4wheelin_fool

First off, if there was a rule I had to solve the puzzle the way the CO intended then I never would have found it. Secondly, I'm pretty confident I actually learnt more by solving it online than those that went to all the stages like the infamous Vancouver devil statue. Thirdly, I am saving the world one puzzle cache at a time. There certainly is no rule that you have to solve it the way the CO intended, or at all, as that would require a rather pedantic and tiresome enforcement. But just because there is no "rule", doesn't mean that by bragging about it, you should not expect to annoy the CO. I'm sure that you could legally wear a sheer pink spandex bodysuit and jog around Vancouver on a regular basis, as there is no rule against it, but that doesn't mean that it won't annoy anyone either.

I don't see any insult, unless it was edited out. If you go out of your way to circumvent the path that the CO laid out and then brag about it, you should know by now that it's going to annoy someone. By the way, there is a CO near Hagerstown MD who has claimed to have hidden a climbing cache with a helicopter. That 9/19/14 post on the "linky, linky" is quite an environmental statement. Roman! Is saving the world, one cache shortcut at a time! He makes a good argument for saving the planet by staying indoors on the treadmill and just solving puzzles, as going anywhere seems to be killing the environment.

I don't see any insult, unless it was edited out. If you go out of your way to circumvent the path that the CO laid out and then brag about it, you should know by now that it's going to annoy someone. By the way, there is a CO near Hagerstown MD who has claimed to have hidden a climbing cache with a helicopter.

In the beginning geocachers were instructed to monitor their own cache pages for fake and offensive logs, as well as spoilers. Somehow this morphed into the belief that a log could be deleted for any reason, and a few started adding requirements such as log length, poetry, uploading pictures wearing some clothing item, ect. After a few became so ridiculous, Groundspeak had to rewrite the guidelines to sharply limit these requirements to geocaching related challenges.

. . . . Hope that helps clarifying the problem..

I'd say Roman! is 100% correct.

Well, there is invariably two groups of annoyed people here. Those that throw a tantrum over a deleted log on an abandoned gift that someone else left, and those that insist that people post their DNFs instead of leaving garbage behind. The two sides are not equal, as the cache owner visited the spot, left a geocache, and expected people to find it, not to expect entitlement. Personally I wouldn't delete any logs, or get the least bit upset at a throwdown, but can sympathize with those that do.

It depends where you are. If you happen to be very close to someone's backyard they may take offense, as well as log a find and upload a picture.

I know two caches that are on a path that runs right next to two schools back to back. The path is practically part of the school since part of the school has no fence defining the property line. Plus the path is primarily used for students to get to the school from the two streets facing the schools. One cache was in a tree on the school property and the other less then 50ft from the entrance to the school. I tried contacting a reviewer but they said they didn't publish them and I had to bring it up with that reviewer. So I sent a message to that one and got no answer. Before I could send a message to Groundspeak they were disabled because they went missing. They sit disabled since July 2013 and the CO knows they are missing and claims to replace them. On school grounds, disabled for over a year with reviewers who are apathetic and ignoring you? It sounds like you still need to contact Groundspeak, and there seems to be worse problems present than being on school grounds..

If true, the reviewer in question sounds fairly trigger-happy. That's not the appropriate response, so I wonder if there's more to it than just a newbie DNFing it. I haven't seen that. GC#s please. All of the archived caches in this person's profile were archived by the owner because they couldn't keep up maintenance on them. He's not talking about his own caches, and possibly is referring to the same reviewer who publishes my caches. I'd like to know which ones were archived like that. Sometimes a noob places an NA when it should be a DNF. The reviewer may erroneously disable it for a month, but not instant archive.

If true, the reviewer in question sounds fairly trigger-happy. That's not the appropriate response, so I wonder if there's more to it than just a newbie DNFing it. I haven't seen that. GC#s please.

These signs in commercial parking lots are not the same ones everyone is imagining. It seems a picture is needed.

Have you heard that geocaching.com has very nice feature called "adopt a cache"? This really seems the case of it!!!! I have adopted the cache, just not the online listing, which is not necessary.

If someone goes shopping at Lowes and notices a geocache in the parking lot, I would find it strange to see them shop, but purposely avoid the cache due to the sign. I don't know how someone would easily discern the two activities, and if the geocacher would get off the hook due to incidentally shopping in the area. So if someone asks what you are doing, and you tell them shopping and geocaching, you might be fine, but if you say only geocaching, then they point to the sign and give a stern warning? These type of signs are ambiguous, but seemingly intended to prevent criminal activity such as loitering for long periods of time for the intent to break into a car, or to harass shoppers with promotional intent or agendas. If the cache has a high difficulty, perhaps there maybe a problem until someone explains what is going on, but that seems unlikely in a parking lot.

In some cases it may be, but not in all cases. Property which is open to the public is generally accepted to be okay to visit, despite the intent. The signage adds limitations, but not necessarily to geocaching.

So on a shopping trip to Lowes you discover the signs, so you immediately turn around and take your business elsewhere? That's where I've noticed them, along with a note indicating the lot is under video surveillance. I'm pretty sure that they would apply only if someone decided to hang out in the parking lot for an extended period of time, and especially if they brought a dozen freinds along.

I personally don't like this one, as it encourages disturbing wildlife, which I've done a number of times already without the fake nest and egg.

In the Cool Cache Thread a few people thought different containers were inappropriate. Since that thread is not intended for discussion, I am continuing it here. Clever but not cool. This would invite cachers to be law breakers. What if they found this cache and then tried to open a real No Trespassing Sign the next week. Not a good idea. The problem isn't with how different the cache is from a real No Trespassing sign, but rather how much one has to investigate the next No Trespassing sign in order to determine that it isn't a geocache. No matter how well the page on this cache is, we cannot determine whether the next cache just isn't a No Trespassing sign or is a No Trespassing sign that just isn't as well described. I think determining the difference between a real sign, from a box with a sign attached should be fairly easy for most people. Once someone finds one, they are very unlikely to mistake it from a real one.

Presuming there is permission for the cache they are seeking. If not, they are, in fact, trespassing if they are on the property for a reason other than shopping. It doesn't matter if the cache has permission, any visits after hours are considered trespassing. If someone is there geocaching without permission under the signs during normal business hours, it likely would not affect them unless they created a problem.

Well, I replaced a cache a few months ago. It was 12 years old and the owner had passed away. His brother was maintaining the online part, but did not geocache. The container was cracked, but I rescued the original logbook and placed it in a new lock n lock on my second or third visit. The COs brother sent me a nice note, thanking me. Throwdown? I don't think so. That's visiting and looking for 5 minutes before dropping a disposable cost free container at GZ. In these cases nobody seems to own them. In my case, likely the COs brother does, although I'm watching it and accepting responsibility.

I found the key to the universe in the engine of an old parked car. I hid in the mother breast of the crowd but when they said, "Pull down," I pulled up.

I've noticed them in commercial parking lots around here. They are to prevent kids from congregating, drinking, peeling out, ect. and enables arrest without any prior warnings. I don't think geocachers should be affected unless they go after hours and are suspected using the game as a ruse for theft. Some people scrap metals from lamp posts and whatnot, and could theoretically say they were geocaching. Another use would be in the event of a bomb threat to avoid associated costs in the event it was a geocache. I suppose it may give some geocaches an added forbidden thrill.

I don't like this one, as it encourages disturbing wildlife, which I've done a number of times already without the fake nest and egg.

Here's another one