Texan78

Wow, this is great to know that geocaching has turned into a extreme sport where i cant even trust my kids to go caching without them running across a cache that them or anyone else can die from that shouldnt be listed in the first place. I know this sport has APPARENT risks that you are aware of when getting into it, but some are just outragous and are a conflict of intrest. I guess its going to take a few people dying from unobtainable caches that have no bussiness being listed before measures are taken to provide safety for geocachers. You might know you own limits, but others dont and if your looking for an extreme sport then go do it, but dont mix the two when it can get into the wrong persons hand. Im done with this dicussion here as i see the people here are very shallow and have no consideration for the well beings of other cachers. Trust me im not alone on this issue. Others just cant stand this site and i see why or they would be voicing thier opinions about it. Luckly for me i have the resources to take this to another level. So i guess we will see what big green has to say when they get bad PR. I understand the code is a private project. I also understand that this site is going to adpot it. Whats the point of having it if no one is going to follow it?

Yea you would think and i agree. The thing is some people dont have any common sense or know thier limits. For exmaple kids, if i cant trust them be safe and not do certain caches that get approved that shouldnt be then how is that fair for the ones that are concerned about safety rather than how challeneing a cache should be if this is the code everyone is suppose to follow? I understand what isnt safe for one might be safe for others, but what about the ones that are safe for nobody. Why are and should these caches be approved. BTW this has nothing to do with whats going on in Texas. Thats my point exactly. If they are common sense guidelines and whats mostly important like cacher safety is unenforcable, then whats the point of these "Codes"? Thats very true, but a owner is solely responsible for the content of its site. That includes the listing of unsafe caches that could pose harm to numbers of people. So shouldnt that be a strong common sense guideline? You would think, but isnt being practiced.

Because if were are suppose practice or adpot this code it should be issue thats upheld as post in the first guideline: ...Not endanger myself or others. Like any outdoor activity, geocaching involves some inherent risk and many geocachers enjoy manageable risks. Minimize inordinate risks. When creating a cache, describe any hidden dangers and, if possible, arrange the hunt to minimize these dangers. When seeking a cache, know your limitations and be aware of your surroundings. Don't attempt anything beyond your abilities. A cache you own, or one you're trading out of, could be found by children or even a prisoner work crew - consider the location of the cache and those likely to find it when deciding what to leave as a trade item. Isnt that what this code is suppose to promote, safe caching? Correct me if im wrong, but since when did this game turn into an extreme sport that could pose danger or harm to other. Wouldnt that be against the first code? If we are going to follow this code then caches should be placed and approved in an ethnical manner or their is no sense of this code exsiting. It would just be taking up wasted brandwith on other peoples sites including this one.

EXACTLY, what about the ones that cant? So since when does you and a handful of people speak for the rest of the world? What about an ammo can hung on a rope above an alligator pit? Steve Corwin would call it Nirvana! I would simply say, "not me, buddy!" and go my way. So this cache wouldnt be ok even though is poses the danger of someone being killed? What does that have to do with anything? I didnt know i was being graded on posting a forum thread. Not to mention a childish and conceited remark that doesnt pertain to this topic. Thats true but Groundspeaks is responisble for the content of this site. Wouldnt these caches be against thier Guidelines and "Code" that are adopting?

