Jump to content

Skovar

Banned
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Skovar

  1. If it's in your possession, it's YOUR dollar. Log it on the WG website if you want to, and/or return the dollar to circulation in any manner you deem appropriate.
  2. Does the guy that runs WG still accept and log stamped money he receives in the mail as FOG payments, and does he still mail those bills back out to other FOGs? How about those special bills that are circulated (via the mail or face-to-face meetings) only among an elite group of "Georgers?" Does he still participate in that? I'd wager an unstamped, unlogged dollar bill that none of those bills has been invalidated.
  3. How interesting! In the places I've lived, the local governments have always seemed to be populated mostly by young, upwardly-mobile professionals with personal agendas and aspirations for higher political office. Does Salem suffer from a "cache density/saturation" issue? That issue seems often to be the motivating force behind such regulations/statutes.
  4. If you plan not to replace the cache, then archive it. Archiving keeps all logs intact, and except under extraordinary circumstances, people can still submit new logs.
  5. I thought the main point of the original post was "Is it possible that cache hiders be more thoughtful of the cachers?" I've read many times in these threads that the very act of placing any cache is nothing less than a selfless act of kindness by the hider. RE: Disclosure. While the cache owner is required to provide complete information to the reviewers so that they can make a fair determination, the cache owner is only required to provide starting coordinates on the cache page. Any other information the cache owner chooses to disclose is entirely discretionary. Many times, less is more, and more is less. To repeat what I said in the first response to this thread, it's a matter of "Caveat Emptor." To some people, that uncertainty is undoubtedly the primary attraction of the game.
  6. Of course, cache owners are free to delete any and all logs and photos, and some are known to delete anything that is remotely critical. It then becomes a game of who is more stubborn. Log ... delete. Log ... delete, etc.. Who knows where, and to what extent, it eventually leads? To think, so much turmoil over a crummy container that probably didn't contain even $1.00 worth of trinkets. It's times like those that force one to ask: Is geocaching really a game played primarily by adults?
  7. No, but there is at least one geocache that never leaves the hands of its owner and appears almost exclusively at cache events. It's listed as a mystery cache, but I suppose it really should be considered an elite traveling cache. I wonder if anybody has lobbied TPTB for a special icon for it? Someone really should.
  8. I think "if someone places it, someone will seek it." This topic has been discussed many times before, and I think the official position could be boiled down to: Geocaching.com is a listing service and has neither interest nor the resources to act as a guarantor of quality. In other words, "Caveat Emptor."
  9. I guess those friends of the "interloper" weren't claiming finds on your cache, or you would have received notification each time one of them logged it. Regardless, I think the property owner be granted peace of mind by the removal and permanent archival of the cache. Start fresh in a new location. In my opinion, your situation makes a strong argument for removing archived listings from public view. (Those who owned or logged archived caches would still be able to view the pages.)
  10. But you'll make exceptions, of course. It seems to me the only people taking a gamble seeking new caches hidden by new geocachers are the FTF junkies. I'd bet they accept such risks as SOP. How is anyone going to know, much less care, if any individual geocacher is boycotting any specific caches? Especially when boycotting geocachers "make exceptions!?!"
  11. "You're the kind of girl that fits in with my world; I'll give you anything everything if you want things." I've always wanted to use that Syd Barrett quote. Thanks for the opportunity.
  12. What did I suggest in my earlier post? A 1/4 mile minimum distance between caches in urban areas? If that would be unduly restrictive, then I suppose your town must be really, really small and you have very, very little time for recreation. I would think one cache per outing would provide satisfaction, but apparently not. We need to breath, eat, and drink. Many of us need to earn a living. And, after the necessities of life have been attended to, we need recreation. Geocaching provides one opportunity for recreation among many, so no, I would say we don't need geocaching. But it is a nice option to have.
