B+L

There is actually a consensus view of the meddlesome Mr. Lidar. Unfortunately, it can't be repeated here. Like most gadflies, he's fond of his hyperbole.

Possibly. The way we read the guidelines, caches archived prior to the start date of a challenge could not be used. We've never officially been working on Lizzy's challenge, but we have used it as sort of an vague goal setting device and usually think about it when we are travelling. Even so, we can be added to the list of people applauding Lizzy's efforts over the years. A challenge cache liker hers is a real challenge to maintain and we admire her for doing it.

Colchuck Lake or Eightmile Lakes, and Wedge Mountain are all excellent hikes (the upper road to Wedge is pretty much high-clearance vehicle only). Big Beaver Hill and Sugarloaf are shorter hikes, but have a good payoffs. Alpine Lookout on Nason Ridge is almost guaranteed to have goats, but also plenty of bugs. Rock mountain via Snowy Creek is also a good one.

Yeah, back then it wasn't possible to exhume threads that had been dead for ten years.

Shorter is going to be much slower. Take the Mt. Margaret trail from the trailhead to the ridge top where there is a signed junction. Left goes to Mt. Margaret and Lake Lillian. Straight ahead to Margaret Lake. To the right is a fainter boot path along the ridge that goes towards the cache. Some people start bushwhacking when they get directly below the cache, but it's not saving them any time. Bring plenty of water.

That's why we usually check first. Signs are nice, but some people think disposing of them is a way to skip out on needing a pass. Recreation Sites Where Day Use Fees are Charged I could see that happening and I've seen a few torn down. Though I don't think that is the case at Snow Lake Trailhead. I also think that list is far from complete; for example, Mailbox TH is not on there, nor trailheads for Green Mt and Mt Bessemer, all which are just along the Snoqualmie Middle Fork road. All of these are signed too. I'm fine with the list being incomplete as long as it does have all the places that do not have signs.

That's why we usually check first. Signs are nice, but some people think disposing of them is a way to skip out on needing a pass. Recreation Sites Where Day Use Fees are Charged

But not their game. Except it is. In a game where exceptions are the only rule, it is possible to have your cake and eat it too. Or perhaps more appropriately for this thread: wasch mich, aber mach mich nicht naß.

The trail is still open and Pilchuck is a really nice hike even if you can't go inside the lookout itself. Plus, Purgatory was spruced up recently. The Big Four ice caves not being melted out yet might be a bigger concern, if seeing the caves is a goal for the people making that trek.

We all know the only thing you really care about is listening to yourself prattle on endlessly about knickers twisting. Unintentional irony seems to be a specialty in these forums. Carry on.

Everything you describe, with the possible exceptions of PAF and taking turns would probably be acceptable to most people. A gimmee is generally considered to be a "can't miss" putt, but if you are playing in a group where everyone has agreed that anything within a club length, or four feet, or whatever is acceptable, then so be it. Just don't expect that everyone you might play with will always be agreeable to such a loose definition. And if you are marking your card according to what you are happy with rather than your actual score, you could have a credibility problem, especially if you brag about your alleged score in the clubhouse.

Only from the point of view of someone looking at golf as a sport defined by its rules rather than a fun activity involving clubs, balls, and holes. The fun activity involving clubs, balls and holes is fine for little kids. Like geocaching, golf is a really simple game and not all all difficult to play within the rules. But apparently it is more important to a lot of people to manage their frustrations than it is to actually play the game. Because there is money riding on the game? No pun intended, but it is a safe bet that other people's scores do matter. If not, I wonder why golf bothers with scorecards and handicapping? Duffers are just mediocre golfers, e.g. most golfers. Hackers is more of a derogatory term reserved for people who could care less.

OK, but at some point the threshold between what they'd like to think they are doing, playing golf, and what they are actually doing, playing make-believe, is crossed. You are correct that many people could care less, but that's a big part of why terms like duffers and hackers are commonly used.

Minigolf is like what geocaching would be without a proximity rule. Maybe someone should start a site for Minicaching.

What's nonsense is twisting "usually not well received" and "considered poor form" into saying I'm claiming no one does something. Apparently you've never played golf with anyone who takes it seriously enough go beyond merely pretending they are playing golf. A foot wedge is a very useful tool for "reducing frustration", but using one is widely considered to be cheating by anyone who has any respect for the game, or themselves. Only keeping accurate scores on holes one does well on? That's perfect. Why bother keeping an accurate score unless you like it? That sounds exactly like the logging practices of some geocachers.