So because they are ok for you that means that are ok and safe for everyone? Yes i am and minors as well, some fall in the catagory. You dont ahve to have a metnal problem to not know whats safe and whats not. Last time i checked this wasnt a extreme sport nor was it intended to be that way. There are places and other interest for people that wanna be extreme, this isnt one of them. I have no problems with mixing the two but within limits and proper cache listing. I dont see this to be family safe for all ages as the misson statement fo this site promotes. Can you show me the guidelines for what caches are to dangerous to not be improved? So your saying their will NEVER be a cache placed that will not be to dangerous for some without common sense to walk away from? So this cache wouldnt be ok even though is poses the danger of someone being killed? you people keep referring to driving and what not and crossing streets. Those are present dangers of everyday life. Geocaching isnt a everyday present of danger unless prevoked. Yes this is a game that can be regulated by safe caching for everyone, since again last time i checked this isnt a extereme game nor was it intedned to be. If someone wants to try thier luck with death this is the idea i had. Instead of be able to list this extreme caches to anybody can see them. Make a special search listing page that is its own seperate catogry for extreme caches where you have to be 18 it access them and also agree to hitting yes or no on a waiver before seeing them everytime when trying these cache. That takes all liablity off everyone but the cacher. Thats what i mean by a fine line. Like i've been saying im not here to tell people what they should ot should not do or try. but i yet regualting caches from people who have no business doing them that could die and but a bad rep on the game. Sorry for my interest of the well being of people and the advance of this game. I guess this makes me a shallow preson for caring about mine and other peoples loved ones and kids. So i guess we should just take the age limit off cigerettes and liqour and all other dangerous things in the world. I got it, How bout a Gun Machine like the ones that sales cokes.

I understand that and agree with that as most of its common sense. The problem i have is caches like this What i have a problem with is that all ages of people geocahce. So with that said would you want someone like a teenage could be your son that has no regard for safety to be able to can access to a cache like this http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...6d-b605bce46814 This cache should have never been approved. I understand and agree with having challenging caches but when you have to be Indiana Jones to complete it, thats to much and would be well against the first code. This is not suppose to be a thrill seekers game to that extreme. If you wanna do that fine, but this isnt a place for it to that extremes as that doesnt seem very safe for anyone. Especially for one that doesn know thier limits and could be killed from it or other caches. Im just using this one as an example as im sure thier are others out there. Now if you wanted caches like this then make a special listing search page for caches like these to where you need to check a waiver or be 18 and over to search for caches like these. If this code would help to promote safer caches within the limtis of all like this game was intended to be played them im all for it. If caches like these get out of hand then no one will be able to cache and people will start dying and giving bad PR of this game and the possiblity of lawsuites since this site is held solely accoutable for the context that is approved and placed.

That was the mature way to reply and the smartass remark i expected from somone with little morals So your telling me that ALL CACHES should be approved regardless of the danger factor regardless if its beyond the limits of someone who doesnt know thier limts?

Once again you nit picked my post and failed to answer a the question. 2 examples of someone with learning disablity doesnt count for the millions of people in this world. So would you be ok for your 12 yr old son to do a cache that has no business being listing when it states you have a chance from being killed? All for what? That listing is ok with you? Everything has limits and boundarys. This site is also held accountable for what is listed and what is not. So the safety of its memebers should be taken in account. Still for the last time since you dont seem to understand. NO ONE IS TELLING YOU WHAT TO DO OR NOT TO DO. This site doesnt tell you what the limits are when placing a cache. Their are guidelines that the aprrovers follow for that. Not no where listed is the conidtions for which one will be discarded for safety. So for the last time, not everyone here are adults and not everyone here has the capiblity to make there own decisions when it comes to thier limts. How and where do you draw a line to keep these people and all safe. The arilines dont regulate the security of airports. the Governments does which they pay for through taxes that YOU provide. Do you pay taxes? So that means you provide the money to pay for Cops, Army, Airport Secuirty, etc. Against your will. I dont have a choice to not pay taxes without imprisonment. Shouldnt it be my choice for weather i want to pay taxes from my hard earned money for safety. Your getting forced by the government to pay for safety. Since you dont really care about the safety or you and others then why do you pay taxes? Oh what, because you have to, against the will of a goverment body. This is a governed and regualted web site, why should it be any different. If you feel this guidelines are to strict for your likings then like you said thier are other listing sites. Thier are places for thrill seekers and this place isnt one of them as thier are all ages of people who cache. So for those people thie need to be caches that should not be allowed. So your telling me that ALL CACHES should be approved regardless of the danger factor?

