Cpt.Blackbeard

30 years in law enforcement. That is not a threat. The police would just go out and tell her to cool it but that is about it. We spend much of our time abating these kind of things and try not to clog up the courts with something this trivial. I would bet the cop would suggest you move it since it isn't worth the hassle. If you wanted her arrested you would have to sign a citizens arrest card opening yourself up for all kinds of legal hassles. Depends on how it is said, said to threaten it is indeed a threat and it is a criminal offense in my area.

You're right, it is

Only they know but I doubt it, the ones I know still find them at will.

That was my thought to, who wants to sit down and log 800 caches in a row? Logging 20 at once is a chore.

Actually the statement "I have a gun" used as a threat as it was is a criminal offense, the Police need to be notified before she decides that Hey, it scared away these people, lets see if what else I can accomplish with it.

is that comment based on evidence or just speculation? i personally believe is the latter and what exactly is the point of discussing Opencaching here and not on their site, why not make an account there and tell them to their "face" rather than talking behind their back? Well, quite frankly their site isn't worth creating an account on.

Ahoy Fellow Pirates! Hope ye enjoy yerselves! I used to frequent this section but rarely venture in anymore, I sail in Off Topic mostly.

Personally I'm against clubs, lets just enjoy caching without having to formalize it with needless clutter.

I have a D-3 cache on my property that was left out once, no way was it an animal or muggle,not where and how it's hidden, but I don't think it was deliberate, I prefer to think they were simply distracted after the find by something (maybe a notorious squirrel) and simply forgot. I re-hid it and and didn't bother letting them know.

To reach the conclusion that I think Miss Jenn is lying proves he does not comprehend, and I found the statement very insulting. I may be right or I may be wrong but I'd appreciate a little more respect from a poster I've long liked on here. Disagreeing with his interpretation of her statement does not mean what he assumed and he should know me good enough by now to know it.

Are you suggesting MissJenn was lying? Over the years, there have been a select few voices on these forums who I have learned to trust utterly. MissJenn is one of those voices. If she says the caches were archived because of permission issues, I'm going to believe her. My untested theory? I suspect that the series owner(s) believed that, since the caches were placed on a road right of way, a place where many folks think it's OK to be, that they already had adequate permission for the hides, and checked the appropriate box on the cache submission form. The Reviewer, seeing this was checked, had no cause to question it, and published the caches. Every thing was fine right up to the point that NDOT entered the fray, stating their concerns about the series. At that point, Groundspeak decided that, at least for this series, adequate equaled explicit. Now my question is, has this series set a precedent? Will the Reviewers be directed to check for explicit permission on any other roadside caches? I see the problem you are not comprehending what you read.Of course Miss Jenn is truthful, that is a very dumb statement to make. But she is not saying the caches were archived because they were placed without permission, she is stressing to Future hiders to make sure they get permission. I only became a permission issue here when NDOT revoked permission and demanded them pulled. If I invite you into my house and you enter you've done nothing wrong. If you upset me and I then demand you leave it does not mean you entered without permission, it only means I have revoked it at this time.

From MissJenn's earlier post: Now read the rest of the thread, including the parts about how the CO worked with Groundspeak to get it placed (So Groundspeak must have believed permission was obtained) and the posts where they had worked to correct orther issues with NDOT (So NDOT must have known they were there and agreed to let them remain) Bottom line it was not a permission issue that got it archived but a problem with the cache seekers. Hindsight is 20/20, no need to invent further details. I think it's sad that some folks have to turn everything into a competition instead of enjoying a simple past time. I would never have hunted those and yes I think a little less of those who hunt that way, but that's all my personal beliefs.

It's quite remarkable how, whenever someone mentions obtaining permission from a landowner or land manager, the forum denizens turn into a bunch of fainting goats. And when they get back up, they are apparently all suffering from short-term amnesia. Anybody know which geocacher placed over 1,000 caches without permission and caused this mess? I need their mailing address. Everything I know about the series comes from the Forum here but I've never seen any that suggested the caches were placed without permission and plenty to suggest NDOT knew about them and was agreeable to them being there until the snowplow incident.

