Jump to content

Jeep_Dog

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    886
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jeep_Dog

  1. There's the proximity bit again. The rules apply, but some folks in this debate seem to think the rules should apply more... I am confused by proximity. Eartcaches do not seem to be physical caches, at least not ones as defined in the guidelines as "a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a tag... or a countainer." Then, there's an exemption which reads "non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline." So, what am I missing? The debate in this thread has completely unearthed (hehehe) my understanding of the guidelines. I generally agree with The Leprechauns in the sentiment that the move to GC submittal is a positive change. However, I cannot condone statements such as "these are the guidelines which, when properly applied, will keep distant interlopers from taking a virtual dump right on top of a perfectly placed ammo box that already does a fine job of showing off the geology of the area." Such a statement is a gross representation of earthcaching, and to me demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and appreciation for the purpose of an earthcache. It is not about "showing off the geology," but being a "great way to learn more about our wonderful world. It can ... teach you about why those places are special or unique." Sorry, but the standard phsyical dump of a cache leads mostly to the quest of the almighty smiley as opposed to actually stopping to smell the flowers and learn something. There's been many cases of phsyical cache finds where I wish the CO had taken the time (or a local earthcacher to establish a cache and provide insight) to provide a lesson in geology. Normally, I got it - I'll go look it up, research, and learn - but having the earthcache shortcut certainly is nice and provides a great venue for learning about the geologic world around me.
  2. I am confused by proximity. Eartcaches do not seem to be physical caches, at least not ones as defined in the guidelines as "a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a tag... or a countainer." Then, there's an exemption which reads "non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline." So, what am I missing? The debate in this thread has completely unearthed (hehehe) my understanding of the guidelines. I generally agree with The Leprechauns in the sentiment that the move to GC submittal is a positive change. However, I cannot condone statements such as "these are the guidelines which, when properly applied, will keep distant interlopers from taking a virtual dump right on top of a perfectly placed ammo box that already does a fine job of showing off the geology of the area." Such a statement is a gross representation of earthcaching, and to me demonstrates a complete lack of understanding and appreciation for the purpose of an earthcache. It is not about "showing off the geology," but being a "great way to learn more about our wonderful world. It can ... teach you about why those places are special or unique." Sorry, but the standard phsyical dump of a cache leads mostly to the quest of the almighty smiley as opposed to actually stopping to smell the flowers and learn something. There's been many cases of phsyical cache finds where I wish the CO had taken the time (or a local earthcacher to establish a cache and provide insight) to provide a lesson in geology. Normally, I got it - I'll go look it up, research, and learn - but having the earthcache shortcut certainly is nice and provides a great venue for learning about the geologic world around me.
  3. Ha! Nope, you never found any of my caches there - you armchaired them! But, what do I know, I wasn't there either, so how would I know who logged my caches. Hey - look for an earthcache in Iraq soon. At the time of placement, I assure you it will be very close proximity to my place of residence. (oh, for those keeping score, yep, that'll be the fourth go-around).
  4. I know that geoaware is very busy. After submitting a recent earthcache I got an email from an assistant explaining that it would be awhile before the submission could be reviewed. But he has always responded to my specific questions so I trust he will be addressing your concerns. However, it would be good to know if there are now proximity requirements that are not stated on the earthcache.org submission guidelines. Perhaps that can be clarified here. Yes, very busy indeed, as I can only imagine. And, of course, appreciate the wonderful work that he is doing. Please understand that the logic which I am about to lay out in what follows is not a personal attack or disgruntlement - just that which I've learned here in two weeks. So, through this process, I can only share that it seems to me that there are indeed proximity requirements that are not stated on the earthcache.org submission guidelines. First, in the other disuccusion to which you already linked: From Geoware: "GSA no longer requires the permission for the nearby cache owner (but feel that it is common courtesy to contact them). There has never been a 30 foot rule (and to be honest, we wonder where that idea even came from??????)" Our only requirement is that it must not have the same coordinates as an existing cache. After reading the above, I was quite confused as to why the cache which I had submitted was denied due to proximity of a virtual cache. The coordinates were not exact, and were indeed offset. So, as I stated earlier in this discussion, was quite confused as to why my cache was not approved. In a reply to the query, this is what I received: Email from Geoware: The offset of these coordinates is smaller than the reasonable error of most GPS receivers (within 30 feet or so). It seems to me that there is indeed a 30' rule. Update on my cache (for those remotely interested) - it has been pushed to GC.COM, I've adpoted, and still awaiting approval. For what, I am not certain - since the coordinates are definitely "larger than the reasonable error of most GPS receivers (and outside 30 feet or so). Not sure I'm tracking the issue even with the nearby virtual - the virtual takes visitors to one of two atomic cannons ever built. The earthcache takes a look at the 300'+ of bedrock in the bluff upon which the cannon sits. Quite frankly, the coordinates could be spattered here and there along the bluff, but these provide an obvious official trail up the bluff and minimizing geocacher damage/erosion to the bluff (and a VERY small park and area in which permission can be gained).
