Docapi

M personal opinion: A cache that says you have to wear a red hat to log it? OK. I can get a red hat. A cache that says I have to include the word "cheese" in my found log? OK. I can do that. A cache that says I have to take a picture of myself holding a sign saying "I'm a cache nut" at the cache site? OK. I can do that, too. A cache that says I have to have X number of caches, or be female, or of a certain race, religous denomination, or have a certain color hair in order to log it? Not OK. The first 3 are all examples of things that any cacher can do. Any cacher can find a hat or make a sign. The last is simply exluding geocachers for the sake of excluding them. How about if somebody made a cache requirement that "In order to log this cache, you have to be somebody I like. Anybody logging this cache that I either dont like or have not made up my mind about will have their logs deleted"?

After digging around for a while, I find that some of the maps show the cache as well into Rocky mountain National Park, some show it as being in Arapaho, and some show it as being in no park at all. The cache is in the same spot on all the maps, but the park lines are very different from map to map. It all depends on what maps you look at. After looking at the actual national parks maps and researching the area a little, I am inclined to think that it is actually outside the park, but this wasn't the way to handle the problem. LOL! I am too slow.

Hmm... So, using that logic, if you start it at the $7500 and there are no bids, does that mean it is worthless?

While there was no mass piling on, the person here made the one post, and never posted again: Here Maybe "Run off with pitchforK" (singular) would be more accurate in this case. Honestly, I do find this forum to be a little rougher than many of the other forums I have been part of. Most of those I don't visit much any more, if at all, but after 5 years I am still hanging around.

Nice, really nice. Don't worry, tankgirl2, there are people around that are not high and mighty judgemental creeps. We aren't all like that.

The log has been changed to a different account. It appears that the finder is the daughter of the hider, she has got FTF on all 5 of the hider's caches to date. Looking at some of her other logs, it appears that they are seperate people, and they don't go together to cache. My guess is that she found it on her own, but probably knew when it was going to be published and was ready. I think she had basically a legitamite FTF (with a little head start from knowing it was coming up) and accidetally logged it on the wrong account.

I see that I have been quoted a couple of times in this thread from the same thread that happened last year. I made all my arguments back then, and my stance hasn't changed as far as temp caches at events. (Just the temp caches, not the pocket caches, retirement cards, etc) I have stayed out of this one- I took enough abuse the last time. As far as the thread from last year, let me summarize: Some people don't like loggin them, and have valid points. Some people do log them, and also have valid points. Jeremy PERSONALLY doesn't care for it, but is not going to disallow it- he says it is up to the cache owner. The same suggestion was made on that thread to have a seperate icon for event temps, but Jeremy made no bones that he was completely unwilling to do so. I do know that the Wisconsin geocaching association was setting up its first big event a few years back, they contacted tptb asking about making seperate cache pages for the event temps. They were asked at that time to not waste bandwith with them and to log the temps on the event page instead. That is the policy that has been followed ever since. After last years blowup on these forume the membership was asked to vote on whether we should continue the policy, and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the policy as- is.

post deleted. dontcha hate it when you reply before refrshing and you realize afterwards that you are about 50 posts too late?!

Reading that, It sounds to me like the problem is not with the description, but with the placement. The reveiwer is concerned because his aerial photos make it appear theat the cache is in the middle of a building. Kent, I live in Boyd. If you think it would help, I would be willing to meet up with you sometime and check out the cache placement. I could re-verify your Coords, and give independednt verification that it is or is not placed in the building.

I don't know about the consistency part, but I registered in February of '01 and made some posts right away after registering. They don't show on my profile, though- must have been lost in the forum change.

I'm not sure where you found the regs for wisconsing, but those are all wrong. The traps must be checked (depending on type) once a day- less for drowning sets. I don't see any special regs for state parks, but traps cannot be placed within 3 feet of a road, culvert, or woven wire fence or within 100yards of a home. WI Trapping Regulations I did see this for people that might be tempted to mess with traps if they find them:

The guideline does not state that the option to use a GPS is required to be intregal (although you can and most will use a GPS on this cache)- it says that the option to use GPS Coordinates must be intregal to the cache. Without the coordinates I cant even narrow it down to the northern or southern hemisphere- let alone figure out which particular library in which particular town the cache is located, and that is assumiing I was able to figure out based on 3 numbers, a dot, and 3 more numbers that it IS a library. (lets be real here- how many people are going to look at 256.145 and right away jump to "Oh, It's the Dewey Decimal system!") Yes, a person could possibly look up the location on a map and figure out it is a library, but you would have to have the COORDINATES to do so. We have already seen the entire cache listing with everything but the coordinates and I know there is no way I could find it the way it is. If the coordinates were there I probably could. IMHO, that means that the coordinates MUST be an intregal part of the cache.

