya to geocache in your own back yard, and you're going to Europe? Phhhht! Illegitimus non carborundum!

These quotations are actual comments left on Forest Service registration sheets and comment cards by hikers completing wilderness camping trips.* "Escalators would help on steep uphill sections." "A small deer came into my camp and stole my bag of pickles. Is there a way I can get reimbursed? Please call." "Instead of a permit system or regulations, the Forest Service needs to reduce worldwide population growth to limit the number of visitors to wilderness." "Trails need to be wider so people can walk while holding hands." "Ban walking sticks in wilderness. Hikers that use walking sticks are more likely to chase animals." "All the mile markers are missing this year." "Found a smoldering cigarette left by a horse." "Trails need to be reconstructed. Please avoid building trails that go uphill." "Too many bugs and leeches and spiders and spider webs. Please spray the wilderness to rid the area of these pests." "Please pave the trails so they can be plowed of snow in the winter." "Chairlifts need to be in some places so that we can get to wonderful views without having to hike to them." "The coyotes made too much noise last night and kept me awake. Please eradicate these annoying animals." "Reflectors need to be placed on trees every 50 feet so people can hike at night with flashlights." "A McDonald's would be nice at the trailhead." "The places where trails do not exist are not well marked." "Too many rocks in the mountains." "Need more signs to keep area pristine." * list obtained from www.RinkWorks.com Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by Lyra:I guess its inevitable that in any pleasurable endeavor, some idiot will show up to ruin the fun for the legitimate participants. I think the logs should be deleted by the cache hiders and the suspect new caches he placed be archived until someone actually goes out and verifies that they're not real. Uhm, did you actually READ anything before you posted? 2 out of the 3 caches you want archived HAVE BEEN FOUND already. THEY ARE REAL. Chances are, since he really was in the area to place the caches, he also really did find all those caches. Jeeze, if you want to be the cache police, at least get all the facts before making the arrest Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by Lyra:I guess its inevitable that in any pleasurable endeavor, some idiot will show up to ruin the fun for the legitimate participants. I think the logs should be deleted by the cache hiders and the suspect new caches he placed be archived until someone actually goes out and verifies that they're not real. Uhm, did you actually READ anything before you posted? 2 out of the 3 caches you want archived HAVE BEEN FOUND already. THEY ARE REAL. Chances are, since he really was in the area to place the caches, he also really did find all those caches. Jeeze, if you want to be the cache police, at least get all the facts before making the arrest Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot:Burn them! Wait a sec ... How's it work again? Do the RiceBrothers weigh more a duck? Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by BassoonPilot:Burn them! Wait a sec ... How's it work again? Do the RiceBrothers weigh more a duck? Illegitimus non carborundum!

The 3 closest caches to me are mine, all mine. I seem to remember a thread some time ago about being able to track down a cacher by mapping the finds/hides. I think weight was added to early finds and hides, since those were most likely to be closest to home. Illegitimus non carborundum!

