Cpt.Blackbeard

More I think about it the more I think they don't want the cache placed but don't want to say no either, so they say yes if you assume the responsibility knowing that very few people will go ahead with it after that, and if you do they'll hold you to it.

I disagree completely. I have found this to be a very enjoyable forum, from day one. I'm not particularly thick-skinned, but I have never felt picked on or unwelcome. This isn't my first time on a forum, and it's one of the better ones I frequent. Go away, we don't want you here.

When you join any new Forum you should watch and read for awhile before posting (Unless you joined because you need an answer quick). That gives you a chance to see how people post, who you tend to agree with most often and disagree with most often. Who is always helpful etc. By the time you make your first post you should know what to expect.

To the OP, let me say that Geobain is one of the best people you could ever meet. He has done a tremendous amount of work on my own Forums for free, and I have met him in person though the visit was far to short. He means what he says, us crusty old pirates just don't always act polite enough in mixed company

Whatever happened to having fun outdoors? Seems the ones who get "hurt" the most are the ones who take it to seriously, relax, enjoy and forget about it.

No, as every experienced cacher here has already explained to you signing the log is not required to log online but if the log is not signed the CO has the option of deleting it or leaving it as they choose..

Could very well be. However, the OP did not place an illegal cache in the cache owner's name. The point is if you don't tick off folks then they're not as motivated to see you suffer. In this case, the OP was bringing the hammer of this sites guidelines to bear on his opponent. (If this is a personal vendetta.) This is easy and further harms the other one due to the public spanking. And abused the site and guidelines by turning the COs cache listing into his personal Forum to berate the CO. Nothing can excuse that, NOTHING.

Have you asked in the southeast Forums down below? Someone tried to set up a site like that but it got very little support and has since vanished.

Yeah, a lot of the time the moral of the story is don't screw with other cachers lest your illegal placements be highlighted to the world. Does that in any way make an illegal placement any less illegal? Actually, in hind sight, I would have liked a cache cop pointing out improper placements in some DNR controlled areas in SC. Maybe then we wouldn't have a law prohibited them in all DNR controlled or managed areas. This issue was far beyond any desire of the OP to simply get an illegal cache removed, there is no doubt in my mind it was personal against the CO.

This. In his latest log he has demanded that "it should be archived immidiately (sic)". Yep, violates the spirit. There is definitely more to this story. Oh yeah, it couldn't just be an illegal cache that could tar the name of geocaching. Nope, you are way to worked up over it for it to be about the cache, and your notes on the cache page are way out of line.

According to Virginia's Recreational Use statute, the bolded bit is exactly wrong. If you were referring to subsection C: which states C. Any landowner who gives permission, express or implied, to another person to hunt, fish, launch and retrieve boats, swim, ride, foxhunt, trap, camp, hike, rock climb, hang glide, skydive, sightsee, engage in races, to collect, gather, cut or remove forest products upon land or premises for the personal use of such person, or for the use of an easement as set forth in subsection B does not thereby: 1. Impliedly or expressly represent that the premises are safe for such purposes; or 2. Constitute the person to whom such permission has been granted an invitee to whom a duty of care is owed; or 3. Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any intentional or negligent acts of such person or any other person, except as provided in subsection D. I don't see anything there that specifies Geocaching which is likely what the attorney for the injured partyy would argue. I also don't care what the law states when compared to what a jury awards. I have seen more than one jury who awards civil money and reimbursement even when no criminal negligence has been present. Being on the right side of the law doesn't mean you can't lose your house in a civil case. I don't care what state you live in, sometimes the court costs to defend yourself, not to mention the headaches and the time, just aren't worth it. EDITED TO FIX SPELLING + add a thought It does, however, mention hiking, and unless its a drive-up cache, you will be hiking to get to it. You are also hunting a geocache, but I don't think a judge would see the humor in that. These laws were passed to encourage land owners to open up their lands for recreational purposes without fear of lawsuits. In Indiana as long as you do not charge a fee you are safe, if you wish to charge a fee for people to use your land you become a business and are no longer protected.

Ditto here. I looked for one cache three times, I only logged the first DNF, to many DNFs on a cache page will keep some people from looking for it as they think it is missing , no sense cluttering up a cache page with a lot of DNFs. If I look and think it might be missing I'll log DNF.

My favorite vacations were the ones spent hiking the mountains. I have a photo here I took in Colorado of the Chicago lakes, 16 mile round trip at over 11,000 feet on my first day in Colorado, walking and me are old friends and I've climbed several of the hills down your way as well. I already said it was a moot point though and was content to leave it at that until your brother jumped in. Don't take it so personally when someone disagrees with you. As I stated, it was a heads up for you on the way some people view your stance who will find them. I read your question about old Earthcaches, the reply did not say you can still require a picture, they made a point of mentioning that you can REQUEST a picture. Oh, and I own three GPS actually, an old Magellan 2000XL, a Garmin ETrex Legend and a Garmin GPSMap 60CSX that gets considerable use. See between my job, maintaining my farm and the scarcity of caches within a reasonable driving distance and the shortage of money to waste on gas I can't spend all my time playing games, so my total numbers are lower than yours.

That assumes that they knew ahead of time that there was going to be a problem. I doubt that such could be proved one way or the other and still doesn't make the protest any less absurd. No, untrue. Anytime a site is upgraded there is a risk of problems. My humble opinion is that the persons who implemented the software upgrade were foolish to not announce the potential for problems BEFORE the software release. No programmer is so good that their rollout goes smoothly the first time. You also state repeatably that you never mean what you post and nobody should take anything you say seriously, so I guess what you think doesn't matter, by your own admission.