Neither. You should read the thread, read the cache description, read the guideline, and then form YOUR OWN opinion based on YOUR OWN feelings and interpretation. To say "Because so and so said so" is not giving your own opinion- it is just repeating somebody else. We already know what "so and so" said. The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether "so and so" is right. While the reveiwers are a great bunch of people and they work really hard for us, they are human- and sometimes humans make mistakes. The reason for this thread is to discuss whather or not this is one of those times. "because so and so said so" doesn't add to the discussion at all. PS. I apologise if it seemed like I was trying to single you out in my last post. That was not my intent. Your post was just the most recent one to use the "so and so said so" "argument".

This is one of the things that bothers me about this thread- many of the people that are saying that the cache should not be approved give as their only reason for saying so "because the approver said so". Come on, sheeple! If you feel that it shouldn't be approved, that is fine. Say so, and list your reasoning for your opinion. Don't just say "because the approver said so"- you are all intelligent people capable of forming your own opinions so do so. Read the thread, read the cache description, read the guidelines in question, and make YOUR OWN determination on whether or not YOU feel the cache is acceptable. Give the other people and the reveiwers and TPTB enough respect to know that you are not going to be ostracised for having an opinion- whatever that opinion may be. What is the point of an appeal if the answer is: We already know the origional approvers opinion- that is why the thread exists. He or she is also perfectly welcome to post on here with their reasoning. For people to just post repeating "because the approver said so" adds nothing to the discussion. It reminds me of when I was a kid and argued with my parents because they wouldn't let me do or have something. If they came back with "because I said so" I knew they didn't have a valid reasoning for their desision.

Gotta agree with you on that one. I am suprised it slipped through.

Perhaps you should have read the whole thread before replying, then. If you had, you would have found that fully 2/3 of the people that have replied feel that the cache meets the guidelines without any changes whatsoever. You would also have found that in many people's opinion the guideline that is in question could easily be interpreted in such a way that other caches- night caches, cave caches, etc would no longer be allowable. No, there is not a rash of them being disallowed at this point, but under the interpretation of this guideline that is being enforced in this case all of those others would not be allowable. Yes, the OP could have just knuckled under and made the changes, but he chose to bring the issue into the light so that in the future the guideline in question could have a more definite interpretation. I applaud him for doing so. For those that keep saying that coordinates are not needed for this cache: There you have the whole cache description except the coordinates. Even knowing from this thread that the cache is in a library and that the numbers in the cache name are dewey numbers, could you find this cache without the coordinates? I know I couldn't. How many thousands of libraries are there in the US? The description doesn't even tell you that it IS a library. So, how many places in any given town have hours that they are open? Without the GPS coordinates the cache is impossible to do, so it would seem logical that they are an intregal part of the cache- just like the guideline requests. Yes, some very few people might attempt to do it without an actual GPS (just like every other cache) but (just like every other cache) the vast majority is going to pull out their GPS when they go for it.

I think the easiest thing to do would be to make it an offset cache, but I do feel that there is really nothing wrong with it the way it is. Put me in the "approve it" column. I think people are trying to say that the front door of the library is not a specific enough spot to meet the standards of "needing a GPS", but I don't see the difference between finding a 3' wide door and a 2' wide sign or 10' tall statue like has been suggested in either case it is obvious what the destination is from a distance. There is one near me that the coordinates take you to the entrance of a runoff tunnel for a dam. The entrance to that tunnel is at least 8' wide and the GPS is not used after that. It is an extremely popular cache. I see no difference between that cache (navigate using GPS to the entrance, enter and find the cache) and the one being proposed here (navigate using GPS to the entrance, enter and find the cache) other than one being a tunnel and the other being a library. Sometimes you need to look at the intent of the "rule" and not just the letter- but I don't feel this violates either standard.