It's not uncommon for golfers to do a little on course wagering, so it is not usually well received if one is caught deviating from the agreed upon format. Even when informal rules such as mulligans and gimmes are the norm, it is considered poor form to push the limits. Taking a gimme on a four foot putt is not going to make you any new friends. No matter how loosely the rules are followed, keeping an accurate scorecard is a basic expectation. When golfers start awarding themselves gimmees just for driving a cart on the fairway and "forgetting" strokes whenever it suites them, then golf and geocaching will have a lot more in common.

Come on fellas. This thread is for discussing strange things, not armchair quarterbacking what someone else did or did not do. Let's stick to the topic before we give our moderators croup.

Summit registers are being stolen across the Sierras. Like the missing I-90 corridor caches, so far no one has claimed responsibility and their motives remain unknown.

Perhaps that's because the definition of "find" is blindingly obvious. There is no need to define something that is self-evident to everyone but those suffering from intractable obstreperousness. When Dave formalized the game in the first FAQ, he said this: Here's what Dave thought of the way things turned out a only a year later:

We once saw a very odd mannequin in a storefront window. It was in the form of a naked pregnant woman, colored light blue, covered from head to toe in red lipstick kisses and wearing a helmet. We thought that was about the oddest thing we'd ever seen until we cut through a nearby alley into a parking lot where we came upon a woman who appeared to be someone's white-haired Grandmother, complete with puff paint sweatshirt. It was a drizzly night and she was standing in the shelter of a large window air conditioner unit along with two men. She was proffering an open case, very similar to the one you are describing. When we appeared from around the corner, she hesitated and eyed us over her reading glasses for a moment until she decided we were harmless and then turned her attention back to the two men. We did not linger to find out what the deal was, so to speak. A little while later, we were a few blocks away and saw a man pushing a bicycle and carrying several frying pans of various sizes. A car approached and he leaned the bicycle up against a telephone pole, set the pans down next to it and hopped into the car, which drove off leaving his stuff just sitting there. The driver of the car appeared to be the same woman we had just seen with the case. Nocturnal urban wildlife is often pretty strange.

So then is building a fence in the woods litter? How about an information kiosk? How about an information sign? A bench for a rest? Is anything placed in the woods litter? Then how about geocaches in the city? Wiki: Litter consists of waste products that have been disposed of improperly, without consent, in an inappropriate location. Litter can also be used as a verb. To litter means to throw (often man-made) objects onto the ground and leave them as opposed to disposing of them properly. While most litter is associated with containers, wrappers and paper product; dumped items may include furniture, appliances (white goods), old electronics (e-waste), abandoned vehicles or construction materials. These categories of waste often contain hazardous materials. The distinction between littering and illegal dumping is sometimes defined by volume [1] or the location of the disposed of waste.[2] Illegally dumped items containing hazardous waste can harm the environment and have a potentially negative impact on human health. These are not waste products, we are not disposing them inappropriately, where appropriate we have gotten consent, and they are in appropriate locations. That last is probably what they take issue with: whether the location is appropriate or not. You can't see it, it's not being disposed of, but used as a game piece, it's not litter. We're still using it so it can't be litter. They're removed when we're done with the game. If they weren't removed when we are done, then it would be litter then, at that point. You mis-attributed your quote. Shaddow did not write it. I did. I never said I thought geocaches were litter, I quoted someone who did. Unfortunately, they'd probably find your arguments to be mostly irrelevant and completely unpersuasive.

It sends a clear message all right, but not necessarily the one that was intended.

There's no reason for them to say anything, unless they want the attention or they are trying to goad people. I can see how some people might think they have as much right to take caches as we do to place them. I'm actually surprised this kind of thing has not happened more frequently. A quote from back in the early days:

Mr. Namboku's use of such pejoratives apparently predates the forum guidelines and his name-calling has been grandfathered. B+L's mangling of my name and trying to make this about some terms I use, instead of arguing the points is what is getting tiresome. I'm not interested in arguing with you. I was merely commenting on The Jester's point. It is something of a mystery why you continue to be allowed to call people names. But do go ahead and use me as an excuse to keep it up. No one really expects anything different from you after all this time. TLDR; but I'm betting that you've failed to actually explain why you call people puritans and control freaks.

Mr. Namboku's use of such pejoratives apparently predates the forum guidelines and his name-calling has been grandfathered.