Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 4wheelin_fool

  1. What I don't understand is how a PVC pipe hammered into the ground with a preform inside of it, covered with a tin can, could be considered by anyone to be a quality and creative hide. Especially when done over and over, and with a video that gives it away. The owner thinks these lousy hides are great? :ph34r:


    At least he left something entertaining up, so cut him some slack. :D

  2. You could tell him that you are forwarding his email to the owner of the associated challenges and have him edit his own logs, because actually he is "cheating" on their challenges, and not necessarily your hides.


    It's not really your concern to police your logs to conform to someone else's challenge. The person who created the challenge just might not care anyway.

  3. If you don't post the specific cache, then there are always plenty of discussions by people imagining varying scenarios and different locations. The owner created a page as an open invite for the geocaching public to look at, and he shouldn't be embarrassed if they talk about it or question it, especially if there is nothing wrong with it. Mostly everyone uses anonymous usernames, and nobody knows anyone's address, however we certainly can walk in other peoples backyards as well as easily find out their names and phone numbers? The borderline paranoid privacy expectations are a bit one sided. Mr. Johanneson at 34 Canyon drive discovers geocaching activity in his backyard, in which boogyman541 and jimmy666 recently visited. The CO, GeorgetownD, is now upset and embarrassed because it was discussed in the forums. :rolleyes:

  4. Give it some time. In 5 years or so, GPS units will likely be considered special equipment, with smartphones being expected because many people have them. :ph34r:


    As for the D/T ratings, I am aware of someone who was forced by a reviewer to list a cache as a 5/5, due to a UV light. I don't think special equipment should add anything over a .5 bump, and it definitely should not affect the terrain.

  5. At the risk of coming off as some sort of 'cache cop' or spoiler, I guess I have to wonder what others might do (if anything) about a particular cache that appears to be located on private residential property...with no mention of permissions in the description. I guess what makes it more of an issue with me is the fact that this particular cache is located on a VERY steep incline with rocky 'cliffs' and is rated a T3.5. Because the CO apparently had no problem posting this without clearly indicating that the property owner was okay with a cache on their property with the potential for injury to cache hunters, I feel like folks ought to know...yet I don't really want to be "that guy" that makes a public issue of it.


    I'm not just assuming it's private property, either. Looking at the tax maps for the area seem to back this up. The cache in question is GC4NVR0 and the property map parcel is highlighted in red:


    I would automatically have second thoughts about anyone using the moniker "J Grouchy". Just saying, there's more in your handle than you care to admit and this post is just an example. If you really wanted to be a friend then why not contact the CO directly. The CO may not understand how to use "tax" maps. Or the CO may have gotten permission but either way you chose to just post a nasty gram to this site. Way to go, you just made an enemy of the CO. I am guessing that was your intent all along. It's part and parcel for the GS forums.


    Being that there are hundreds of similar caches out of the few million listed, it's a valid general topic.


    Imagine how the homeowner might react if they sign up for an account and subsequently discover the activity going on in their backyard, or if someone gets injured and makes a claim against his homeowner insurance? A simple sprained ankle and x-rays to determine possible further injury typically costs $500 or more, let alone something more serious. If they discover the activity in the wrong way, it could breed a potential and unrelenting cache maggot. It's good for geocachers to stick together up until the activity starts infringing on other peoples personal possessions and is outside the boundaries of what most non cachers consider to be normal. Many people would consider a parade of people skulking around on their property offensive. Defending the rights of someone who leaves personal possession of a $10 box versus someone's $500K+ property is almost ridiculous.

  6. I'm not defending his hide (questionable based on what was posted) or his actions (throwing a fit certainly). It's a 4 D cache that hasn't been found since Sep 13 (not even 1 1/2 years ago) and has 5 DNFs. Why does this cache deserved to be tagged by a reviewer? It has several series of strings of DNFs (3 at most in a row) and one time the CO went to replace it and found it there, showing that the CO does maintain the cache. I can't tell how long it's been since the CO has been on the site (since it's obvious it was yesterday) so I'm not sure if that's a factor either.


    Why hasn't this cache been disabled? Same duration without a find, a string of 3 DNFs but only a 2D hide, meaning it should be easier.


    This one?


    Or this one?


    This one?


    This one?


    How about this one, with a note from the CO from June?


    How about this high D cache with nothing apparently wrong?


    This one? Or this?


    This one too?


    Or finally, this one.


    All of them with a small string of DNFs, most of them last found 6 months or longer, some with NM attributes and all within 10 miles of the cache that the CO archived. Where's the continuity in the application a reviewer has when disabling a cache?


    Most of those would be disabled in this area. In fact, a few local geocachers have gotten accustomed to it and post NAs after 2 or 3 DNFs. If something has 1 existing DNF, and they can't find it as well, they post a NA . Since the reviewer obliges them, it only reinforces their actions.