finnally someone what ACTUALLY seeing what im trying to say. Thats a perfect example. I mean come on know people. You have to be indiana jones to do this cache. I wouldnt want my kid or loved one to try this. If he was to get killed from a cache "THIS SITE" approved i would have a lawsuit all over this site. After talking to other legal counsel that are lawyers on our Texas site about this exact topic. You would have a very vaild case. That leads to Bad PR and possible the end of this site and the possiblty of government stepping in to regulate it. So why wait till that happens. Once again your missing the point. I UNDERSTAND IT IS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO KNOW HIS OWN LIMTS. No one is telling anyone what to do and not do. WHERE DO YOU DRAW THE LINE TO SAY A CACHE IS TO DANGEROUS. My god people how hard is that to answer. It's one simple question, or does know one think thier should be some saftery factory established here. So it would be ok for me to place a cache to a pin of a gernade and post becareful you dont pull the pin you might blow yourself up, thats ok? Dont give me this BS well show me a cache like that. Thats not what im asking you want an example there you go. Would a cache like that be to dangerous or would it be ok? As far as Joe teenager is concerned, you stated he needed climbing gear to do this. If he chose not to thats his fault. There are alot of rock climbers that could do it with no problem and im all for those. But when you have to be Indian Jones to do a cache where you can use no equip or the possiblitys of dying is high. The why post a cache like that and approving it. Would you want your kid or loved one to go out and attempt the cache listed above? Be kinda hard to explain to you kids if you had any that daddy was too stuipd to know his limits and was killed trying to find a box with little plastic toys. I know some people know their limits but some dont.

I dont wanna support this code as it could pose bad PR fof the game from the bad apples and the stereotyping of the non-geocachers should this code be broken if this is suppose to be a guidline of the way geocachers are suppose to act. According to other geocachers on here they feel they dont need a code and should be able to do what they want. As stated in teh dangerous caches thread thier is no guideline to what should be conisdered dangerous and what is and they feel it should be there choice. If this is the way they feel then that would be against this code and the way of thinking this code is suppose to establish, thus creating a bad image on geocaching. I would support this code if you could lobby the safety of placing caches and guidelines should be set to what is safe and what isnt. Without that thier is no point of having this code as no one will follow it and it will landslide out of control and be a thing of the past.

Im speaking about caches in general, where do you draw the line to keep this game somewhat safe? Have you not read anything i have posted? So you dont care if caches are placed that someone who is not smart enough to leave alone could die from? What are those guidelines? Does anyone know. Thats what i've been trying to ask. Instead everyone whats to demean my comments. Some of those have regulations or regulated bodys. No one is telling you what to do and what not to do. It's a issue of safety. Do you not beleive in metal detectors or secruity checks at airports? Some would say thats against admendments righs and thier civil libertys. BUT GUESS WHAT. It's there for peoples safety? Still you have failed to answer one simple quetion i have asked. I have given an example, but it was made a mockery of. So thier should be no guidelines set for what is to dagerous, is that what your saying? Some of you might forget, thier are people of ALL ages that play this game. Some teenagers dont know thier limits as well as some adults. We cant keep an eye on our kids 24-7 but yet you want them to be safe. Would you want them or a loved one doing something that good kill them when you have a chance to put a regulation on what is safe and whats not. If you wanna smoke, drink, eat bacon, so be it. But when you have a chance to put a regulation on something and draw a line to keep the game safe and fun for everyone then why not. So once again im going to ask this. What is the line for something you cosider to be unsafe. What are the bounarys, where do you draw the line to help keep people safe? How hard is that to answer. Why do you need an example, do you not have a opinion of your own? You sure seem to use it to mockery of my posts?