Seems simple to me- Leave the Coordinates the way they are and then say "The cache is X number of feet in X direction" From what I can tell, that would make it an allowable offset/mystery cache.

The really crazy thing is that the only reason he was able to read it at the wisconsin website is because HE posted the same story there. "It must be true 'cause I read it on the internet" is bad enough, but when you are the one that wrote it it's just plain silly.

Ok, so today I go out and find this one. Tomorrow, I find one of the light pole caches. Saturday, I am searching for another one of your caches behind a building and having a hard time finding it. I notice an electrical box on the back of the building. It has conduit running to it, and "Warning- high voltage" and "unauthorized personell" stickers. This is 2 days after finding a cache in a similar box from the same hider. Would that make me "stupid" for opening the box? Or would it be that my past expirience has shown me that this hider likes to do these hides, and it is likely that he did it again? Maybe he didn't feel like putting the lock on this one? Maybe a previous hider forgot to put the lock back on? Maybe it isn't the cache and I just cant find the real cache. Point is, I don't know. What I do know is that this hider, at least, does use electrical boxes for at least some of his caches and that there is an electrical box that looks "real" at the coordinates of another one of his caches. I think a lot of people- not just the "stupid" ones- would check it out.

I have to say after reading the running diatribe on the other thread and then this one, as an non-biased observer, Cudlecub's "reputation" has been damaged far less in my eyes than your own. You started all of this with your incredibly rude and arrogant found log. You could have PM'ed the owner if you felt he was doing something improper, or started a forum thread about it (obviously, you know how to do that), but no- you felt the need to use the found logs for the purpose of making your sanctimonoius little speech. That isn't what they are for. Then in your little speech, you invited people to log your caches. Hey, you asked for it- if somebody takes you up on it, then it is your fault. When Geofficer (a very apt name, considering that he is going after somebody that feels the need to "police" other peoples caches and logs) logged the caches, it was because you asked him to. Then, you started a thread here to bash Geofficer for doing what you asked him to to. (See, I knew you knew how to start a forum thread!) But, even though you were asked by several people to let it lie, you just couldn't. You felt the need to convict another person of this great offense, based on the fact that he had found the same cache as you, and because he went to an event that Geofficer posted that he would attend. The same "evidence" would be true for you, a** well. Based on this "overwhelming evidence" you act as judge, jury and executioner and post a log in his cache childishly "outing" him. (again, the find logs are not the place for this stuff) When he (appropriately) deletes your log, you point to it as "proof" To be blunt, all I see happening here is a egomaniacal jerk bashing other people wherever he can, because he feels his way is right. If you want to debate the merits of cache hiders allowing finds on their caches without the finders actually signing the log, we have a forum for that. Keep your sanctimonious whining out of other peoples cache logs.

Great article! One question, though: If I understand right, that means that 1-7 are the channels set aside for FRS transmissions. Now, since my radio's have channels 1-7 assigned to GMRS, and those are the shared channels, does that mean that there is no way I can talk to a straight FRS radio with my radio's without the license? Sorry, I usually am not this slow.

Now i'm confused. If I understand you right, you are saying that an FRS only radio can operate on any frequency without a license. A FRS/GMRS radio can only operate on 8-14 with out a license (I assume that the power output is higher on the other channels?). So there is no such thing as a "GMRS" channel or a "FRS" channel? The only difference is the power output of the radio? Not trying to argue, genuinely confused. They really don't make this very clear in the manuals. That passage I quoted I almost needed a manifying glass to read.

No, 1 - 7 are shared channels, you are free to use a type accepted FRS radio on those channels without a license. Just quoting from the manual on my Cobra PR 150 vp: "IMPORTANT NOTICE: FCC LCENSE REQUIRED This two-way radio operates on GMRS (General Mobile Radio Service) frequencies which require an FCC (Federal Communication Commision) license. A user must be licensed prior to operating on channels 1 through 7 or 15 through 22, which comprise the GMRS channels of this radio. Serious penalties could resault for unlicensed use of GMRS channels, in violation of FCC rules, as stipulated in the Communications Act's sections 501 and 502 (amended)"