DisQuoi

quote:Originally posted by The Leprechauns:"lawyer brain" oxy moron?

Some of what I'm hearing saddens me. A geocache is neither spent charcoal nor spent dog food. It will never biodegrade and is likely to attract visitors to the vicinity where it is placed. There is also neither a www.poop.com nor www.ashes.com where we provide the EXACT location of our "abandoned property". Further, picnicking is an accepted function of many county parks to the point where the parks provide seating, shade, trash removal, and meat cooking apparati for this purpose. In Northern Virginia, we have been banned from placing caches in the numerous federal parks. I agree ... we still have county parks that haven't gone that far. But in this case, asking for forgiveness is not easier than asking for permission. Where permission is asked, it has been granted. Where it was thought easier to place without asking, we get responses like the e-mail in the first post of this thread. The administrators of this web site have established few but clear guidelines: Do not put food, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, prescription or illicit drugs in the caches. Do not place caches on archaeological or historical sites. If you place the cache on public lands you need to contact the managing agency to find out about their rules. What part of that is unclear?

I think it's okay that you feel the need to police the caches in your area but ultimately, the cache owner has to be responsible for those posts. If he logged a plundered cache, the question should be, why wasn't the cache archived? If a post is suspicious, the owner should verify the find (god forbid he actually check the log book while performing maintenance) and delete it if necessary. What's lazier ... a repetetive "find" log or a cache owner who doesn't feel like monitoring his tupperware? Please provide a link to the caches of his that you feel are bogus ... I'd like to read the description and your posts.

I think it's okay that you feel the need to police the caches in your area but ultimately, the cache owner has to be responsible for those posts. If he logged a plundered cache, the question should be, why wasn't the cache archived? If a post is suspicious, the owner should verify the find (god forbid he actually check the log book while performing maintenance) and delete it if necessary. What's lazier ... a repetetive "find" log or a cache owner who doesn't feel like monitoring his tupperware? Please provide a link to the caches of his that you feel are bogus ... I'd like to read the description and your posts.

I hadn't even tried to identify what caches had been placed in the Ellanor C. Lawrence Park. My concern is more for county parks, in general. As you well know, we have lost the ability to place any caches along the Potomac River since these are Federal parks. I have since figured that as long as we have good ole' Fairfax County parks, we're fine. I have little reason to doubt this park manager. Even if he is exagerating, his personal opinion on the matter is what counts as long as he is the steward for that park. Also, the park manager at Frying Pan park was copied on that email (see original post) and now I'm afraid she's going to be concerned about the cache that she helped me place in her park. I am the first to admit that most of the five caches I've placed, I did so without seeking permission. I will not do this anymore. Let me take that back ... I agree that urban caches or "side-of-the-road" caches can be considered case by case as there may not be a clear steward for the chosen locations. But a managed park? ... I won't risk creating another opponebt to the game. By the way, Bigcall. As you know ... my cache YOU ARE THE GPS is located in a county park without the knowledge of the park managers. I'm watching this one very carefully. It is in my backyard and I check on it after just about every "find" logged. I'm trying to decide whether to remove it or not ... or ask for permission.

I've suggested the same thing. With the number of caches growing so rapidly, it would be nice to have a peer rating system so I can hunt primarily high quality caches. It's usually pretty clear how much effort went into placing a cache (site location, container preparation, description writing) ... it all adds up to a caches level of quality. Of course, the logs are a good place for seekers to leave an oppinion of the cache but so many people avoid reading those until after searching for fear of spoilers. I's also like to see a seeker rating for the difficulties. After all, they have a better idea of the difficulty than the hider. The need for additional rating was not necessary a year ago when there was one-third as many caches around but it's to the point where we need more ways to screen caches.

Yes. Read this cache description. The coordinates for this cache can be found by any park manager willing to perform the entire hunt effort (unlikely). However, I must agree with enfanta that "tricking" land managers will hurt geocaching in your area in the long run. See this thread.

