Ron Streeter

Code caches.. Yes Bill, I had a code cache denied. The description said it was a physical cache, but did not contain a log sheet. It was denied on the basis of it being a physical cache but unable to hold a log sheet?! I explained and appealed it to the approver in question and suggested that he/she try it out on the special forum approvers have to talk about things. He/she did, and told me they *all* agreed it couldn't be approved. Well, I had had one just like it approved by one of those approvers, so I wrote to them (NCFlyers of...EUREKA, CA!) and they emailed the disapproving approver and made a convincing argument I guess. It got approved. I think at the time the new approver was looking at things he/she was feeling the *power* that comes with the position, but not realizing that *guidelines* are one thing, *rules* are another. Sounds like Ranger10! So, it does happen, but that's why I stress that all the approvers are only human. In a worst case scenario, one could appeal to Jeremy as he knows too that his human helpers sometimes make *mistakes*. By the way, the Flyers are now doing more caching (and no approving). Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

Bill and Fallen... Bill... I'm going hiking at Silver Lake this weekend (or Sunday-Monday) but I think your cache is elsewhere in the mountains. Fallen... Maybe Hemlock will see this post so I won't have to email him. I think several of us are under the impression that SOMEWHERE on the web site there is a notation that CODE caches aren't being approved anymore, but I don't know where that is. Maybe it's just that they are being DISCOURAGED but perhaps allowed on an individual basis depending on their circumstances or character. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. I just received this email from Ranger10. **** Hey Ron, How about code ????? IT"S GONE NOW!! No more caches where they don't belong! Ranger10 ******** I responded that he must be proud, but not as proud as I was of the cache he COULDN'T FIND without extracting a clue from me under false pretenses. I further indicated to him that I thought he had some *issues* which didn't totally revolve around *doing the right thing*. I will be disabling the cache and will replace it in a different location. Say Ranger10, I'm sure you're following the thread here...could you explain to all of us who hike that trail and to some who fish that lake what we hikers/fisherpersons should do if we have to answer the call of nature? As I recall there are no toilet facilities there. This would seem to be a good thing for rangers such as yourself to lobby for. Any thoughts ranger10? Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. Just went to this link and saw some interesting things about the new nearest caches views. I just need to figure it out and it looks like it could be neat and do the kinds of things I was talking about a couple of posts up from this. Nearest Caches ... New View And this link is cachers talking about the changes. Nearest Caches update....cacher opinions I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. Went out at 4:30 today (after six miles of hiking at Pardee) and found Ryan's new Old McDonald Farm cache. Then went looking for n2books2 Dr NT Pharm.D. cache. Couldn't find it, went home and found it had been archived before even one person found it! Some pharmacy person must have grabbed it. Emailed the placers asking where the thing had been. ********* On another note: surprised no one has said anything about the new look of the *nearest caches* list...very colorful compared to the old way, but it puts all the caches in your zip code in an order that includes 1)your finds 2)your hides 3) ones you haven't found...all in one big list that then extends to other pages. I liked the old way better. When I popped up the first page of my zip code it immediately showed me new ones at the top of the page, then ones I found, then ones I had placed. I think this grouping was the best way to present that list. Guess the new one will take some getting used to, but wonder if it couldn't be *ordered* by the user looking at it to reflect the old approach. Haven't looked anywhere on the forums to see if anyone is discussing this. Something similar happens when you look at the *found* or *hidden* list of someone in their profile area. Kind of disconcerting approach for me. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. Bill.... There are a couple of other sites, but in my opinion they aren't that viable. I even joined one of them two years ago but quickly became disenchanted with it. One of the map makers spent some time there when things fell apart here at geocaching.com, but this other site isn't doing all that well on a national basis. Looks like it's OK for the New York state area. You'll even find a few California caches listed there, but...anyway, not much going on there. Sorry that you (Bill) and Kablooey are having such a negative time with the site right now. Hopefully things will straigten out all around. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. . I just got through editing and/or posting notes to two of my caches, Valet #4 and Olive Grove which are at Pardee lake and two of seven caches I have there. Web site seems to work OK for me. These caches are pretty remote and not that many cachers are invested in hiking enough to go for them. So far only Two Dollar Bill and Lil Devil have made any effort in their direction. In regard to caches which don't get much activity being in danger of being *archived*, that plain doesn't make much sense to me, and I hope it's not a reality that THAT is happening. I saw one approver had looked at my Olive Grove cache 4 times (most recently in the last few days). Lack of *attendance* at a cache SHOULD NOT be a criteria for archiving. Caches might be remote OR all the LOCAL cachers may have gone to a cache and until new cachers come along, it could sit for awhile. I have one cache in Colorado...don't worry it's a museum virtual and needs no maintenance...that can only be visited during a 3 month period. Only a few people have gone for it because of its remote location from active cachers. Just some thoughts. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. Had a nice email from Hemlock about caching in general and the archiving and approval process. This is a learning experience for everyone and even though it's a couple of years old now, geocaching is still evolving. I've found that straight-forward communicating with TPTB at geocaching.com usually works out ok. I have only had one cache archived that I couldn't legitimately argue a case for and I have some new ideas for it that might work, so everyone should keep an open mind when working out the *sore spots* on these things. The archived cache was a *locationless* that I had really placed as a *statement* AGAINST locationless caches, and I guess in a way it WORKED, as it got rejected! Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. Had a nice email from Hemlock about caching in general and the archiving and approval process. This is a learning experience for everyone and even though it's a couple of years old now, geocaching is still evolving. I've found that straight-forward communicating with TPTB at geocaching.com usually works out ok. I have only had one cache archived that I couldn't legitimately argue a case for and I have some new ideas for it that might work, so everyone should keep an open mind when working out the *sore spots* on these things. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