  7. There are likely hundreds of similar hides like that out there. The CO likely thought that because it was near the road that it was okay. The DOT right of way tends to be interpreted as a public play area and cachers have imagined that it extends over a hundred feet in some cases. A quick phone call to the homeowner might clarify if it's okay, as he might not mind. Of course you could also make an anonymous call, stating that you heard that gangs are storing methamphetamines on that section of his property just to see if he owns any weapons. :ph34r:


    A recent publishing/archival for private property around here seems a little odd.


    The google maps show it as part of a park, but the reviewer's tax map indicates it as being on property owned by the nearby health center. I would say that the township maps are more accurate, but likely not up to date, as the baseball fields are likely part of the park system. Even so, without signage it doesn't seem as bad as quite a few others out there.

  8. Shouldn't it say you should signed the physical logsheet at the physical location? Someone could take a logsheet home or to an event, have everyone sign it then return it to the container without the other signers being at the cache location. The rule doesn't state that one.

    That concept is so basic to geocaching that you'd think everyone would simply assume you had to go to GZ. As one Groundspeak lackey once explained:


    Common misconceptions about couch potato logs

    "There's no requirement visiting the location in the cache listing".


    Stating that you must visit the location is not necessary as this is an implicit requirement


    Pointing out an individual's logging behavior and bringing it up in multiple threads is in poor form and a bit worse than any couch potato logging IMO.

  9. I'll also add, that your example has 5 DNF's and the CO Archived the Listing, so it's off topic ;)


    Actually, it provides a sharp contrast to the issue of disabling after a single DNF. This one had multiple DNFs, but was still there, and brings the silliness of disabling over 1 DNF into context. Granted, the CO grossly overreacted and should have checked on it sooner, but it shows that many of these archived caches are likely still out there.

  10. Personally, my standards for logging a find are a little higher than "whatever I can get away with."

    The key word here being "personally." No need to comment on, or even notice, someone else's logging decisions.

    It wasn't NYPC's logging decision I was commenting on; it was his hypocrisy. But I've already explained that three times.

    You haven't explained how it could possibly be hypocrisy. There are two different scenarios, he made two different decisions.


    In neither case is he asking or expecting anybody else to make the same decisions. That's the crucial element in hypocrisy - expecting people to do one thing, but not living up to that standard yourself. That is not what is happening here.

    As you've noticed, the context of how I'm using the term "hypocrisy" has nothing to do with what one expects others to do, only the standards to which one claims to hold oneself.


    Hypocrisy: "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess."


    Hypocrisy - "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"


    Hypocrisy - "The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness."


    NYPaddleCacher claims he wouldn't try to get away with logging a "find" for a cache he didn't actually find, and just because the cache owner wouldn't delete such a log "doesn't change anything." That's the "practice of professing beliefs" portion of hypocrisy.


    But NYPaddleCacher actually did log a "find" for a cache he didn't find, and he used the excuse that it was okay because the cache owner allowed him to log the find. That's the "that one does not hold or possess" portion of hypocrisy.


    Now I've explained it four times. If you can't understand the concept by this point, then further explanations probably won't help either.


    And all four times you've conveniently ignored the differences in both scenarios. One was where he visited ground zero, and the other was in another country that he did not step foot in. You appear to be fixated on labeling and judging someone by highlighting the similarities and ignoring the differences.

  11. Everyone makes mistakes, and if the reviewer learned something from it, then it's not necessarily a mistake. What's important, is if the CO intentionally misled the reviewer along with geocachers into believing that entering the area was ok, or was it due to an honest false belief? Knowing that the area was normally restricted, I find it difficult to believe that it was accidental. . . .


    I don't have any idea how it can be considered a public area, and how these things get published.


    From various comments on the local news page, it seems that people sometimes go to the area when the canal is closed and the pond is drained. One person even explored a tunnel there, which seems interesting to me. So I think hat the description on the cache page was done in good faith. But there are some areas where assumptions about access can get you into trouble -- particularly given the local laws (if some uses are permitted, everything else is prohibited). And assumed permission - that a container can be left if you have access to an area - often falls short of actual permission.


    If the CO here had checked a little more carefully, the trespassing charge might have been avoided. If the CO in Southern California had not assumed that certain land was public and looked at the parcels on Google, a cacher might not have been shot and the owner sentenced to a 7+ year prison term. If a CO near where I live had taken no trespassing signs a little more seriously, another cacher might have avoided an unpleasant encounter with the property owner.


    There are some things that make me wonder -- a cache with a description that warned people not to go there if they had an aversion to an encounter with law enforcement might have signaled that it was behind several signs that trumped the hole in the fence. But overall, I think that caches get placed and published because access and permission is assumed. If there is a lesson here, it is that it pays to double or triple check our assumptions.