But they aren't really "parking" they're just stopping long enough to throw a film can out the window and pick up the one the last group left. I once received a ticket for parking beside a fire hydrant. At the time I was sitting in the car, the car was sitting in a parking lot, (Hydrant was between street and parking lot) and the motor was running as I talked to my Uncle, who I had seen getting into his car in the lot and pulled in next to him to chat for a minute. So yes they were parking if they stopped at all. AS for the ET Trail, it was obviously causing problems so I'm glad it was archived, hopefully all others who plan or have placed or hunted PTs can use this series to determine ways of avoiding such problems in the future. Solutions are seldom found overnight but there are many clever cachers out there and I'm confident better ways will be found.

Or go to Utah and find a cache

I put $100.00 worth of gas in my pickup Monday, it did not fill the tank, not so long ago $75.00 would fill it, I know I could have put another $30.00 in before it would have been filled. I've been hauling in scrap metal this week trying to get enough money to meet the minimum payment for February on my Mortgage, March is due next week. Down to half a tank already, I don't need higher prices. When I started caching 6 years ago it took me three days to find every cache within reasonable driving distance, think I was up to 11 by then. That's when I knew that for me caching would be a very occasional day out, not a regular activity.

It's the fact that new Virts cannot be placed that makes people fight so hard to keep the ones we have, posting NA to test the response of Groundspeak is like setting fire to your neighbors home to test the fire departments response.

It is vastly more likely they will be face legal Liability if they start making judgment calls on safety. Current method they are extremely unlikely to be held legally responsible, your way they are guaranteed to be. Why you can't see that is a mystery to me, it's been explained to you often enough.

Let's take the example of a geocacher who places a cache inches from live, exposed high-voltage electrical wires that aren't obvious to searchers. Let's assume the hider mentioned this to the reviewer when submitting the cache for publication. The reviewer approves it and, as easily foreseen, a searcher gets shocked and is severely injured. Yes, if the reviewer had declined to publish, the hider could have posted the coordinates in the local newspaper. But, based on previous experiences, a reasonable person probably would conclude that this is very unlikely to have happened. The law generally doesn't see the world as being black-and-white; it usually must deal in shades of gray. See this explanation of negligence. Its second paragraph reads: As I've said previously, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not offering legal advice here. But I'm suggesting Groundspeak might want to consult their lawyers to determine if they should revise their policy of not considering safety when reviewing caches. You can create all the hypothetical scenarios you want and you are still wrong, and trust me Groundspeak has already consulted Lawyers many times, they simply cannot take responsibility for the safety of caches, period.

As already stated I would have asked the reviewer or looked it up, I would not get upset because I didn't know what it meant.

I really just don't understand it. I enjoy Waymarking, and it is part of this site. Waymarking is one of the reasons that I am a PM on this site. Why do people care which site that others enjoy with our GPS unit adventures? Nobody cares what site you use or how many, the Discussion is over the merits of the sites themselves, it isn't personal, I am glad you and the others are enjoying it, I just personally doubt it will survive long in its present form, it must become far more GC.com like or it will fail.

Those of us who do not drink coffee would prefer hot chocolate in our cups thank you.

That's not what anyone said, What I'm saying is you can't stand there and say a word is in common use to a whole bunch of people who have not heard it. Well you can say it, but it's not gonna make it true. Pick any word and you'll find people who have never heard it, that does not mean it isn't common nor does it make it slang. And yes many here are saying that, not straight out but inferred. Denying it's a common word doesn't make it uncommon, oh you can claim it but it isn't true.

Some posters here seem to think that if they personally don't know a word no one should ever use that word. And one of them never heard of the OK Corral, seems the word isn't so much the problem as the state of education these days.