Very true. I used to ignore thunderstorms, aside from the wind and rain. The thunder and lightning didn't faze me in the slightest until the day I was in the woods when a storm hit. I ignored it until the lightning hit, I don't know what it hit but I was surrounded by intensely bright light and the thunder almost drove me into the ground, and in fact I did drop to the ground but had it hit me it would have been to late. I dropped down into the holler and got to safety as fast as I could go, and after that I no longer treat storms so casually, they have my respect.

One point I'd like to make is that the people who live in these areas where it rains most of the time are prepared for the rain. Around here where rain days are much rarer it is much less likely the average person will have the rain gear you all do and we are much more likely to say "Lets wait until it stops", because even all day rains are not very common here. Raining in the morning, dry in the afternoon. Also I have been in the Pacific Northwest during the wet season and to be honest even I didn't notice the rain much, I'd set out walking uptown without so much as an umbrella and not think twice about it while here I generally hate getting rained on. A few years ago I was going to be in Des Moines, Iowa for a track meet. We were told it would be 80°, but there was the possibility of rain so bring rain gear. My rain gear is for temperatures of half that. I don't have rain gear for 80° weather. In Seattle, if it is 80, then the sun is out. Same here, wear a rain suit and you'll sweat yourself just as wet, which is another reason most people don't have rain gear here.

I know someone on this page that went out and checked there cache to see if there was a name writtened on the log book and deleted it. So I think a picture of the EC location is a good idea. But they are not required, nor are they needed, they are an ALR.

What an ironic statement coming from someone concerned with the logging of extremely difficult 5/5* caches I'm assuming I missed the in there somewhere. But to answer your question, because the Guidelines say so Of course, it's a free country.... I think they're right. My 0.02 Leave a camera there then, mines broken but even if it worked I seldom carry one caching, and since Groundspeak doesn't require a photo the only way you'd get one from me is if you provide the camera. And if you rejected it I'd file an appeal to Groundspeak over your ALR to get my log reinstated. This is all moot since I'm unlikely to find one of yours but others will who will feel that way, and I have to wonder why you wish to be obstinate over an issue Groundspeak is not. That is like saying that I want to cache but I don't have a gps can you leave one in the cache container for me. Why are you even adding your two cents when you haven't even done a earthcache or even found one yet? Not even close. It has now been confirmed that he cannot REQUIRE me to take a photo at his cache, therefore if I find one I will NOT take a photo, unless he provides the camera, in which case why not? Since he has stated he will continue to require photos his caches now have an ALR attached to them and violate Groudspeak Guidelines, so any logs he deletes for lack of a photo must be reinstated and the ALR removed. His desire to be a control freak does not give him the right to be one.

A&H, While I commend your effort to bring the issue to GS, I hardly think that disabling or even archiving your placed caches are going to do anything short of punish those of us who seek your hides. Rather than disable you hides, why not simply add a short note to the description or a log that "The above (or below) corruption in HTML you see is due to Groundspeak's incompetence and failure to thoroughly test the recent site updates/changes/downgrades and is not a reflection on the abilities of the owner of this cache. To help us resolve these issues, please contact Groundspeak (insert Groundspeak's phone number, complaint number etc... here)" Maybe if their phones start to ring off the hook and their email boxes begin to fill, they may get the point. Disabling your caches is not something that they will see let alone make any sort of impact. Except that note would be a lie as the fault is their own bad code. Very few people have had any problems at all and most users outside the Forums probably have any idea there was an upgrade. Every change has a few bumps to overcome but in the long run things will quiet down and everyone from Groundspeak to cachers will be better off.

Double post. Possible freezing rain here tomorrow morning, won't catch me caching in that weather.

One point I'd like to make is that the people who live in these areas where it rains most of the time are prepared for the rain. Around here where rain days are much rarer it is much less likely the average person will have the rain gear you all do and we are much more likely to say "Lets wait until it stops", because even all day rains are not very common here. Raining in the morning, dry in the afternoon. Also I have been in the Pacific Northwest during the wet season and to be honest even I didn't notice the rain much, I'd set out walking uptown without so much as an umbrella and not think twice about it while here I generally hate getting rained on.

Allow me to add my well done. As long as you are able to move it along it's way by all means do so. Just be sure you understand how to log it out and into the next cache, a lot of new cachers have trouble with logging them properly.

This gave me tired head. Can somone sum up? Mr T was to late to rant in the Original Thread so he is trying to dig the dead horse up so he can beat it some more.

As a rule no, but I do make exceptions as this log shows. GCRR4E Jurassicache April 14, 2007 by Cpt.Blackbeard (___ found) Found today in a downpour, but that's alright, I was already soaked from hiking to Blackjeeps Lake view cache. Doubt I would have found this one without the hint, it was very nicely hidden but it was raining so hard I had trouble keeping it dry while signing the log. Didn't notice a Travel bug or a camera but didn't really look either due to the rain. Thanks for a great cache, I'll post a pic of the river when I get it online.

WC Indiana here, when I started it only took me a few easy days to find every cache within a reasonable driving distance of my home. I knew then I'd have to cut way back on my caching so I only go out a couple times a year. Wish I had the cash to travel right now, I'd head on down and visit JJc while I'm off from work.