Hoppingcrow

Law enforcement will be the next step if he issues another threat. The only email we don't have copies of is my original explanation of the change we made to his cache. All letters, both internal and external, were referred to Groundspeak. Their advice was to steer clear of his caches and have no further contact with him. We complied with that advice. I am certain Groundspeak must also have told him to cease and desist, which he did not do. As for that cache ... trying to keep with the OP, here ... I feel it should have qualified as a multi. As a matter of fact, I've done a multi along similar lines where the final was placed only a few feet away from the last waypoint. In this case, the 12" camoed decoy tube was relatively obvious, while the bison cache container was buried...let me repeat that, BURIED...in the soil beside the stump (although two links of the attachment chain were visible). This information was also reported to the reviewer who approved the cache, but I think due to the other issues at hand, it may have been dismissed as a complaint made in spite. Such was not the case.

No, we weren't mad at being fooled. That's part of the fun of geocaching, after all. We readily admitted we'd made a judgmental error in our attempted maintenance, although anyone else we've ever helped has thanked us for drying out caches, adding new log paper, raising a cache above flood level, carting out litter or whatever. I think a high percentage of experienced and conscientious cachers would have done the same thing in our position.

You should be amazed at how many creative variations blur the lines between catagories that made so much sense back when they were created. This cache though has a simple and happy ending in the Ignore Catagory. As previously stated, we've already put all of this chap's caches on the Ignore List. Neither of us is so hungry for numbers that we'd feel compelled to go after them. Addressing your previous post, I do worry that this wacko is going to hurt someone at some point in his career. If he gets this bent out of shape over a pen, I hate to think what might have happened if we'd put a guard rail micro back behind the wrong post or failed to lay all three sticks across an ammo box in the precise pattern he dictated. I am also concerned that he so casually disregarded the "family-friendly" directive from GC with respect to the language he sent through GC's email system. He used no words that this couple of old fogeys hadn't heard before, but what if his emails had been addressed to a young geocacher?

Question, then. If this was truly a misunderstanding (and it sounds like it was), then what is the difference between adding a stick to help retrieve a log and adding a plastic zip bag to a cache log that doesn't have one? Or replacing a log that is damaged, wet, missing, or full? Or any of the other 'repairs' we do to help out? It's hard to know when to draw a line, then. Just a thought. Neither Frisbee'r nor I could believe the direction this simple act of maintenance took. We had both expected him to react in one of two ways. He could have sent a polite "Thanks! You saved me a trip!" note or he could have chosen not to respond to my note saying we'd made a repair to his cache. But the very first note I received from him called me both a "LIER" and "DISRESPECTFULL." When I replied, I maintained my professionality and simply repeated my apology. By that time, he had sent Frisbee'r the "A..HOLE" letter. The bad part was that at the time, Frisbee'r made his personal email address public in his profile. I keep mine private. The result was that the man made no further contact with me (or if he tried, it went to GC's "noreply" address). He continued to pepper Frisbee'r with increasingly aggressive notes despite the fact that Frisbee'r only responded to his first one.

It's not like it's "his territory" or that he has any control over it like that. He'll probably cool off, eventually, now that you and he are not communicating anymore. As for the original question, if the cache was buried, I would have reported that to the reviewer. You probably did. That's a no no, as we all know. At that point it's in the reviewer's hands, right? Frisbee'r contacted the reviewer who had published the cache. I don't believe he received a reply. Other caches by this same person have private property/access issues.

Stop the car. I hope you've contacted your reviewer about this. There is no need for anybody to ever escalate cache issues of any sort to this level. At the very least, place all the cache owner's hides on your ignore list and never seek them out again. Already done, believe me! But he also told us to stay "up north where you belong." This type of situation is not really the reviewer's domain, so we referred it directly to GC. The threats of physical violence stopped, presumably because GC told him to lay off. They advised us to avoid his caches, which we have done, but his demand for us to stay out of the much larger general area is absurd.

