4wheelin_fool

Sure, but this application allows people to go geocaching without us being able to contact or report them for potential abuse. This is just a no-go. Newsflash, PocketPC applications for geocaching have been around since before 2006… and they rocked, even back then, already. I’ve *still* not got enough money for a “pro” GPS, but have been running around with a borrowed Sharp Zaurus, with my own 12" laptop (yeah…), and with a cheapo PocketPC from just before Windows Mobile was terminated, and am still happy with the latter. So, you don’t need this application. The others would just use your normal site account, which means you have a contact eMail address. Oh, and they’d allow one to use all cache types and sites. I agree that they should verify email addresses, but as for those ancient applications, nobody wants to use those.

Recently I've gotten 5 people to start geocaching. Previously none of them were interested in buying a GPS, but when they heard about the app, they all started.

What business would alienate a large percentage of their customers, for a small profit from a few? If the puzzles were made optional, there would be quite a few geocides along with a sharp decline of new puzzles, which could be easily ignored in the first place. If you want drama, how about waiting until Russia invades Finland?

It's likely due to fluctuating blood sugar levels. He had the perfect chance to check that, but did he? Noooo......

Yes, and I'm simultaneously working on convincing the hacker group "Anonymous" to allow double premium access to the contents of everyone's hard drive for $60. If that doesn't work, perhaps the NSA might be interested.

That tends to happen when the minutes entered are greater than 59.

I guess he's a fan of or perhaps The Talking Heads I guessing that he meant that I wrote the correct lyrics by Stone Temple Pilots, but had the wrong album title of Ecclesiastes.

I had an idea to hide a bison tube in a jar of fresh Skippy peanut butter, and call it "You wont find it in a jif"

Perhaps they were inspired by Ecclesiastes 10:1

It's not a letter G, but the geocaching symbol, similar to the one for Toz's avatar. Archival was appropriate. From the hint: From post #72 link

The first stage of a multi, perhaps someone might walk to it. I don't know why if it's a paddle to, but it's possible. If it's the second stage or more, then I doubt it. Being in the water, it's not on RR property. If it was a traditional, I'd say it was a bad idea, but a multi? Should be fine if the stage before it was only accessible by boat. There was a paddle to near a RR here several years ago, and the FTF walked on the tracks upsetting the CO, but nobody else did. It was far enough from RR property to be out of proximity for denial.

Actually, I think the lancelets could have been useful to him, as his blood sugar level seems a little low..

How can I punish someone that doesn´t play the game since 2010? By archiving the cache? You spotted something in which you thought was dangerous, but did nothing except for contacting the reviewer. The cache should be archived, when it could be fixed? How does an archived cache with a "dangerous" item in it become less dangerous for the kid who finds it accidentally? In theory that's the only person who could be injured here.

I know nothing about reviewers, but I really doubt that. I think the most extreme case would be enforcing a rule that they don't agree with, but they accept that there's probably a good reason for the rule, they just haven't run into that case yet. This are just assumptions... This is a case: http://coord.info/GC1ZXZY This cache, from the day it was placed had: And pictures describing both the geocache and the contents. The guidelines clearly say: So I felt that the "3 sterile (sealed) lancets for blood glucose measurement" were not appropriate as a geocache swag. Post this on my log and even contacted the local reviewers. The answer I got from the reviewers was: "You are right it is not appropriate, did you remove it?" I said: "No I didn´t... After all that is happening here I don´t want any more problems with the local community." The answer that I got back was: "Well, what do you want us to do then?" I told them: "Do whatever you feel is right. I did my part, now it´s in your hands!" I got no answer from that and the cache is still active containing lancets that clearly are not appropriate for a geocache and the CO is absent from the game. The influencers of the local community visit the cache, and even post notes saying it is OK to visit... So clearly the cache is being maintained by the local community (or at least the influencers of the community). The reviewers know about the fact that the cache is not respecting the guidelines and do nothing about it... Make your conclusions... What I put here are facts! You should have simply removed the items, but instead you wanted the cache owner to be punished. It seems that the reviewer did what he felt was right, just as you asked. However you did not do your part by removing it, and wanted the reviewer to use a shotgun to kill a fly. How in the heck is a sealed blood glucose lancelet any more of a danger than a sealed fishing lure? This kind of reminds me of the guy near me who posts videos of people driving "recklessly". You watch the video and see an old man momentarily swerve one foot into another lane with nobody close by at all. Another video shows people "running red lights", but looking closely see that they are clearly over the white line when the light turns. The videos are posted with the vehicle tag # in the title. I mean, really?