  5. ... reply with quotes frustration, post deleted.
  6. Although it is a good idea to let the cache owners for existing caches to know about your plans to develop an earthcache at the location, geoaware also said that this was no longer required. Has there been a change in policy? Apparently there has been a change in policy, since the coordinates were offset 100 feet both LAT/LON from the virtual, and I still got this message. Not sure how I, or anyone else, should know since I've heard nothing back on my queries. Which brings me to the point that perhaps the most frustrating part of this experience is the lack of communication about this process; the EC reviewer has yet to reply one what it is that I need to do to remain within the non-specific (or even specified at all, for that matter) promimity guidelines. I was turning into a huge earthcache fan - but am probably going to be content with just finding them, as opposed to applying my academic knowledge into interesting earthcache sites.
  7. It has taken 15 days for a response on a recent submission. This is what I got in reply: " I am sorry to inform you that we cannot publish an EarthCache where there is an existing cache. " Please note that the "existing cache is a virtual. Also note that since the earthcache guidelines state nothing about saturation, that the GC guidelines probably then apply? Just guessing here. So, my reply back - Please help me understand since your guidelines state abstolutely no requirements about these situations. What do I need to change to get this approved - perhaps modify the coordinates to .10 from the "existing cache" (virtual) is located? Nearby is a virtual cache, no physical cache. Even on geocaching.com a cache can be placed at the same spot as a virtual. So, earthcache is willing to let a geological spot to be usurped by a virtual that will eventually be archived on gc.com? You have got to be kidding. Would have been nice to have received an email about these circumstances before the "I'm sorry" not, so please reconsider or at the very least offer up some suggestion to fill in the void of an area which your guidelines provide no insight. Also, please note that IAW with both GC.COM and earthcache guidelines, cache requires permission. When I obtained permission to place this - and understand the land manager was VERY EXCITED to have this earthcache established at this location, I had learned that the virtual already in place had no permission. I secured permission for that cache as well - so, should I perhaps get "mean" and have that one archived by asking the permission to be removed? Or, perhaps, should you offer suggestions to get my request approved? Currently, my assessment of trying to establish a quality earthcache is a pain in the rock. j_d
  8. Huh? Dude, I gotta go light a candle and meditate to find inspiration leading me to some semblance of understnading of what you wrote...
  9. Oh, yes! I forgot to say that I missed the days when we could have agendas!!!!
  10. Yeah, I remember the day. I went to Walmart to shop, and used their parking lot as such. Guardrails prevented astray vehicles from leaving the road. Oh, oh, and lamposts? Yeah, those provided light. I think homeless people were left alone under their bridges or under hedges along a river. For the OP - yes, I stopped tracking how many of my milestones are now archived (was around 35% when I gave up on the task). It's as if the locations of my memories have been erased, but then I remember- change happens.... I went back to Ohio, but my caches were gone, there was no multi in the woods, there was no ammo can, swag caches had disappeared, all of my favorite places, my cahces had been pulled down, reduced to parking lot micros, a, o , way to go Ohio. Well I went back to Ohio, but the old cachers were gone, I stood in the park pavilion, but the event cache was over, my early caching memories, slowly swirled past, like the wind through the trees, a, o , way to go Ohio. I went back to Ohio, but my pretty caching countryside, had been paved down the middle, by a government that had no pride, the farms of Ohio, had been replaced by shopping mall micros, and nanos filled my GPS, from Seneca to Cuyahoga Falls, a, o , way to go Ohio.
  11. Unless, of course, the burial is in a cemetery. Both caches and owners require land manager approval for burial (or placement of any kind, for that matter).
  12. I liked this one just for the hypocritical irony. "The dismissal of massive evidence counter to your own worldview is a classic sign of narcissism." - fizzymagic (link)
  13. Ah, keep pinning away. Golly, I'm tempted to run out and establish a "please leave Canada pin" type of cache. Come on down and pin me up!
