dogbreathcanada

Wow! You certainly have a very different definition of "inexperienced" than most of us do. At the time you found the "velcro" cache you had 900 finds. I only have 650 finds at this point in my geocaching and I wouldn't consider myself inexperienced. I think at 900 finds you should have known better ... and you likely did. But sometimes that old find count trumps everything else (especially since you were only 4 days away from your 1000 find milestone). How else would he remember what number you were at for each cache you found. She has a milestone list, with dates recorded. It's quite simple to cross-check the date she "found" the velcro against her milestone list. Anybody can do it. It's quite simple. Maybe that level of reasoning and problem-solving is beyond you, I don't know. But hopefully you've learned something here today.

Further question. The survey requests a first name, last name and email. (If we don't give such information, is the survey for that person scrapped?) Are we expected to give up our identities to take this survey, while the Working Group argues their right to remain anonymous if they so desire? Something is wrong with this picture.

I guess a reason might be because of the facts regarding the number of caches on the three most popular sites. Number of active Geocaching.com caches in Canada today: @ 16,650 Number of active Navicache caches in Canada today: @ 120 (I wonder how many are cross-listed?) Number of active Terracaching caches in Canada today: @ 15 (Info from a friend who can see the site.) Of course, and as long as geocaching.com continues to perpetuate itself into government discussions, representing itself as the only caching service worth anything, the monopoly position shall continue. There's something to be said for competition. The fact that you're even in this discussion (as an American), defending geocaching.com's right to be involved in Canadian government discussions of policy, kind of proves my point. You're involvement here is disconcerting. The sruvey should be altered such that all reference to geocaching.com is removed. It should be a general survey on the hobby itself. The hobby does not belong to geocaching.com, thus creating questions that revolve around geocaching.com policy and guidelines, that could affect Canadian government policy is unethical. I wonder why you're trying to involve yourself in this Canadian debate so deeply. As an American, your opinion on the matter means diddly-squat. And that's not a disrespect to you ... any American opinion on the matter would mean diddly-squat.

I was hoping this thread would go on forever.

The only problem with the survey (I just completed it), is that it is geocaching.com centric, when it shouldn't be. Why perpetuate the monopoly? Also, don't like the registration aspect ... I certainly didn't supply my real name and/or primary email address. So, if that excludes my opinions, then so be it.

Thanks for the response Cache-tech. I wonder where BC cachers are supposed to do the survey? Maybe I'll check out the survey and look at implementing it on the LMGA website, since that organization is a little more (perhaps a lot more) responsive to the needs of BC geocachers than that other organization around here the professes to represent us BCers

If it's the Ontario Geocaching Association, why is the survey link at geocachingedmonton.com? Haven't registered yet. Is this a Parks Canada sponsored survey? Or something the OGA (and Edmonton) is doing on their own?

I just took a quick look through the logs mentioned above, and was rather surprised to see my name as one of those cited for logging a "missing" cache. I was a relatively inexperienced cacher at that time ... Wow! You certainly have a very different definition of "inexperienced" than most of us do. At the time you found the "velcro" cache you had 900 finds. I only have 650 finds at this point in my geocaching and I wouldn't consider myself inexperienced. I think at 900 finds you should have known better ... and you likely did. But sometimes that old find count trumps everything else (especially since you were only 4 days away from your 1000 find milestone).

Well actually there is, its in the Criminal Code of Canada. If you encourage somebody to break a law then you are in fact breaking the law. So, since the policy says virtuals must be in specific spots (on the trails), and that policy is consituted under the Regulations based on an Act of Parliament (which is a law afterall) posting a waymark or a virtual that is not in keeping with the policy is encouraging someone to break the law. You of course mistake the interim policy for law. Which it is not. And posting coordinates in no way is an invitation to law breaking. You're an awfully confused fellow.

Ibycus ... if you can't use quote tags without making a huge mess, then please don't use them at all.

I would take that bet. I wouldn't be at all responsible for the idiot that put themselves in a position to be shot. If I give the coordinates for a 7-11, I'm certainly not responsible if the person using the coordinates robbed the 7-11. We do not PLACE waymarks (or virtual caches). There is nothing at all to be placed. We simply list coordinates. Parks Canada can create as much internal interim policy as they want concerning virtual caches and waymarks, they cannot regulate the listing of coordinates. There is nothing at all illegal about telling someone about an interesting spot in a National Park using a coordinate system. Why is this so hard to understand for so many of you? I have no agenda (so please don't twist the conversation in that direction). I simply started discussing this after someone gave incorrect information on the nature of virtual caches (waymarks) with respect to Parks Canada.

What are these listing services you speak of? I can go create several waymarks that are on Parks Canada land right now. I assure you, even if Parks Canada objects, they will not be removed. Why? Because they aren't illegal. Nor do they fall within the privy of the Parks Act. (Feel free to quote me the Parks Act where the listing of park coordinates by 3rd parties is something they can control and regulate.)

