Sagefox

Oh no. Does this mean that the sky is, in fact, falling after all? I just want to come away from this topic knowing whether the sky is falling or not. Are all the hard to find caches now in danger of being archived? Is that what we've learned here?

Gamin eMap 2000 Garmin 60csx 2004 Garmin 60c 2008 Garmin Nuvi 200 2008 Garmin Colorado 300 2009 Love 'em one and all.

Route looks like it's going to be a lot of fun. I'm happy to see the Jackson House on the list. That is one of our favorite history spots. It was a stop-over place for travelers between Fort Vancouver and Fort Nisqually. It goes waaaay back. The Cowlitz Mission is a very nice spot too and I am looking forward to getting out on the ground at Mother Teresa.

The exception here for you to consider is that throughout the almost 10 years this game has been online (and throughout Team Sagefox's nine years of experience) there have been NO situations where your cult and dictatorship analogies would even remotely apply. Mind you, one or two instances occasionally where a handful of folks believe something terrible has been done by gc.com does not mean that either of your concerns raise rise to the level of even an amber alert. Geocaching will NOT turn into a rouge cult nor will management turn into dictators. Once again it is very clear that the sky is NOT falling.

But mostly because we are trying to win the 1k post prize... Well. yes. Mostly that. That is why I'm still in.

Because they want to get to the bottom of a dispute between a cacher that said his cache was there and a reviewer (and the company that backs him up) saying it wasn't and used his authority to archive the listing. Yes but... it was made clear way back (oh what page was that, 1st or 2nd?) that by policy gs confidential communication in this matter would be not be published. Noble protest effort, I suppose, on the part of those who want gs to relent, change policies or just offer up an apology, however unwarranted that might be. This topic continues, equally, because some other "theys" disagree with the "theys" that want to get to the bottom. (Heck, haven't we been to the bottom already? )

Why not? At least then we will have accomplished something of significance here.

Ah ha! So the sky isn't really going to fall after all.

...Besides the question is a dead issue as long long ago Groundspeak invoked privacy as the reason they will not openly discuss it. Why isn't this perfectly clear to people? Do they think that, just this one time, because a topic runs 16 pages, that GS should make an exception to their policy?

It works for me.

This might be what bothers me the most. Say, I list a cache that no one can find. I get accused of never placing the cache in the first place and they archive it. I get ticked and simply toss the cache in the trash. Then I'm going to be scrutinized from now on as to whether any of my hard caches even exist? Why should I bother? How is it my fault that seekers aren't smart enough to find one of my caches? What if I place a cache that gets muggled before anyone can find it? Will I stand accused again? Should I have a documentary film crew follow me around as I place caches? I thought this was settled in several previous posts to this topic. Level heads have already confirmed that the sky is not going to fall. Folks, this is a unique situation, one way or another, no matter whom you believe to be at fault. 1. There is more to the story. 2. We will likely never know the details. 3. There will not be a new policy requiring the archiving hard to find caches.

Yes. They will need to measure gps user hippocampuses to see if that theory has any merit. Geocachers might be quite different from the run-of-the-mill gps users though because we are constantly adding those maps on the gps screen to our brains as we negotiate our way from cache to cache. We are actually visiting many more areas than we ever would have without this game. We've been to soooo many side streets and back roads. We have a much better sense of what is where around our communities because of using these devices.

This is the kind of response I was referring to. This just doesn't cut it. There is more to it then huddling in opposing camps in the corners and throwing stones at each other. We, as fellow humans, have to think our way out of this condition. (The condition that allows someone to think that photo was appropriate for a geocaching page as well as the bigger picture of racism in the world).

Many of us indeed over these six forum pages. Shouldn't that be enough to suggest there is a problem with this photo? Maybe folks who think it isn't racist should think about why so many folks here believe it is. Why would it get this adverse reaction? And... please hold your responses if all you have to add is the bleeding heart business. That is an outdated cop-out. It is time to think about your answers and your beliefs. If you are still not convinced then download the photo, make a poster out of it and walk down the Main Street of your nearest large city holding it high. I think you would then get another set of opinions that might differ from yours. Geocaching pages are a public forum as Main Street is a public forum. If it isn't going to work on Main Street then don't post it here. OP asked if it was appropriate for gc.com pages. Do we really need to ask such a question? Why isn't it obvious that this photo is not appropriate here?

Just looks like a couple of military buddies, one in Okinawa, and one in Nevada doing the finding right now. If they would have left it at that, it probably would have went on for years, and no one would have noticed or cared. Why should they? It's just a team of friends, logging under a team account. Spamming strangers to join the team? Bad idea. Bad, bad idea. I'm sure they'll be getting their wrist slapped anytime now. But it appears that the Nevada "buddy" also logs the cache as found under his own account. Husband and wife teams don't do that.

Thank you for this post. I don't understand why this isn't obvious to everyone.

Very interesting... We most likely won't ever know "the other side" of this story but we know from years of forum topics like this that there is always (or should I say, almost always) another side of the story. And almost always, when that other side was presented in the past, folks started rethinking their original conclusions. I don't believe that reviewers or Groundspeak take actions like this out of the blue.

I think this comes under the situation header already alluded to: Let's wait for "the rest of the story" before jumping to conclusions. Or in this case, where the rest of the story may really be none of our business, why not let this run its course? It has been clearly stated that if a mistake has been made or if new information presented to the reviewer paints a different picture then reactivation is a simple process. What percentage of hidden caches have ever been archived simply due to not being found? Not likely more than .01% I suspect.

The deer tick has three cycles where it needs a host. The first is very small as you point out but in subsequent cycles it is larger. We lived in deer tick country (Mendocino County, CA) and had ticks on us often. Most could be seen on our clothes and be brushed off by checking often while walking in grassy areas. Of the several tick bites in our family only one was by a tiny-cycle tick. It was very tough to see.

This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable.And the cache owner should delete it.Really? So if ANY person objects to ANY posting in a log, the cache owner should delete the log? If I read and object to something you wrote in your last Found It log the cache owner should delete it? Suppose I was a HUGE fan of the Carolina Panthers, and I objected to this log because in my interpretation the panther shirt worn by a gorilla makes the team look bad. Should that log be deleted too? No, you missed the point of the quote sequence. Prime Suspect said "This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable." That is what I replied to and only what I replied to. Gorilla masks are not commonly intended as racial slurs and on the West Coast we are pretty neutral about the Carolina Panthers.

This is obviously racially and ethnically objectionable. And the cache owner should delete it.

You're assuming that, for those years the course wasn't in business, the people walking the course had permission to do so, they too might very well have been trespassing. Call it a poorly done job if you don't make strides to find these things out beforehand! I believe RK is referring to Prescriptive Rights whereby public use of private trails and other public uses of private property can give the public a right to continue those uses if perfected though some action, say through a land use development permit or the court system. The California Coastal Commission says the prescriptive rights period is five years. I'm sure this time period varies state by state. Edit for citation: Some Facts About Public Prescriptive Rights (In part) "A right of access acquired through use is, essentially, an easement over real property that comes into being without the explicit consent of the owner. The acquisition of such an easement is referred to as an “implied dedication”, the right acquired is also referred to as a “public prescriptive easement”. This term recognizes that the use must continue for the length of the “prescriptive period” before a public easement comes into being. In California the prescriptive period is five (5) years."

"Oh my God! You're from the 60s!" [Terrance Mann - Field Of Dreams]

It's the corvid gene. Those of us lucky enough to share this trait with crows and other birds find it hard to resist those shiny colorful objects.

Makes me wish I hadn't archived all our virtuals many years ago. If they were active today I would be mighty fast on the delete key.