    Yes it's likely that they didn't care too much if anyone went there until there is an injury, and without the charges, the cacher may feel enabled to have the property owner pay for the rescue. In any case, the CO was aware the area was normally off limits, and it's plainly written on the canal web page.


    As far as the shooting in CA, I heard that it was on private property with the owners permission, and a renter who was unaware of the permission is the one who shot the kid in the leg, unless there was another one. :ph34r:

  12. The private record shows that the publishing reviewer double-checked with a colleague prior to publication. It would appear that they found the CO's explanation on the cache page to be persuasive. It certainly sounds authoritative, although apparently mistaken given the benefit of hindsight.


    When a CO's writeup demonstrates that thought has been given to access and legality, it becomes easier for the reviewer to assume that adequate permission was obtained. In the absence of a land manager having a published geocaching policy, many caches are listed based on the concept of assumed permission. Reviewers are not guarantors or insurers of permission; this duty never leaves the cache owner.

    No blame on reviewers here. This is plain and simple the COs fault all the way.


    Everyone makes mistakes, and if the reviewer learned something from it, then it's not necessarily a mistake. What's important, is if the CO intentionally misled the reviewer along with geocachers into believing that entering the area was ok, or was it due to an honest false belief? Knowing that the area was normally restricted, I find it difficult to believe that it was accidental. Can't say that it's over and done with, when charges are pending and a negative news article is looming online for the public to peruse.


    Went to do one hidden on top of a grain silo a few months ago, and the area was posted along with a bright orange unsafe structure note. http://coord.info/GC4T2CN

    I don't have any idea how it can be considered a public area, and how these things get published.


    Yeah, I think the authorities are just ticked off at their massive rescue effort, which didn't have to be a massive rescue effort. Dude is all like "send one Thorold volunteer fireman with a rope, and I'm good". :laughing: I predict the charges will be dropped. And my best wishes for the 100+ caches along the Welland Canal.


    It's a completely different story if boating, swimming, and other recreational activities are prohibited at all times. The cache owner certainly should have known that there may have been a problem entering the drained canal area. Under this type of restriction, the charges may be substantial and unlikely to be dropped, especially with the rescue effort. He may have to pay a large fine, based on trusting the judgement of other geocachers and the CO. The site's TOU protects the website, not the cache owners. In this case, the cache owner certainly mislead the finder into believing that it had legal access, when it clearly didn't. I would say responsibility lies with both of them.

  14. [quote name=

    mp='1425332757' post='5478719]

    Oh gosh, there are no "no trespassing" signs ANYWHERE on Seaway authority property that I've ever seen. And it's far from the only cache in what I would describe as being in "remote areas" on Seaway property. Hikers do go into these areas, it's not just Geocachers. Yeah, it's not a bike path along the main Welland Canal, but people do use these lands for recreational purposes.


    Is it really *that* inconceivable that some areas are off-limits, while others are not?


    Apparently, this area was off-limits for good reason!


    Seaway has told Students and Educators:


    For your own safety, recreational activities such as swimming, water skiing, fishing, and diving are strictly prohibited in all Seaway canals, channels, pleasure craft docks, locks, weirs, and their approaches.


    These prohibitions are enforced under the Canada Marine Act as well as under various regulations governing Seaway property. Violators will be subject to substantial fines.


    Does this describe the area in question? The CO apparently believed that such restrictions did not apply when the canal was otherwise closed and that area was drained - although this version of the article states, "As it turns out, the geocache is illegal to access year-round."


    Assuming (without researching) that regulations and laws are not adequate notice without signage, I hope that if charges are pressed it could be established that the area was not signed at the proper access points or that the CO had some basis to state otherwise. Otherwise, they seem rather touchy about it and it could be expensive.


    That's a completely different story now. Without signs the finder might get cut a break, but the CO certainly should have realized from the beginning that it was off limits.

  15. The Thorold and St. Catharines, Ont., fire departments, along with police and paramedics were involved


    All they needed was a rope and harness, but sent out a massive rescue effort anyhow. It's a good thing he wasn't injured. Without any signage, I don't know how he trespassing charge will be handled. It's entirely likely that someone said it was fine to go there before it happened, and the incident caused them to evaluate the area more closely. Likely the area will have signage by next year and the pending charges will be dropped, but they stand in the meantime to prevent any more visitors from going.

  16. The CO was aware that the entire area was off limits during most of the year and posted so. Since the waterway is legally accessible by boat, it would seem likely that the same area would be okay to visit while drained. Just because a ticket was written, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is valid. Without any signage the charges are questionable, and may be only intended to prevent more people from visiting. The property owner may be embarrassed and just be trying to prevent a lawsuit.


    It seems similar to costal areas. High tide indicates where the property line starts, and the place between low tide and high tide is usually legally accessible.

  • Create New...