  13. Those sound more like excuses for greed than legitimate reasons. Regardless, I think the notion that people "need" to geocache is preposterous. So is the suggestion that caches should be placed in close proximity because people have time constraints. (How many caches must one seek per outing in order to be satisfied?) It might be different in your area, but I haven't noticed a great demand for especially easy caches from handicapped geocachers. I don't know any mobility-challenged geocachers, but I do know several mobility-challenged hikers, and they don't like being pandered to; they neither want nor need anyone to tell them what they can or should attempt.
  14. I don't agree that every "unique and interesting location" needs a geocache. When there are so many geocaches in an area that most of the local geocachers don't even bother seeking the majority of them, then the problem should be obvious: too many caches, too close together, lacking originality or interest.
  15. I don't. I would prefer a minimum distance between caches of 1/4 mile in urban areas, and 1 mile in rural areas. WOW! You'd miss out on some pretty interesting spots and hides. I understand that, way-back-when, geocaching frequently brought people to interesting and exciting locations. I seriously doubt that can currently be said for (by far) the majority of geocaches. I think it would be an acceptable trade-off for the occasional excellent spot to remain cacheless because of its proximity to another cache, if the number of no-good-reason-to-exist caches could be limited. But that will never happen. Many, if not most, geocachers appear to be interested more in numbers (and icons) than superior locations. Isn't that why the densely-packed, easy-n-convenient caches are the most popular?
  16. I suspect you will learn a lot more about "what not to do" than "the right way to do things." That's not necessarily a bad thing ... but by all means, when you do hide your first cache, please revisit this thread and let us know what you learned and how it affected your hide.
  17. I don't. I would prefer a minimum distance between caches of 1/4 mile in urban areas, and 1 mile in rural areas.
  18. "The sky is falling, the sky is falling." Shhh ... quiet! Was that a cry of "wolf" I heard in the distance? After re-reading your OP and the quoted comment, I wonder: How many more active cachers are there today than there were one year ago? Two years ago? (Note the use of the word "active.") Historically, what percentage of new cachers have listed caches without having logged any finds? What percentage of those caches were reported to be of poor quality? How does that compare to the percentage of all newly listed caches reported to be of poor quality that were hidden by experienced, active cachers? Is there a significant difference; if so, which group did worse? After crunching your numbers, wouldn't it be hilarious to discover that the group consisting of experienced, active cachers proved to be the group badly in need of "re-education?"
  19. Here's the logic of the situation: You are free to seek the caches or ignore them. Maybe the caches are good, maybe not; as with any cache placed by anyone, there is no guarantee of quality. Caveat emptor.
  20. No. Some of these gardens/playgrounds are between 50 and 100 years old. The wrought iron fences, gates, and locks, continue to restrict access as intended. Public awareness? In this day and age where so many people don't even know the names of their next door "neighbors?" You think most of those people actually care one iota about what happens to your kids down at the playground? No doubt that's precisely why many of these seemingly frivolous laws needed to be enacted.
  21. To borrow from Freud: "Sometimes a playground is just a playground." There are many small playgrounds or gardens in each borough of NYC that are fenced in, gated, locked, and controlled by a neighborhood association. Some of these areas are privately owned, but many are city owned with control of the area granted to the neighborhood associations. Follow their rules or you will be asked to leave ... or a police officer will be called to remove you. The playground in question allows much freer access than many. I'm sure it wouldn't be much of a problem to create a neighborhood association, if one doesn't already exist, close the gate and restrict access to keyholders. Would that make you happier?
  22. That particular playground is reserved exclusively for children and the adults accompanying them. If you don't fit that description, stay out of that playground ... just like you don't park in those parking spaces reserved exclusively for people with handicapped placards.
  23. It's a fenced in playground. With playground equipment. The intent was to provide a safe place for children to play. The benches are there for the convenience of guardians who might not wish to accompany their children onto the playground equipment. A great idea. But should a ticket have been issued? No, the cops should have used discretion and made certain the woman was aware of the rule the first time they noticed her. And if she was still there the next time they went past, she had earned her fine. But ignorance of the law is no excuse ... especially when it's posted right in front of one's eyes.
×
×
  • Create New...