Since you seem to like to nit pick my posts and ignore the points i try to make every time. Then nit pick this apart and look at reality for a minute. Yes you and me and others are smart enought to know are limits. BUT sadly enough their are people out thier that are not. IM AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS CACHE. I'm talking about dangerous caches in general. Where do you draw the line? When someone dies? Is that what you consider a "Fine Line"? This should be a game to play for all levels and challenges, but within boundarys. If i was to make a listing that stated becareful, you could die while attempting this cache, it would be alright and should be apporved? Granted the smart ones will turn back, but once again thier are some that arent. Isnt that against this "Code" that is being forced on us to follow? Once agian im NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS CACHE. I'm talking about ones that are just too dangerous to attempt for ANYONE. So your telling me that i can get anything approved as long as its not within 500ft of another cache. Which in Texas that doesnt get followed ether and its apporved. So what exactly are the guidelines we are suppose to follow are where do you draw the line. You might not care about the saftey of fellow cachers but for me, i am. All m asking is where do you draw the line? So dont nit pick my posts and try to demean me? Just answer than simple question.

Im speaking in a general sense. I'm also going by the way this cache was described on here. Thier has to be a line drawn to whats safe and whats not to protect those who are not intelligent enough to not do it. Thats all im saying. I'm not against challenging caches, or ones that take gear of some sort to complete and if ti states you need it the rock on go for it. The ones that should be looked at carefully are the ones some one can walk up to and attempt without any gear that poses harm and states it poses harm. Thier are people out there that have no common sense and yes it sucks, We all suffer from thier ignorance, but thats life. We cant help that thier are morons out there. Just like growing up, if you had bothers and sisters and one got in trouble you all got in trouble. Same goes here. Since thier are some that cant say no and walk away, then these caches shouldnt be available. We have already had one caching death in Texas from a fall regardless of the factor, we dont need another.

Oh brother, you missed my point entirely. Since when does a profile have anything to do with my outdoor experiance? Why should that be a reason to dismiss my opionions and views. How do you know i dont have another account? That arguement is irrelevent. So why let a cache like that stay available? Does it take someone getting killed over it before its archived? If you knew the porblems were having in Texas you would understand the reason behind it. Since this is a Texas cache. So if i put a cache on a stick thats 20ft out over a cliff that drops 50ft and put the only way to it is to climb out on the limb to get it and you might die from it. That would be ok? Like IVE SAID. i have no problem with difficulty levels and certain caches that need other talents to get to. You have to draw a fine line between the two that are borderline that could pose a extreme danger to those who try it without experiance. I'm talking about the obvious cases, not the everyday hiking or normal diffculty level caches as the diffcutly level has a wide curve.

Thats incorrect, we have are own site fourm for that. We merely used these fourms to express are concerns per Groundspeak. Our "succession" was actually organized within the TXGA fourm boards.

Like i said in my other post i dont have a problem with making caches for other lifestlyes. Thier should be a fine line drawn between the two though. Now from what this cache listing suggests, "may want to bring first aid kit and cell phone because there is a good chance of falling and injuring yourself". Now caches like that shouldnt be listed. If it doesnt state any kind of special equipment or can even use any and is just down right dangerous. Then why place a cache that is likely to harm someone. I havent actually seen the cache listing so im just going by what is said here. You know their are going to be a few people that will try to push their physical limits and cant do it and get hurt. I've come across a few caches where you could fall off a creek bed down 20-30 feet to your death and nothing is mentioned about it in the listing. Yes i could have choose not to do it and a lot of people will think that way yes. Just keep in mind that their are a lot of people who dont see it what way. Why take a chance on something like that. So unless thier is specific details stating the difficulty of the cache then it shouldnt be placed. If all you can say about it is "may want to bring first aid kit and cell phone because there is a good chance of falling and injuring yourself. Then why take the chance of harming others. Thats why i mean thier needs to be a fine line between to two to protect the less intelligent who try to push their limts beyond their physical limits. If it states you need climbing equip. diving gear, etc and straight up tells you the dangers i dont see any problem with it. Its the borderline ones that i have a problem with. Its sad to say but a fact and this isnt a perffect world and we need to see that everybody that plays this game isnt perfect. So thier might be people out there that wanna try to hurt people. I know thats far fetch, but its the harden truth of our world. Thats why your local approvers should look at these more closely to keep everyone safe. Thats what i mean by a fine line.

