Jump to content

4wheelin_fool

Members
  • Posts

    6054
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 4wheelin_fool

  1. Perhaps a full month before the event they should have changed the coords 500 feet to a magnetic key holder underneath a sewer grate out front, then a few days after it's over, change them back. I'd hate to say it, but ironically mega and giga events are not the best thing for many area geocaches. If there was one very close to here, I just might archive several hides and have them unarchived after it was over. The current CO is certainly not out of line as the entire area is posted, and visitors to the cache are only at the convenience and mercy of the HOA. Being that close to the back of a muggle's house, geocachers should behave respectfully, as their find is not nearly important as the wishes of the people in the area.
  2. The OP needs to contact the police chief and explain the situation as well as any permissions. At that point the chief should communicate with his officers about parking there, and with the town manager if needed. Most towns have a website with email these days, and that might be easiest. Setting up an appointment would be fine also.
  3. It's not going to last forever. It's a buried 5 gallon bucket only a few feet outside of someone's backyard split rail fence, only 100 feet or less from their back door. I believe the original owner lived there and adopted it out when they moved away. The person who lives there now might tolerate it, but only up to a certain point. It's one location that I an see someone filling up with cement.
  4. Higher IQ, means more likely to drink High IQ linked to alcohol Why smart people drink more
  5. Seriously, people have to accept responsibility for their own actions. Groundspeak is not any more responsible than the winery, or anyone else. Yes, someone may drive drunk, but most wont. Restaurants may get sued if they serve someone who is visibly intoxicated, but I don't think that Groundspeak has a liquor license or is serving anyone. http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/orange-county-craft-beer-geocache-site-established.63879/
  6. Alcohol not family friendly? Do you know how many families get started after a night of drinking?
  7. I'd lock any account that did not have a verifiable email address. Create a variety of nifty new icons, breaking the ? into several forms. Bring back virtuals, but only due to the constant cries for their return. There would be very few restrictions on them, only a flat $100 fee and an acknowledgement that they would be auto archived if the CO failed to log in for 3 months, with all proceeds being donated to the COs select charity. I'd also ban all threads with "Jeremy Irish" in the title.
  8. I noticed that the reviewer did not wait a full month for him to fix it. The other cache mentioned was archived without any warning. I posted a NA on this multi, GC2FKCM about 8 months ago. After looking for stage 1 for a good 30 minutes we noticed that it had been missing for 3 years, and that the final cords at the time were just written on the page. The reviewer responded by disabling it, and the CO responded by enabling it a few weeks later with the final coords listed as a waypoint. I suppose some people just don't want to do maintenance. It cannot be relisted as a traditional as there is a hold on new caches in that area, and appears exactly as it was.
  9. The topic is intended to be about prohibited areas with posted signage, in which the cache owner instructs geocachers to ignore, due to falsely stating permission on the cache page. Not ordinary geocaches on public property which may or may not require permission. Since I have noticed a few cases of this around here, I was wondering if anyone else had noticed any others. Mistakes are forgivable, but being intentionally misleading gets my ire up.
  10. Its not quite a throwdown if the owner knows about it and thanks the person who did it. I suppose that he should personally autograph the container to make it more legitimate? This post wasn't there when I started typing my last post, so I suppose I'll have to reply again. Yes, the very first time Mingo went missing, the owner knew about it, and thanked the person. It wasn't missing, but vandalized quite a few times in 4 month intervals. Once a replacement appeared that wasn't buried, it was left alone. I think that characterizing it as a throwdown is only rewarding the excessive maggotry of the geocache gestapo. You're not going to make me scroll through all those logs, are you? I am pretty positive the ORIGINAL Mingo cache, as placed by KansasStasher in 2000, first went missing around 2011 or so, and he gladly accepted the so-called throwdown replacement. Then there was all kinds of other carp going on, with people filling the hole with concrete, and to the best of my knowledge, the cache has been replaced multiple times by people who are not KansasStasher. Again, I'm not making militant anti throwdown statements here. But it ain't the original container, and best I know, KansasStasher is not personally responsible for any of the replacements. You are correct. However it instantly stopped going missing when a replacement wasn't buried. A few people cried foul because the Kansas Stasher did not personally replace it, but he did authorize it. Finders can now picture his image in the skies amongst the lofty favorite points, smiling down at the replacement.
  11. Its not quite a throwdown if the owner knows about it and thanks the person who did it. I suppose that he should personally autograph the container to make it more legitimate? This post wasn't there when I started typing my last post, so I suppose I'll have to reply again. Yes, the very first time Mingo went missing, the owner knew about it, and thanked the person. It wasn't missing, but vandalized quite a few times in 4 month intervals. Once a replacement appeared that wasn't buried, it was left alone. I think that characterizing it as a throwdown is only rewarding the excessive maggotry of the geocache gestapo.
  12. Its not quite a throwdown if the owner knows about it and thanks the person who did it. I suppose that he should personally autograph the container to make it more legitimate?