You cannot list a Virtual Cache and say that Parks Canada has no right to regulate the activity on their own land. Here's reality for you... Parks Canada determines that a Virtual Cache listing didn't get approval... they complain to Groundspeak... $10 says it gets Archived... that has been Jeremy's response in the past with any Park that takes issue with ANY Listing, Virtual Cache included. The Blue Quasa That's Jeremy's preogative to remove whatever he wants from his site (he's probably just trying to keep good relations with parks). But it is still not illegal. (I can guarantee you that Waymarks in US National Parks will not be removed. And they're just Virtual Caches under a different name.) Nothing is "placed" with a virtual cache. It's simply a set of coordinates. You can feel free to believe whatever bunk you wish, but there's nothing legally that Parks Canada can do about publishing coordinates to any location in any park. The onus on reaching those locations (or not) falls squarely in the person trying to do so, not on the person listing them.

Lots of great new stuff at the LMGA (http://www.lmga.net). New members. The cache rescue service. Lots of chit-chat with local cachers. Need some help, ask a question and you're sure to get a number of fast, polite and helpful responses. Hey, and it's all free too.

Here here ... That's one of the issues that was the initial focus of this thread. You can't represent Canadians from behind a curtain. Unfortunately, this workgroup has pretty much ignored this request in a flippant manner, pretending that there are privacy issues to contend with. If you're concerned about your privacy, then you should get off the workgroup and stop representing Canadians, because you don't deserve that role. Releasing a gc.com ID, at the very least, is a small matter. People need to know who's representing them. It's that simple.

That was back when Parks Canada didn't have a clue about geocaching. They can't ban virtual caches just as they can't ban waymarks. A virtual cache is simply a coordinate, and there's nothing stopping anyone from giving other people coordinates to a location, nor is there anything remotely illegal about it. Even if those coordinates are in a national park. No, but they can charge ya with trespassing if those co-ordinates lead you to somewhere you ain't suppose to be. Certainly. But that has nothing to do with posting of coordinates. Posting coordinates that might be in an off-limits area is not illegal. The onus is on the person trying to reach those coordinates, they still have to obey all laws and regulations. I could post coords for the White House. That's not illegal. But if someone is stupid enough to try to reach those exact coords, getting shot in the process, the fault isn't mine.

That was back when Parks Canada didn't have a clue about geocaching. They can't ban virtual caches just as they can't ban waymarks. A virtual cache is simply a coordinate, and there's nothing stopping anyone from giving other people coordinates to a location, nor is there anything remotely illegal about it. Even if those coordinates are in a national park.

What a very convenient subject header for that thread then. Basically, no one is allowed to post in that thread unless they are a workgroup member, otherwise it's off-topic. And since the workgroup has already stated they will likely not post any updates until the final draft ... it begs the question, "Why is that topic pinned?" since it's not going to see a post for the next 6 months (at least).

Could some of you learn to use quote tags (or at least go back and edit the entry if you see it is fugged up)? Makes entries hard to read, so I don't bother reading them.

Tinkernoonoo also has quite nice cache page layouts: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...fe-8c11c364ac9f

J5's cache pages are well laid out, no matter what you may think of him otherwise. http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...16-f5ac50be2dcc

How do you know there's no sway? You, and others, keep stating this as if it is some sort of verifiable fact? Volunteers have a favourable bias towards Groundspeak. They have to, otherwise why would they bother volunteering their time to them? Some volunteers have a strong desire to please Groundspeak (we see this all the time in the forums from a number of different reviewers.)

Even though tlg (also banned) confessed to being MadMarty? TLG can confess to anything he wants ... doesn't make it true. Just yesterday he was trying to convince me that he was the Hamburglar. I'm no stooge, I wasn't falling for it.

Actually, the only one they like to point to is the sunflower cache. Yes, I've seen many "you've got to be kidding me" caches. There are other caches, that while the original placement was fine, certain aspects of the cache afterwards were damaging to geocaching's reputation (as well as the environmental situation in the park they were placed). For instance, I can think of the park cache where the cache owner decided to spray Raid and lay moth balls at the cache site to rid the hidey-hole of bugs and spiders. That cache should have been disabled (perhaps archived) immediately as a response and a clear message to the cache owner that such a practice was unacceptable. This certainly wasn't a "who's word do I take" situation for the reviewer, since the owner copped to spraying Raid and placing moth balls.

No. But how happy (or suspect) would you be if you found out that Jeep was a stakeholder in determining a policy for beach driving with the local parks boards? Knowing that you can go 4-wheeling along the local surf might encourage more sales of 4 wheel drive vehicles (including Jeeps) in the area, and that's probably what motivated Jeep in getting involved in the policy making decision with the parks board. Same situation here. Caching in national parks has the real potential of growing the hobby. And growth in the hobby means more premium memberships for Groundspeak. I'm not suggesting that Cache-tech is going to do "evil" from within the working group ... but he does enter the working group with a particular bias towards Groundspeak, and with perhaps a certain desire to please them as well.