Chiming in here as the other member of this caching team. Yes, there were "other discussions" before our logs were deleted. They consisted of a letter of apology from me for having altered his cache with the insertion of the stick, then a vituperous letter from him, a second apology from me, and then a threat of physical violence from him. I believe Frisbee'r only wrote one, "Hey, guy...calm down!" note after he was hit with the "A..hole" letter BEFORE HE HAD EVEN LOGGED THE CACHE! Since then, neither of us has initiated any contact, although Frisbee'r has received several other threatening letters. The matter was referred to GC, who predictably declined to arbitrate. As for the cache (and the real subject matter of the original post), the bison tube was jammed in to a depth of several inches in the soft soil beside the stump. The chain was attached at ground level so that the only visible evidence of the hide was the topmost one or two links (small gauge chain, no more than half-inch links). The note in the decoy container had been crammed into the bottom of its container by the ball-point pen the cache owner had provided. We thought it was the log, just as any other cacher might have done. However, a less experienced cacher might not have bothered to try to retrieve it. I think many would have simply added a "new" sheet of log paper when they were unable to get the supposed log out easily. We thought we were doing the guy a favor, and that was how my original note to him was composed.

Thank you! I will relay this to the folks who drafted me for their spokesperson.

Well, from what I'm seeing here so far, people are largely in favor of adding more bookmarks even when they don't use them themselves. You never can tell...you might want to use them some day! I'll admit I haven't tried using GSAK, but I don't think it would be as effective as bookmarking for the way I cache. For example, I keep bookmarks for caches along two widely separated bike trails I enjoy riding. I also have notifications set up for those areas. When a new cache is published, I check to see if it's on the trail, then put it into the appropriate bookmark list. When the list has enough caches on it to make a trip worthwhile, I do a PQ from the bookmark and only then does it go into GSAK. This way, I am able to weed out the caches which are more than half a mile from the bike trail and too far out of my way when I'm riding. Sometimes it takes weeks or even months (winter is slow) to accumulate enough caches for a ride. (And I like to bookmark caches I've particularly enjoyed. Hiya, Finchy! )

At Groundspeak's suggestion, I am posting this on behalf of several geocaching friends to lobby for more bookmarks. Twenty simply is not enough, especially since the Ignore List takes up one of the count if you've ever used it and it cannot be archived. The problem is this: many of us cache in widely separated areas and would like to keep a bookmark for each locale, developing it over a period of time. For me personally, this list would ideally include at least fifteen spot locations from Lopez Island in the San Juans to Portland, Oregon. We geocachers also like to keep bookmarks of our milestones, FTFs and caches we have particularly enjoyed. However, nowadays there are so many "challenge" caches being developed, each requiring a bookmark of its own to be maintained for three to six months, that many cachers are finding out that their bookmarks are largely consumed by "challenges," leaving no room for other more individually useful bookmarks. Ten more would be nice. Fifty would be what I'd like to see, ideally. Many cachers don't use them at all, so perhaps it wouldn't be a burden on the servers. Even five more would be beneficial. Please share your thoughts!

Now that the event has gone Mega, this coin should be even MORE collectible! Way to go, ASP GeoBash!!!

There are several caches I've debated going to that I've ended up canning because of this requirement. I just don't get it. Some people don't want their photos floating around on the internet. Others just don't like having their photos taken. Some cache solo and can't take their own photo. I do a lot of photography on the side. I don't like being in front of a camera. But believe me, I could do all sorts of photos to show someone I was at the cache without me showing my face. In this day and age, people like to try and protect their privacy. Personally, I think this is the type of requirement that makes this hobby a little unenjoyable at times. As me to post 10 photos of the place and I'll comply. If I have to be in it -- well, face, I'll probably skip the cache all together just so I don't have to worry about a deleted log. I'd urge people that do these caches to strongly consider somehow altering their rules. I saw one the other day that said it had to be a full photo, but feel free to use something like Photoshop and black out a face. I'd consider something like that myself. And if not, cool, too. But realize some people will do the cache, not realize the requirements and log it anyway. I looked at the logging requirements for several of Cav Scout's Earthcaches and noticed very few which actually said a photo of the cacher's face was required, but he implies in his post (above) that such a photo is required for ALL his Earthcaches. I for one would be very upset if I had flown to another state, rented a car, driven several hundred miles, logged a find with my hand and GPSr (since I cache alone), only to discover it had been deleted by the time I got home. If a full-face photo is required, it should be clearly stated on the cache page.

I wish I was going to be there! From what I've heard, this event tops MidWest GeoBash for activities and caching fun. Last year's event was a HUGE success!

Thanks to the folks who have contacted me about trades. I haven't figured out how many ducks I'll have available yet, but I'm keeping a list of people who want to trade.

I was impressed with the detail on this coin when I first saw the images of it, but 'in person,' it's even more stunning! Good job!

Incredible! More detail than I would have thought possible. An utterly stunning coin, Mouse!