I once started a thread on the true cost of GPS. In that thread, I derived an estimated cost of $30 per cache for the average geocacher when considering wear and tear on car and clothing, batteries, ER co-payment, etc. But if you consider not only the benefits (something fun to do, excercise, experiences), as US tax payers, you are paying alot more money to maintain the all-important satellites and their guiding signals. Therfore, you're a fool to not use them.

quote:Originally posted by smoochnme:I'm tempted to rant about cache owners who neglect their caches...but that's another thread. Actually, this is probably the best placeto discuss that as well. While it's nice that people will volunteer to clean up your caches for you, it is the placer's responsibility to maintain them. If for no other reason, you should be checking on these often enough to ensure that there are no social trails developing. Geocaching has been labeled as "abandonment" which can only be reinforced my people leaving geocaches while they're on vacation to a place to which they have no plans to return. I'm sure that early in the development of this game, it helped to have people scattering geocaches like rice at a wedding to help reach critical mass but I don't think that it is still necessary.

You Are The GPS! by Me and IQ Test by fizzymagic (MOC) both use geometric problems that are directly related to the cache location as opposed to independant problems that are used to derive coordinates.

quote:Originally posted by makaio:IMO, find counts don't mean anything to anyone except the person to whom they belong, so if someone wants to pad their numbers, so be it. They're only fooling themselves and it's hardly anything worth worrying about. Personally, I'd prefer the counts be kept private or done away with completely as the point is to have fun, not to find more than the next guy. This has been my statement in the other threads of the same topic. Except that I wouldn't assume that they're fooling themselves so much as you're fooling yourself if you are comparing your count to someone else's numbers. For those who actually get "mad", you need anger management therapy. I would also warn you against assuming that they're padding anything. Maybe you have pad envy? I say, find a friend ... buy him lunch ... between bites, agree on some rules and make a friendly competition between your selves. But don't expect anyone else to mant to play with you. There's no way you can "get this wrong". If it's your cache, you can feel free to make the rules for that cache. I have a cache that I placed that requires alot of effort prior to finding the metal box in the woods. To me, if you solve the cache location and can demonstrate that you were at the right place, I will allow a "find" even if the box of unnecessary plastic objects is missing. If you feel that signing a log book is the only challenge of your cache, make that the requirement. If you maintain a cache on the peak of Mount Everest, I say log it as a "find" every time you replenish the count of mini-yo-yos from the dollar store.

quote:Originally posted by makaio:IMO, find counts don't mean anything to anyone except the person to whom they belong, so if someone wants to pad their numbers, so be it. They're only fooling themselves and it's hardly anything worth worrying about. Personally, I'd prefer the counts be kept private or done away with completely as the point is to have fun, not to find more than the next guy. This has been my statement in the other threads of the same topic. Except that I wouldn't assume that they're fooling themselves so much as you're fooling yourself if you are comparing your count to someone else's numbers. For those who actually get "mad", you need anger management therapy. I would also warn you against assuming that they're padding anything. Maybe you have pad envy? I say, find a friend ... buy him lunch ... between bites, agree on some rules and make a friendly competition between your selves. But don't expect anyone else to mant to play with you. There's no way you can "get this wrong". If it's your cache, you can feel free to make the rules for that cache. I have a cache that I placed that requires alot of effort prior to finding the metal box in the woods. To me, if you solve the cache location and can demonstrate that you were at the right place, I will allow a "find" even if the box of unnecessary plastic objects is missing. If you feel that signing a log book is the only challenge of your cache, make that the requirement. If you maintain a cache on the peak of Mount Everest, I say log it as a "find" every time you replenish the count of mini-yo-yos from the dollar store.

I think you're right. At least in Fairfax County, Virginia (a large percentage of the area around Washington DC), the days will soon be over where you can expect to place a cache in a County Park and not risk creating an ardent opponent to this activity (see email above). So if it's wrong to place a cache on park property without permission now that land managers are becoming aware of geocaching, was it ever right? As far as the "Disnification" of caches, and as a tax payer, I don't want a cache to be placed where someone is likely to be hurt anyway. Also, if the person given stewardship of a particular refuge or preserve feels that a cache placed will negatively impact what is being preserved, I don't think a cache should be placed there with or without his knowledge.