Say it ain't so Brute ! Give it some time and maybe things can be arranged so your cache will be *acceptable*. We need good, creative and fun caches in the area and you are one of the folks who provide them. Give yourself a little cooling time please. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

quote:Originally posted by JaimeeG: Oh well, if they stop approving caches, we can just all go around and find those that have been temporarily disabled for the last six months but are still in place!! I've got a few of those myself though some of them have been archived of late. When they get archived...and then if you take care of them...they can get re-activated without too much trouble. It's interesting to see the approvers come and go. There are more of them now than when I was doing it two years ago, but some still leave for one reason or another. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. No code caches, no knives....soon, no caches ! Luckily, I suspect this one is grand-fathered. And anyone who has found it knows that no child is going to find it first..they would give up before that happened! Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. Somewhere along the line I missed the info on Ranger10 in which someone indicated he was leaving inappropriate notes in caches he looked at. Will someone who is aware of the contents of these notes please email me with details? Thanks. I would maintain the confidentiality of such an email. Also, it may be a good idea to take some photos of those log entries before the caches are revisited and the notes might be destroyed. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

CaptainGPS... I think you'll find the history of the word Eureka goes back a bit further than California! I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

quote:Originally posted by fizzymagic:I'm confused. I can't find any evidence of a Ranger10 at geocaching.com. At least, they haven't posted any logs. So I don't understand what's going on... ********** Hey Fizzy...here is the url for his profile. http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.asp?A=124552 ********** Look back through the forum for Sacramento and you'll see some of the discussion. Basically, this guy is just *doing his job*, because the cache is 75 feet off an ashphalt road which is the only spot a *citizen* can walk on at this park. The upper dirt road is accessed through a picnic area and some storage containers. Since one is not supposed to set foot off the ashphalt road (even to have a picnic ... I suspect the picnic tables are only for workers....) the cache is *illegal*. I don't really have a problem with this *enforcement* other than I think it is an *exactitude* that reeks of excessiveness. It is akin to the *rule* that doesn't allow dogs on EBMUD trails where horses are allowed. In that case, I'm sure there are some differences in dog fecal matter as opposed to horse fecal matter, and for those dog owners who let their dogs run instead of having them on a leash, I can see where some squirrel (or maybe a cow) might get offended by a dog's presence. I realize some horses get spooked by dogs, but some humans get spooked by horses too. Responsible *pet* management would seem to be the cure here. *********** Anyone drive 5 miles an hour faster than the speed limit lately? Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

Here is Ranger10's answer to my email to him. ***************** Since it is in an area where you are not supposed to be, it will probably be gone when I find it. The "no" sign out there means what it says. The only place you can be is on the road or at the fishing spot. The entry at the gate is to allow employees to enter to open the gate. People are allowed in the aforementioned areas only as a courtesy. If it is abused, access can be denied to everyone not authorized to be in there. Everything beyond the gate is a protected nature preserve. The rules of cache placement state that caches are not to be placed where people are not allowed to be. In Sacramento County, that means nature areas along the American River Parkway, Cosumnes River Preserve, Regional Sanitation, and anywhere else it says "NO TRESPASSING" or "AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL/VEHICLES ONLY". Please adhere to these rules in the future. If you are found where you are not supposed to be, you can be cited. Thank you, Ranger 10 I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

Here is Ranger10's answer to my email to him. ************** Since it is in an area where you are not supposed to be, it will probably be gone when I find it. The "no" sign out there means what it says. The only place you can be is on the road or at the fishing spot. The entry at the gate is to allow employees to enter to open the gate. People are allowed in the aforementioned areas only as a courtesy. If it is abused, access can be denied to everyone not authorized to be in there. Everything beyond the gate is a protected nature preserve. The rules of cache placement state that caches are not to be placed where people are not allowed to be. In Sacramento County, that means nature areas along the American River Parkway, Cosumnes River Preserve, Regional Sanitation, and anywhere else it says "NO TRESPASSING" or "AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL/VEHICLES ONLY". Please adhere to these rules in the future. If you are found where you are not supposed to be, you can be cited. Thank you, Ranger 10 I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. . Now here's a how-do-you-do. I received an email from a Creston Aldridge suggesting a code response for my Picnic Time cache. It was the wrong code and when I emailed him back and suggested that the email he sent me didn't give an indication of which cache he was responding to, he sent me a 2nd email and mentioned the Picnic Time cache and asked for a clue. Gentleman cacher that I am, I gave him a clue which will probably result in a find. I forgot to ask him what name he used in geocaching and so I sent a 2nd email to him asking his caching name and also posed this question..."You're not Ranger10 are you?" After I pushed the send button I went to look at the profile on Ranger10 and sure enough, the nospam address is for c....aldridge. I sent him a 3rd email ... a polite one... and suggested that with the provided clue I was sure he would be able to find the Picnic Time cache and that I hoped he would respect its *innocuous* nature and let it remain. We'll have to see what happens. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

