Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by B+L

  1. Let's say you were grabbing a few caches and you returned to where you parked your car only to find it gone. You report it as stolen and a few days later the police call to let you know they've recovered your vehicle. You go to the police station and the Desk Sargeant hands you a steering wheel and a hubcap and says, "here's your car." Would you honestly feel comfortable saying the police had found your vehicle? How would you feel if your insurance company agreed? Wow! That's the funniest thing I've read all day. Comparing a LPC to a car. What's a sense of humor. It's not quite as amusing as pretending you don't know what a metaphor is.
  2. The poor strawman has really met his match this time.
  3. I guess logging a find on the probable remains of a lamp post cache cheapens the accomplishment of the prior finders? I guess it doesn't reward the CO's effort and cleverness at constructing and hiding the cache? Oh, right, not appicable. Perhaps he didn't experience what the CO intended for the cache - oh wait, the intended experience was +1 smiley. So yeah, I guess he kinda did what was expected. Hey, I know - maybe the CO will delete his log because he did not have the common courtesy to leave a throwdown... (Justified as "didn't sign the log.") Why not leave the poor strawman out of it? What did he ever do to you? What is expected is pretty simple, but these forums are teeming with examples of how people rationalize ways to say they found something that isn't there. Then we get to read all the reasons why DNFs are not actually DNFs. Did everyone grow up writing lies in their diaries or something?
  4. Let's say you were grabbing a few caches and you returned to where you parked your car only to find it gone. You report it as stolen and a few days later the police call to let you know they've recovered your vehicle. You go to the police station and the Desk Sargeant hands you a steering wheel and a hubcap and says, "here's your car." Would you honestly feel comfortable saying the police had found your vehicle? How would you feel if your insurance company agreed? How about someone gave you an ice cream cone, but before you ate the whole thing you dropped it? Later you posted on their ice cream page how you only took one lick before you dropped the cone, but that from what you tasted it was pretty good. Then they delete your log because you didn't eat the whole thing. The rules say "you can post an online tasted it log once you have eaten the cone" but since you didn't finish that would be cheating. What in the Wide World of Sports does that have to do with anything? If you have to strain that hard to pass a metaphor, you should seek immediate medical attention. And It's not cheating. It's smiley fraud.
  5. A good friend from Denmark once observed that many Americans take their hobbies very seriously and only know the meaning of the word "relax" intellectually. Danes surely have a keener sense of the Absurd than most Americans, but that does not seem to have prevented your friend from trying to seek meaning where there is none.
  6. Let's say you were grabbing a few caches and you returned to where you parked your car only to find it gone. You report it as stolen and a few days later the police call to let you know they've recovered your vehicle. You go to the police station and the Desk Sargeant hands you a steering wheel and a hubcap and says, "here's your car." Would you honestly feel comfortable saying the police had found your vehicle? How would you feel if your insurance company agreed?
  7. I hope no one places a cache there, unless it's a CITO. The sooner he is forgotten, the better.
  8. Who is it that has their knickers in a twist? The thousands and thousands of geocachers who are happily finding caches and signing the logs, or the lone cacher who writes thousands and thousands of words trying to convince everyone that signing logs is not necessary. I've seen the puritan and he is you.
  9. I thought Erickson's Bay was a boat-in camp.
  10. And it's even more telling that despite the fact that this is probably the most frequently topic of discussion in forum since they began, Groundspeak hasn't changed the guideline. It's almost like they chose the wording in the guideline intentionally. Sometimes I suspect the Groundspeak employees place bets on how many posts such threads generate, and when Toz will jump in. It's more like driving by a billboard you've seen a thousand times before. After awhile it becomes invisible.
  11. B+L, I agree with you except for the point above. I think people can use their judgement. I've only logged a find without signing twice. Once I didn't have a pen, but I took a photo of the log. I could have signed in mud or blood, but I felt a photo was better. The other time I grabbed the cache and was attacked by wasps. I put the cache back and ran. In that case I sent the owner a private message explaining what happened and describing the cache and asking him if I could log it as a find. I think people should log what best describes their experience in their opinion. In the 2 examples above, I felt that I found the cache, so a found log was most appropriate. But if the CO didn't agree and wanted to delete my log, then fine. Sure, in normal circumstances you follow the spirit of the guidelines. Your examples are the typical of exception I made above. You made a judgement call and it was yours to make (so long as the cache owner was amenable). We would have taken a DNF in both of your examples and either returned another time or not at all. No biggie. That's why they are guidelines, not rules.
  12. We are actually in the former camp, but we wil replace or add to a log if necessary. Once people start rationalizing reasons for not signing a log, there is little point in signing logs at all. We once saw someone take their foot of the gas as they were driving past a cache and to them, that momentary pause was sufficient reason for them to log the cache as found. We've climbed a mountain only to find the "cache" near the top was something else. DNF. Would anyone know or care if we logged it as found anyway? Probably not. We've had cache owners contact us to say we can go ahead and log a missing cache, but we've politely turned them down. We've traveled to a foreign country where the only way to log a cache was to throw down a replacement. We came home with zero finds. We once found the logbook from a missing cache, but did not sign it. You get the idea. No physical log, no smiley. Do we expect everyone else to play as strictly as we do, no, but we do expect people to at least try. Making excuses for not taking the basic step of signing a log is not something we find admirable and we are certainly not going to emulate it. And as you say, the consensus opinion is the sensible one. Why else would physical caches have logbooks?