  13. Well, that one in particular was archived after the property owner complained, and it did have a line in the description that it had permission. So it's not really a different story. You're mostly correct, but there's more to it. It's a memorable cache for me because it was a long search in the woods, alone, I thought, until I saw the camoed hunter in the tree. Where the cache was placed first was okay - except for the hunter who treated the woods adjoining his daughter's house as his turf. (Also, for safety reasons, the cache had to be moved.) The second location may or may not have been on private property, but at least it was near enough to cause the nearby homeowner to complain. We've seen that theme before - houses on quiet street, public woods nearby. Neighbors walk dogs, etc. Suddenly there are cachers acting strangely. Beefing, then archiving. A case like the one first mentioned came up here in the forum a couple of months ago. The cache was near the development's sign, and an irate homeowner told off the cachers. I think you're missing this one 4wheelinfool posted. On blatantly obvious private property, and the very short cache description tells you "should be a cache and dash", which implies you have to drive onto said property, not like take a 1/2 mile hike to it or something. The road to this business, which itself is way off the main road, is obviously posted, per the first two (and only) finders. One of the more clueless cache placements I've ever seen. Not that they ever lied about having permission or anything. The locations as well as the account, are suspect to me. Not too interested in finding anything, but placing plenty of hides could indicate a sock. There's the motivation of wanting to loiter somewhere that is clearly not allowed for the purpose of theft, and creating a parade of people to blend in to. I can understand the need to go someplace interesting that may be posted, but these are just part of a generic series with no pertinent information about the area. Not only is it posted, but the person has pushed it further by being intentionally deceptive about permission. Many would trust the judgement of a seasoned, and known geocacher, but an unknown person is a little different, especially when they are not being truthful. Unknown people lying should signal red flags.
  14. Seaglass Pirates, do you see this as a call for a wine discussion? I'm not taking it there - just asking. Please don't. The sentences I wrote came up on the site from which the GC description had been copied and pasted from. In fact, several different sites such as trip advisory, all had the same thing. I suspect it is the same verbiage the reviewer asked to have removed.
  15. Although the Rhone style wines are a focus, a limited amount of classic Bordeaux varietals are also available. They invite every wine enthusiast to visit the vineyard, enjoy the scenery, and taste de exceptional wines.
  16. Well, that one in particular was archived after the property owner complained, and it did have a line in the description that it had permission. So it's not really a different story. There were a few by the same CO that were archived right off the bat for being on posted land http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4MRBB_new-hampshire-9th-state-of-50 But then new ones appear with permission stated on the page, and then they get archived by a lackey for not having permission. Hmm. http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RCX4_colorado-38th-state-of50 http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4RQBZ_utah-45th-state-of-50 This isn't about most hides where the general public is allowed, but places that have signs prohibiting entry, but the cache page says go ahead in anyway. How often does this occur? Would you feel confident going someplace posted, with the cache owner saying its fine? In the end, all geocachers are responsible for their own actions, but does that include knowingly posting inaccurate information on a page? Does anyone accept responsibility for that?
  17. I really don't know what the answer to this is. Quite a while ago I started a thread asking if it was okay to spray paint coordinates on an abandoned water heater in the woods and a moderator told me it was defacement. That moderator has also disappeared, and the answer also seems ridiculous. A discarded piece of garbage should not have any restrictions. If it was an abandoned vehicle, maybe, but really? I've noticed some hides completely ignoring guidelines, while others that could cause no problems be culled out. How would anyone know that you moved the rock? What is the overall environmental impact, and the effect on wildlife? What is the percentage of limited intelligence personnel that would be influenced by this hide?
  18. The cache had been archived before the thread was started. I strongly suspect the OP knew that. It was archived several hours before I started the thread due to the actual property manager getting involved and I was keenly aware of it, so I don't know what the heck he's talking about. This is a general discussion about areas that are off limits and where the CO has written on the page that it has permission. I don't know of any solution, but another series of caches comes to mind. There was a few archived elsewhere due to being behind posted signs. Afterwards the CO hid a few more with a line that the cache had permission of ______ township in the cache description. I thought it seemed a little suspicious, and I happened to know someone who worked there. I asked them to inquire about geocaching and they could not find anyone in any official capacity that had heard of it. I haven't visited the new hides, so I don't know if there is any signage prohibitions for entry, but if there is, I suspect that not many people may say anything with the false disclaimer on the page. I also wondered how often this happens.
  19. A cache gets published and the hider seemingly has permission. Several geocachers arrive and notice signage which indicates that permission might not be likely. A few NAs later, the CO keeps on insisting it has permission, but then the manager appears with a GC account and says it has none. http://coord.info/GC5EE0D In this case, nobody is likely to be caught trespassing, or to get into any trouble, but I can envision other cases where the CO insists there is permission where there isn't any, and cachers could get injured or caught. How can you tell if permission is legit ?
  20. How about giving the scout caches an unique icon, and having them auto archived after 3 months? If the litter is not cleaned up within 30 days of archival, the badge gets revoked. If they want to hide something longer term it should not be for the badge. These images should not be associated with littering.
  21. I don't like all the red things around the one blue thing. Hmmm. How about this picture? or this one?
  22. I'd take the rock and paint it orange, place it in a net and nail the net to a live tree with a few railroad spikes and a note explaining that the ground was not dug out in any way. Since it's not really part of the cache, then it should be fine.
  23. The real question is if anyone finds this picture disturbing.
  24. How about hiding a nice gladware container filled with chocolate?
×
×
  • Create New...