. . Now here's a how-do-you-do. I received an email from a Creston Aldridge suggesting a code response for my Picnic Time cache. It was the wrong code and when I emailed him back and suggested that the email he sent me didn't give an indication of which cache he was responding to, he sent me a 2nd email and mentioned the Picnic Time cache and asked for a clue. Gentleman cacher that I am, I gave him a clue which will probably result in a find. I forgot to ask him what name he used in geocaching and so I sent a 2nd email to him asking his caching name and also posed this question..."You're not Ranger10 are you?" After I pushed the send button I went to look at the profile on Ranger10 and sure enough, the nospam address is for c....aldridge. I sent him a 3rd email ... a polite one... and suggested that with the provided clue I was sure he would be able to find the Picnic Time cache and that I hoped he would respect its *innocuous* nature and let it remain. We'll have to see what happens. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

Now here's a how-do-you-do. I received an email from a Creston Aldridge suggesting a code response for my Picnic Time cache. It was the wrong code and when I emailed him back and suggested that the email he sent me didn't give an indication of which cache he was responding to, he sent me a 2nd email and mentioned the Picnic Time cache and asked for a clue. Gentleman cacher that I am, I gave him a clue which will probably result in a find. I forgot to ask him what name he used in geocaching and so I sent a 2nd email to him asking his caching name and also posed this question..."You're not Ranger10 are you?" After I pushed the send button I went to look at the profile on Ranger10 and sure enough, the nospam address is for c....aldridge. I sent him a 3rd email ... a polite one... and suggested that with the provided clue I was sure he would be able to find the Picnic Time cache and that I hoped he would respect its *innocuous* nature and let it remain. We'll have to see what happens. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

Hey Jaimee... I've noticed the same thing. I haven't looked at mine for awhile, but I think I show 185 hidden in my profile, but a few less than that when I look at my hidden list. I too have seen profile numbers that are TWICE what one sees when going to a list of that person's hides. I originally thought it was due to archived caches, but I don't know. I guess to be totally honest, this kind of thing USED to be important to me to a certain extent, but now I could care less. As far as the STATS readings, I believe that nothing that happens on the web site regarding archiving, etc has any affect on the stats, but of course...I could be wrong. I haven't looked at the stats page for about a month...I think I am number 5 or something in California now...and dropping! Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

If you can believe this, I get mail from people wanting me to help them figure out who Hemlock is! Get a life people! Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

I've placed half a dozen code word caches which DEFINATELY would not hold a log. I have received nothing but rave reviews on these from the cachers who found them...some took two or three trips and they were cachers who had found in the hundreds. Glad I got them placed before this *rule* took place. Ron (843 found/180 hidden) I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

Hey Hemlock... I don't take the archiving personally. I was a cache approver way back when and know the site is improving with time. Frankly, the bloom is off-the-rose for me, but maybe in cooler weather I'll get back into it a bit. As I noted earlier, I still like to place a cache now and again. Yes, I can make a link to the Valet archived site, or make the contents (pictures and such) available on web space I have available. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

On another note... I have gotten four emails from the approver HEMLOCK who has archived 4 of my caches which I have been remiss in relocating or reactivating. Considering that the caches are in now unavailable areas...due to new property lines, etc, or in some other way, areas not worthy of new caches, this seems unneccessary, but who knows. It MIGHT get me active on at least one of them which could be taken to new coords. I know a few cachers (myself included) who just leave the caches there when they go disabled or archived for some reason. Makes me think of the Dave Ulmer days of telling us all we were *littering*. Then I think of all the *unattended* trash there is along the roadways and wonder if a film container tucked under a rock really has much impact on the grander scheme of things. I suppose one could say every little bit counts (against the environment), but I wonder. I saw recently that so many millions of small water bottles are in landfills that THAT is becoming a problem. I guess man is his own worst enemy....and again, how much impact because one film container is in the middle of a forest....now the trail TO it might become a problem, but once disabled or archived, I find it hard to imagine that many people would go for it, since the intent of disabling or archiving was to take it out of circulation. My first Where's That Valet?! cache showed an upside down new SUV sitting next to a river. It was a virtual and worth hiking too and finding. Now it is gone and I disabled it, but still had people who viewed it when they looked at my other Valet caches. Now that is archived, I think only people who had found it can look at those photos...too bad. Ron I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.