The 3 closest caches to me are mine, all mine. I seem to remember a thread some time ago about being able to track down a cacher by mapping the finds/hides. I think weight was added to early finds and hides, since those were most likely to be closest to home. Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by Team VE:I'm not commenting on machete wielding geocachers here. Since the thread is about cheating hurting other , I _would_ like to point out that http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=30446 _has_ been found. Given what I know of the finders, if they say it's there, it's there... The defense rests. Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by Team VE:I'm not commenting on machete wielding geocachers here. Since the thread is about cheating hurting other , I _would_ like to point out that http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=30446 _has_ been found. Given what I know of the finders, if they say it's there, it's there... The defense rests. Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by Rusty:There also comes a point when giving someone the benifit of doubt is not acceptable. I think they crossed that point when they posted a fake 4/4 cache on a ecologically fragile and very steep hillside on Mackinaw Island. Well, I see 2 logs on the cache in question. The 1st not found admits the terrain was too tough and didnt get near it. The second mentions a daughter, so i would assume they didn't attempt it either. a 4/4 cache is: quote:Difficulty rating: 4 Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete. Terrain rating: 4 xperienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.) Sorry, I don't see a 4/4 quality attempt logged there. Until I see a few attempts worthy of a 4/4 logged, I will still give them the benefit of doubt. Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by Rusty:There also comes a point when giving someone the benifit of doubt is not acceptable. I think they crossed that point when they posted a fake 4/4 cache on a ecologically fragile and very steep hillside on Mackinaw Island. Well, I see 2 logs on the cache in question. The 1st not found admits the terrain was too tough and didnt get near it. The second mentions a daughter, so i would assume they didn't attempt it either. a 4/4 cache is: quote:Difficulty rating: 4 Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete. Terrain rating: 4 xperienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.) Sorry, I don't see a 4/4 quality attempt logged there. Until I see a few attempts worthy of a 4/4 logged, I will still give them the benefit of doubt. Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by The Leprechauns:Like Mopar, I also went back and read through other logs out of curiosity. My favorite (?) is at http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=20065 where the hider describes the fragile nature preserve and rare plants, and other finders describe the beautiful wildflowers and being extra careful approaching the cache site. Then there are the logs left by Rice Brothers and his buddy: Yeah, I saw that too, Lep. Just so it's clear, I'm not agreeing with RiceBrother's style of caching. I don't condone hacking out a trail with a machette. I usually try to find trails do not resort to bushwhacking the second the trail veers 2 degrees. I am saying that it appears that most of his other logs are about the same as the ones in question. Most of them are "nice cache!" or "found it, took something, left something." Not much else. Looking at that, I can see him pasting the same generic log in for each find. Me, I tend to consider each cache another chapter in my geocaching book, and my logs reflect that. Most of my local cachers probably WISH I just wrote "found it!" hehehe. Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by The Leprechauns:Like Mopar, I also went back and read through other logs out of curiosity. My favorite (?) is at http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=20065 where the hider describes the fragile nature preserve and rare plants, and other finders describe the beautiful wildflowers and being extra careful approaching the cache site. Then there are the logs left by Rice Brothers and his buddy: Yeah, I saw that too, Lep. Just so it's clear, I'm not agreeing with RiceBrother's style of caching. I don't condone hacking out a trail with a machette. I usually try to find trails do not resort to bushwhacking the second the trail veers 2 degrees. I am saying that it appears that most of his other logs are about the same as the ones in question. Most of them are "nice cache!" or "found it, took something, left something." Not much else. Looking at that, I can see him pasting the same generic log in for each find. Me, I tend to consider each cache another chapter in my geocaching book, and my logs reflect that. Most of my local cachers probably WISH I just wrote "found it!" hehehe. Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:The irritating thing is that several of the caches logged with this note were multi (or just plain challenging) caches, which had taken others several hours to find...or worse yet, on caches which appeared to be missing, since several recent No Find logs had been posted. I've spent hours searching for a cache, only to post a not found. Cachers before and after me commented on how easy it was, how they just walked right up to it. This has happened to me at least twice. I also placed what I and most others considered a fairly difficult cache. One cacher, however, did the whole thing in 30 minutes! (dadgum you, BassoonPilot!) As I read thru all of RiceBrother's MI logs, I noticed one cache they post as found, that had 2 months of not founds before them, mostly by new (at the time) cachers. This weekend a more experienced cacher found the cache plundered. It's possible that when RiceBrothers logged it it really DID exist, or they too found the plundered remains and logged it as a find (keep that topic in the other threads!). Sometimes the cachegods smile on us, and we find the cache, sometimes they don't. Some cachers are more interested in stopping to smell the flowers along the way, some just want to see the plastic. Some of us want a challenging adventure, so of us just want a high number of finds next to our name. That's the great thing about geocaching, we can each play the game as we choose, just because someone else chooses to play it different, doesn't make them cheaters. Illegitimus non carborundum!

quote:Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:The irritating thing is that several of the caches logged with this note were multi (or just plain challenging) caches, which had taken others several hours to find...or worse yet, on caches which appeared to be missing, since several recent No Find logs had been posted. I've spent hours searching for a cache, only to post a not found. Cachers before and after me commented on how easy it was, how they just walked right up to it. This has happened to me at least twice. I also placed what I and most others considered a fairly difficult cache. One cacher, however, did the whole thing in 30 minutes! (dadgum you, BassoonPilot!) As I read thru all of RiceBrother's MI logs, I noticed one cache they post as found, that had 2 months of not founds before them, mostly by new (at the time) cachers. This weekend a more experienced cacher found the cache plundered. It's possible that when RiceBrothers logged it it really DID exist, or they too found the plundered remains and logged it as a find (keep that topic in the other threads!). Sometimes the cachegods smile on us, and we find the cache, sometimes they don't. Some cachers are more interested in stopping to smell the flowers along the way, some just want to see the plastic. Some of us want a challenging adventure, so of us just want a high number of finds next to our name. That's the great thing about geocaching, we can each play the game as we choose, just because someone else chooses to play it different, doesn't make them cheaters. Illegitimus non carborundum!

Yeah, I really hate cheaters, but I think alot of people here are a bit quick to holler "CHEATER" (remember the threads calling BruceS and CCCooper cheaters because "nobody could find that many caches without cheating"?). I guess since the caches in question have been posted here, we can say the cacher in question is RiceBrothers. I looked thru a bunch of their finds, and while it would appear they are legitimate cachers, they don't exactly play by the geocaching rules that most of us here do. For example, they picked up a travel bug in one cache. Never logged the bug, and wasn't responding to emails. 5 weeks later they leave it in a terrain 5 cache. Their entire log for that cache consisted of" ". Thats it, just a smiley. It's quite possible that they really do it for the most basic of reasons, the thrill of the hunt, and don't even sign the logbook. I would be interested to hear from some of the Ohio cachers that have found caches he has traded at. Did he sign the log book there? If we consider that his finds might be legit, would you then still suspect his hides are bogus? Or just hard to find, plundered, or poorly placed? I don't know RiceBrothers, so maybe I'm totally wrong and he is inflating his finds. Maybe I'm just too trusting, but I just don't think we should be so quick to accuse people of being dishonest. Illegitimus non carborundum!