  13. Sure, guidelines are not binding or mandatory. They are intended to set common expectations or set out sound practices, in this case for the logging of caches. However, it should be noted that Groundspeak's Geocaching 101 page does have an entry for the rules of geocaching. Are there circumstances in which it might be agreeable to both a cache owner and a finder for a cache to be logged online without first signing the log? Of course, but that is not the same thing as attempting to twist the meaning of the guidelines, which is what some people here insist on doing.
  14. You have written thousands of words making that claim, yet somehow you never seem to quote the guldelines in context: Must as in required by law, custom, or moral conscience. I'm sure you know what must means.
  15. This would be a brutal day hike, but maybe these notes will be helpful for planning: We've camped on the beach North of the river. It has several good camp sites. There are some really ugly sites on the headland. One look at them should provide plenty of motivation to cross the river. There is a low bank (with rope) that can be scrambled down from the headland. I can't see it in the picture. it could be to the left, out the frame. We found to be a good place to cross even the day after very heavy rain. The current was running hard enough to make the crossing potentially dangerous even though it was only about knee to hip deep. Undo the waist belt on your packs before attempting the crossing, or it could be next stop, Japan. There is one short, but steep rope pitch over a point that someone had helpfully left (very soggy) gloves at, but it's a good idea to bring your own. You will find it to be astonishingly slow going. There is a section of boulders that takes nearly forever to traverse and there are at least two places that can only be passed at low or medium tides and it is not always possible to reach the second one in time to make it around. One other note: the beach between Cannonball Island and Cape Alava is often knee deep in kelp and seaweed and it's also pretty slow going. Edit to add that if the tide is quite low, you can cross the river on the beach where it may be only inches deep, although stil moving fast enough for you to get wet.
  16. Use trails and roads when available, bushwhacking may give inconsistent results.
  17. Falsity implies anything. But I'm sure that won't be an obstacle.
  18. Sounds like you handled a really creepy situation really well. Unless that guy was speech impaired, his behavior was very discomforting. You know how you see all those cross-trails when you are out hiking, the kind that looks well used for an animal trail, and you think, "I wonder where that goes?" Bunker. Can't stop thinking that. Bunker has bumped Meth lab from the top spot. Oh yeah, and "Deliverance" is up near the top of the rankings too.
  19. The mighty Toz has finally seen the light. Kind of. Can we please stop calling the people who like to keep simple things simple, Puritans? I'm sure you are well aware that Puritan was a pejorative used to characterize religious extremists and you are using it in the same fashion.
  20. Why not? It works, doesn't it? The forum scolds currently enforce the logo usage guidelines, puzzle cache assistance rules, and automated access rules solely by copy and pasting. Groundspeak doesn't even have to do anything. Touché. And most of these thankless tasks, even forum moderation, could be easily be automated to free up some some precious volunteer resources.
  21. You must not have read that entire topic. Mtn-man was only re-posting what Elias had said. As stated later in that topic, Elias is one of the three "founding fathers" of Groundspeak. You can't get any higher in Groundspeak. By giving this statement, he has made it official that Groundspeak considers c:geo as violating the TOU. I already quoted part of what Elias said, which as I've already pointed out, is hardly a forceful response. But again, it's not your responsibility to enforce the TOU, or more precisely, your loose interpretation of it. Leave that to Groundspeak. And with that, I withdraw from this thread.
  22. Fair enough, but they have addressed this also. The problem is that these apps hit the site in a way that looks just like the site is being accessed via a browser. I assume that means they are using the standard browser IP port and standard http protocol calls, but I really don't know. In any case, GS stated way back when that they wanted to block these apps, but they could only do it by blocking browser access which would also block everyone from the regular online access so they decided to just make their position known and hope most folks go along with it. Now, I suppose they could add a traffic monitoring mechanism that would watch for an excessive amount of traffic from a specific IP address hitting their browser port, then block or throttle that IP address. But how much server processing cycles would doing THAT eat up? They could also, I suppose, but in a front-end server to handle the traffic use monitoring before it got to the actual data servers, but how much cost would that incur and how much of a slow-down would that cause for everyone? In any case, there are easy enough ways around being ID'd by IP address so that would most likely only be effective for a short time before another app was developed to get around that as well. They already throttle addresses that are misbehaving and that's about all they can do. I have been trying to point out that the TOU that people like to wave at c:geo users fails to allow for automated access at all, including the API. Furthermore, it was Mtn-Man who originally said that c:geo violates the TOU and as moderators and reviewers will often tell you, they are volunteers and their views are their own. They don't speak for Groundspeak. And neither do the people who have "taken it upon themselves to make new users aware of the issues with c:geo." A a side note, it is interesting that the TOU can be changed at any time without prior notice:
  23. B+L

    Found Your GPS

    But now they also know how to get back to your house, and armed with the phone number, they can guess when you are gone. If they are so dumb that they can't return to my house without a GPS, they'll probably fail to notice that my "home" phone number rings at the local Sheriff's office.
  24. B+L

    Found Your GPS

    I'm confused. If your GPS was stolen from your Jeep while it was parked in your driveway, wouldn't the thief already have enough information to know where your house is? Unless you live in a bunker hidden deep in the woods, where no one will ever find you ... aw, forget it. I don't worry too much about stuff like this, but if I did, there are other ways to be contacted other than telephones and if I was paranoid about entering home coordinates, I'd use something relatively close like a freeway exit, a local business, a park, or a school. I heard recently that someone local has a page or something where they are matching caching names to real names. Most people have enough of an online presence that they can be tracked down rather easily with that information alone.
  25. If an app is actually disrupting the site, then I would expect Groundspeak to have a more effective response than making a single comment about it on the old getsatisfaction site in August of 2010: "Groundspeak does not authorize such activity".
  • Create New...