Would you care to elaborate on that before i reply to it and take it out of text? If i understand you correctly, you say live outside the box. I say look at the bigger picture here.

Thats quite a long drive from Dallas though. You will spend more time driving then caching. It is a nice area, ive camped at Dinosaur Valley SP. I wouldnt go as far to say its the closest thing to a Mountain though. Their is just as much country North as their is South though and more remotelty closer to Dallas.

Yea i tend to agree with the fact it is up to the finder weather or not they wanna try to get it or not. If its posted of the dangers and the finders is trained in the skills to obtain that certain cache then why not. I also understand they ALL cant be easy, but thier are other ways to make hides harder to find then putting one on the side of a cliff. Even a seasoned rock climber or scuba diver you take risks. I know some people do these things just for the fun of it, but is it worth putting your life in danger over a plastic container of plastic toys should something happen? I know for some it would be nice for you to be able to mix two things you enjoy into one thing. But, even though the person who placed it didnt get hurt from placing it doesnt mean that someone out hunting wont get hurt. I just know i wouldnt want it on my conisence if somebody was to get hurt or die from a cache i placed regardless of the warnings. You just know thier are going to a be some who think they can handle it and cant. It just spells danger. Its a tough call to make, i just dont think i would wanna mix the two as its a conflict of intrest, but i can also see where some would not find a problem in it at all. Its definately a very arguable topic. So in order to not take a hit from bad PR for geocaching that one of these caches might pose. I wouldnt approve it. There is a place for thrill seekers and i dont think this is the place. Thier should be a fine line drawn between the two. Even though you cache at your own risk, you could see a legal mess from it if someone was to get hurt. Not saying someone would have a case if it did happen. But dont tell McDonalds that when it comes to a cup of coffee. They know anything is possible.

That makes a lot of sense thanks. I know exactly what your talking about. Even with some smart names i run into that problem with them being long and them being the same. I'll give that a try today when i head out.

Speaking of codes for waypoint naming. Is the %name not supported in 5.0 anymore? I mean its listed as an option but when i try to transfer waypoints to my GPSr with the code it wont allow it. It tells me "The waypoint name doesnt contain a special tag that will yeild a unique waypoint name", and im sure you knwo the rest of the message. I like using it as it spaces out the words in the waypoint menu of my GPSr and its easier to read at a glance. As far as apperance on the Map. That doesnt really matter to me if i have a route set to it because that Waypoint is higlighted and takes priority over any other waypoint on the map.

Those are some scenic areas, but those are also in the Burbs as well more than up north. When you compare those to the ones in North Mckinney, Prosper, Frisco and areas around 380. You cant go wrong ether way. They are a couple up here in the north that will take you on several mile hikes through parks and across the trinity river. Both west and east on 380. That is in McKinney, Plano, Frisco, Allen, City limts, but is in undevloped parts of the city so its pretty much country and woods.

Another issus i have stumbled upon when trying to play with some of these new features. When purging a database it purges the whole database. It didnt give me a option to only purge tick caches, or atleast i didnt see. Now this next one kinda falls in that same catgeory. When copying a database. It didnt give me an option to tick just certain caches to copy to a certain destination database. It moves the whole database to the destination database. Is thier away to tick certain caches to be purged, moved, or copied?

Is this a factory radio or do you have Sirus or XM?

Is thier a way to test these filters? Since the filter wont actully set unless there are caches that meet the search criteria. So like in my case their are no new caches that havent been logged. So i have no way to test the filter to make it active in case i do get newly placed caches that havent been found.