Yay for Mousie!

~The Slimy One brings up a good point. However, what if you are in the right area and can see the cache, but simply can't get to it because of your physical shortcomings?~ ~If the cache is just beyond the reach of my fingers and no amount of prodding with a trekking pole will dislodge it, is it technically a DNF?~ ~Inquiring tildes want to know.~ ¶You can't tie or duct-tape a Sharpie to the end of your trekking pole so you can sign the container? ¶Sounds like you're just being a slacker, Crow. ¶If that's the case, you don't deserve the DNF. ¶I'll see your ~ and raise you a ¶, which, interestingly enough, is called a pilcrow. ^^^ You can't write on a wet Mountain Dew can with anything! ^^^ ^^^ This is Washington you're talking about. It's wet out here. ^^^ ^^^ If I am technically prohibited from finding my own hides, ^^^ ^^^^^ doesn't it follow logically that they are defacto DNFs? ^^^^^ ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp (This post brought to you by p's and carets.)

~The Slimy One brings up a good point. However, what if you are in the right area and can see the cache, but simply can't get to it because of your physical shortcomings?~ ~If the cache is just beyond the reach of my fingers and no amount of prodding with a trekking pole will dislodge it, is it technically a DNF?~ ~Inquiring tildes want to know.~

Let it be known that I am not a fan of Google maps or Google earth. With many years experience travelling the deep backcountry of my state as a forest ranger, I first research TopoZone to plan my route of attack. If I feel the area merits it, I will print out the map and carry it with me. Of course, this method seldom is applicable to urban caching which, IMHO, is another sport entirely.

I agree!(sorry, I couldn't resist) I second that motion I agree!(sorry, I couldn't resist) I second that motion FIXED.

Some people don't like aqua green. Jeez. It coulda been pink. Then I would have been gacked.

I must concur with Lep and Ambrosia in requesting that "Webfoot" ( or "webfoot" without the capitalization) be added to the Groundspeak Glossary. It is in consistent use, and was a well-established term when I first entered the Forums two years ago.

Now THAT's funny. My wife, oldest grandaughter, and I just did that route last weekend. For some exercise and the scenery do W.W.J.D.? GCJWTB and L-4 WWJD Part 2 GCKG0P. You get to drive on the edge of the tulip fields (which are in bloom!), past a little Catholic chapel to the trailhead and then climb the hill, doing both geocaches. There is a great view at the top. If you want it a little less strenuous, there is a road up the backside of the hill. No Local Branches in Morton isn't exciting, but it is sort of a nice change on an old theme. AZ to Mineral to AZ is easy pickins on the way by on hwy 7. Go left a little once you hit Mt Rainier Hwy and you see some unique sculptures THE IRON WORKS CACHE. A few miles outside Mt Rainier NP is wild berries for us all! cache. The cahe isn't much, but the restaraunt has wonderfull blueberry pie, and they have a deer lick by the chairs by the creek. We ate lunched and watched a deer out the window. (You could also watch deer from the patio). Back heading west intead, stop at Elbe WA. There is the Mount Rainier Railroad. We took the train ride and did the cache at the end. Right by the depot is an old steam engine that I don't think you could miss. Some say the coordinates are off, but I don't see how you could miss the engine slightly to the left of the depot. I missed it Addiction Cache #2: Big Nose cache) because it somehow missed getting im my GPS. Dogwood Park cache GC475A is a MUST DO. We didn't have time to do the second waypoint, but it didn't matter. You can tell by the geocaches I mentioned what our route was (other than we continued up to Puyallup and Tacoma). On the entire trip, the best view of Mount Rainier we got was at the first waypoint for Dogwood Park cache GC475A . If you head north from there you might want to check out NW Trek wildlife park. I hope that helps. If you do any of them, please let me know what you think. <chuckle> At least one of mine got a mention! True, it isn't exciting unless you happen to be there the weekend of Logger's Jubilee, but that's just over with. Another one of mine is right alongside Highway 7. Some people find it easily, others have trouble with it, so I'll give you an extra hint. The cache is "Lost Magic, Stolen Youth." Do not bother searching the obvious "shaker." It makes a wonderful decoy, but no more than that. Look low, and then lower. PastonDICs recommendation of The Iron Works Cache doesn't tell half the story. You'll want to spend half an hour or more walking around among Dan Klennert's sculptures and gift shop. PS. I think Addiction Cache #2: Big Nose may pose a problem. The steam engine has been moved from its original location.