  14. Hey, brother - I've watched sbell since I've been around the forums for 5 years (and you have done the same even longer), and I doubt he meant an in-your-face "I don't respect what you or your kind does" ; he probably understands full well that life in the military is often quite different than the rest of society. I think his point was that permission can be difficult for many other cache placement requests for much the same reasons as described in this forum. However, regardless of the circumstances, the onus is on the cache owner to obtain appropriate permission. As you and many of us have suggested, the easiest way for this would be through MWR as an ombudsman for the geocaching activity. Unfortunately, with the guidelines as they are, and seems to me that it would almost require a national MWR HQ embracing of the activity to contact GC lackeys to get the guidelines modified. Not likely this will happen any time soon.
  15. A mere 8/10 of a mile away. Plenty of caches in the area, and this one is a multi/puzzle/do lots of math and located in an area that would draw attention, so I simply have not been in the mood.
  16. I'm probably still a newbie to some (or most). More importantly, I could care a less. Nonnullus isto ligitimus cum uno invinio, plerum istic mamzeris post millesimus conpertus.
  17. Nonnullus isto ligitimus cum uno invinio, plerum istic mamzeris post millesimus conpertus… "Some are legitimate after one find, most are bastards after a thousand finds..."
  18. I don't think a tool as described by the OP would be remotely of interest to me. This particular cache owner, unlike "the most", would like to ditto what the Starbrand dude said. While I personally enjoy writing DNF logs as a cacher, as a cache owner I don't think we need DNFs to tell us a particular cache is a tricky hide. Like this recent log "Finally! After being out here like 5 times... I finally found this one. TFTC SL." Like Starbrand, I did not lament the lack of 5 DNF logs, but celebrated the tenacious cacher's success and was happy to know they found it.
  19. Every one of my Iraq caches has camp mayor or base commander approval. Moreover, I've gone through the effort to contact the new set each time there's a RIP/TOA. For those that did not get permission, as they became available I ensured these caches were added to the list. The permission process is quite easy, especially if you get the MWR folks to support/endorse it as a sanctioned MWR activity. So, your thoughts are quite generalized and probably incorrect - I just didn't want this kind of incorrect thinking causing a mass archival of caches over there.
  20. Dude, you would have to bring that up, here of all places? Please, if you get all the Iraq caches archived before I go back for my fourth tour here in a couple of months..... Just smile and wave, smile and wave. And... say "thanks" for the caches and small diversions we get for 12-15 month tours over there, thank you.....
  21. You are kidding, right? Surely you jest. 1) Digging through wet leaves is a comment clearly derived from your vast experience spanning many seasons; 2) and... there probably aren't a whole lot of leaves clogging up caching areas in Casa Conejo, CA. OP - in a dense cache area, once the locals clean up all of the finds, then it is often a while until visitors come by and log or a new cachers come into the activity. I'd wager in Ventura County, with school starting and such, the visitor traffic has dropped a bit. In some areas the caches get archived and replaced to allow for "new hunts" and excitement, although often it is the same hide regurgitated, so the true purpose of the recycling may not be so much for a new adventure.... I think it sad to see some of the "originals" or older caches replaced, since it is almost as if some of the "history" is wiped clean. I am not advocating the "replace a cache" activity - just relating some of what I've observed in several distinctly different caching areas; also relating that once a cache has been found by the local geocaching herd, things normally get very quiet. I may plot the activity of one of my older caches still active - probably what will be found in a heavily populated area is activity spikes in the first 6 months, then drops off to a consistent pace. My older caches in out-of-the-way places have been fairly consistent throughout time.
  22. I'd probably not. To me, no signature in log = leave a note. Like this one (click here!) from last Saturday. Now, how I manage to have no problem logging virtuals or earthcaches without signing a physical log is beyond me. I just do.
  23. Mac! Where have you been, brother?
  24. Like, whoa - the first ever, ever, ever mention of the term on the GC.COM website in the form of a "found it" log. The first mention of the term in the GC forums. So, good luck to anyone wishing to change the language of the geocaching culture and get "muggle" stricken from our collective conscience... So, check it out. When I'm talking to a muggle about the "activity" or "sport" of geocaching, then I refer to muggles as "non-geocachers," since "muggles" would only confuse most muggles, whereas most anyone who is non-geocacher would quickly relate to "non-geocacher." Somehow, miraculously, I am able to keep it all straight when explaining, and if the muggle is catching on, later on I may explain some specific terms in the Geocaching culture and hence may get around to explaining that the "more silly" of us use the term "muggle" to describe "non-cachers."
×
×
  • Create New...