I recently had a great experience with a park manager who cooperated in placing my Out of the Frying Pancache. The park manager is very happy with the results and offered to introduce me to other county park managers. Unfortunately, this was my first response from our first try at another park. Dan, We have had experience with geocaching and it IS NOT allowed at Ellanor C. Lawrence Park. We discovered unauthorized caches in several locations and geocachers were establishing trails to the cache locations. The caches were destroyed. I appreciate you checking before establishing locations. I would remind you that you must received permission for any parkland, stream valley park or other, in Fairfax County. Stream valley parks generally fall under the purview of Park Authority Area Managers who manage most of the community parks and ballfields as well. Charles Charles Smith Historian II Ellanor C. Lawrence Park - FCPA I can't help but think of the threads where people think that trampled undergrowth and a few broken twigs don't do any real harm. That may or may not be true but it has surely created some road blocks for public relations and the future of geocaching in the Washington DC area. If NPS and the county park managers are destroying our caches, I guess it's virtual cache city ... let's pick another museum or statue and call that a cache.

Read the Symantec Security Response for a good explanation of this. Specifically, the part about "adware".

I'm picturing a field of tall grass. If you tell me that 6 people in two weeks have made their way to the coordinates, walked around looking, not to mention you're two maintenance visits (8 trips in 14 days ... each person walking back and forth for fifteen minutes), I'd expect it too look like a weed whacker had been used. What were you expecting?

quote:Originally posted by brdad:GEOCACHING.COM on the container, Fine. A cache with solicitaions for geocaching.com, NO. Geocaching.com solicits donations. I don't put the web address for seekers ... they allready know it ... I put it there as an advertisement to those who may happen to find the caches accidentaly. I think it's worth supporting (hence my caches and my membership). If I wanted to support another worthwhile cause, I should be able to (I'm willing to accept if a cause is not worthwhile from peer geocachers ... again, God or Country bad, Harry Potter or seeing eye dogs good).

I see little or no silimarities between this and the religious cache issue. If the cache is a traditional placement of a container with a theme of dog items, what is the problem of including information about dogs trained to help the disabled. It's not controversial like Christianity or Democracy, and I've never spoken to someone who was offended by a labrador that helps those without eyesight cross the street. I have a cache that "asks" the seeker to consider leaving a donation for the park that enthusiastically endorses the cache. Is that commercial? I paint the words WWW.GEOCACHING.COM on all of my caches ... is that commercial? I'd say familiarize yourself with the site rules on commercial caches, read some of the disussions on commercial caches in these forums (throw out the opinions that are extreme), and design your cache to avoid elements that would make it seem like people are being tricked or decieved. Luckily, the administrators have left room for common sense and case-by-base discussion of what is commercial. I hope other will see it this way.

quote:Originally posted by Dru Morgan:Actually, I got the quote http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/amattero.htm Goes to show that there is no such thing as an original thought. Nice plug

quote:Originally posted by Dru Morgan:Actually, I got the quote http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/amattero.htm Goes to show that there is no such thing as an original thought. Nice plug

Are you wearing anything in this picture?

can you please link us to it?

quote:Originally posted by SunCrush & Traumajunkie21:rubber toe what ever u r and ...and?

quote:Originally posted by SunCrush & Traumajunkie21:rubber toe what ever u r and ...and?

I like the diversity of threads addressed by thecachunter ATTENTION VIRTUAL CACHE LOVERS!!!!! thecachunter Aug 01, 02 11:14 AM ATTENTION VIRTUAL CACHE LOVERS!!!!! thecachunter Aug 01, 02 11:12 AM ATTENTION VIRTUAL CACHE LOVERS!!!!! thecachunter Aug 01, 02 11:11 AM ATTENTION VIRTUAL CACHE LOVERS!!!!! thecachunter Aug 01, 02 11:02 AM ATTENTION VIRTUAL CACHE LOVERS!!!!! thecachunter Aug 01, 02 09:24 AM ATTENTION VIRTUAL CACHE LOVERS!!!!! thecachunter Aug 01, 02 09:10 AM ATTENTION VIRTUAL CACHE LOVERS!!!!! thecachunter Aug 01, 02 08:42 AM