Yes. Yes. First, I think the seeker should offer to pay for it. If they don't offer, then personally, I wouldn't ask them to. Whether or not the CO should ask them depends entirely on the container, as some are destined to get broken quickly anyway. You did the right thing by admitting it and apologizing. However apologies are only words, and actions speak louder. If it was a crappy container, I probably would not want to pay anything, but would anyhow. Unfortunately there are plenty that would just walk away and not say anything at all. I wouldn't say the seeker should be responsible for unintended damage to a container. Depending on just what the container is I think there are many situations when the hider should put it down to experience and think of how their cache will look and how people will interact with it. I remember caching with a friend, and hearing a crunch. It turned out the hider had hidden a polystyrene (styrofoam for US readers) fake rock under a small pile of leaves. Not surprisingly when it wasn't visible people didn't take any care not to step on it, so one of the first finders pretty much destroyed it. I certainly wouldn't offer to pay for another one - it was a badly thought out hide in a silly position. If the cache looked like a piece of trash left lying around the CO should perhaps be thankful that the cache survived the process at all and wasn't rounded up and thrown in the trash by a well meaning cacher who logged a DNF but did a bit of CITO while they were there. All true. A ground level cache should be made to survive pokes with hiking sticks as well as being stepped on. While I don't think that a seeker should be held accountable by the cache owner for damage, they should accept the responsibility for their own actions and offer to pay, depending on the circumstances. There is a difference here. Accountability should be offered to, but not demanded from. Some are lousy designs, while having the seeker offering to pay would be the best thing, but having the cache owner asking to pay would not.

Well if most were not solving the puzzle, why would they be upset over the loss of the icon? My girlfriend and I found a difficult puzzle paddle-to about a month ago without really solving it. The CO did not provide any type of checker, and was not confirming coords which may have annoyed a few others. We checked several possible solutions, and then stumbled upon it accidentally. I don't think that it's cheating, but without providing any type of coord confirmation, that invites it. Another difficult multi we found had a few puzzles for stages. One was gnawed away, but we found the final anyhow by luck. I don't really think that there is anything wrong with that, unless you are intentionally trying to defy the CO's wishes.

Well, I know why it happened. There was a log from the CO which stated: Next, there is a find two weeks later from a geocacher: And the very next log is the change from puzzle to traditional. It's odd that the CO was able to convince the reviewer to do this, as it messes up every finder's stats, but perhaps that one cacher gave them that special inspiration to do that anyway.

That your mom made him chastise you? Seriously, I imagine that a lot of reviewers enforce things that they do not agree with because the higher ups have put certain rules in place. If they come across it while playing they game, they may very well overlook it even though they would enforce it if it came across their desk prior to publishing. Correct. Lie or mislead some reviewers, and they probably won't do anything. The guidelines are only enforced if you try to implicate them beforehand for violations. Otherwise it's all good. *wink* Other cachers find the obvious violation and say "Uht oh, what if the reviewer finds this?" Then the reviewer finds it, and ...nothing. Then everyone finds out and thinks *COOL*, they really don't want us to tell them the truth. They love having the badge, but it means nothing. Then a land manager discovers another similar one from the process created. The reviewer denies any type of responsibility, but yet has contributed to it. It quickly goes from being their territory, with their rules, to "not my problem".

Agreed. It sure does mean that it's okay. The geocachers learn that puzzles published before a certain date are not on the reviewers map, and then they discover that caches can be placed next to them without fear of being archived. It's happened several times, and who can say in each scenario if it was accidental or not? Being less than 20 feet in one case, I'd say there was a good likelihood that it was intentional. Then the reviewer finds it and walks away. Someone can say as much as they like that it's "not okay", but actions are the only language that matters. I recall being 12, finding a Playboy magazine, and bringing it home. Then my dad found it. He yelled and screamed that it was smut, said I should not be looking at that garbage, and then tossed it in the trash. I may have been punished also, but I don't remember. I do recall the red face and the veins popping out of his skull. Then a few hours later I find him reading it. What message do you think I received?

+1 !

Yes. Yes. First, I think the seeker should offer to pay for it. If they don't offer, then personally, I wouldn't ask them to. Whether or not the CO should ask them depends entirely on the container, as some are destined to get broken quickly anyway. You did the right thing by admitting it and apologizing. However apologies are only words, and actions speak louder. If it was a crappy container, I probably would not want to pay anything, but would anyhow. Unfortunately there are plenty that would just walk away and not say anything at all.

Not really. You kind of took that quote out of context. That thread was about screws in trees. The issue for the reviewers was whether if a cache is discovered after publishing that the cache owner put a screw into a tree, what should happen to it. To bring it back to the bit about reviewers kicking guideline violations to Groundspeak rather than listing non-conforming caches, I welcome you to read this comment from Cascade Reviewer from the same thread that you quoted: That still does not change anything. Reviewers are authorized to ignore the guidelines if they feel like it. Ignoring the guidelines after publishing is different than before publishing? Why sure it is. Once a reviewer does this, it sends a clear message that what the CO did was okay, and that the guidelines can be ignored if they don't say anything. This is why there are many guideline violations. Once a reviewer finds one and does nothing, everyone finds out about it and it triggers more to occur. Its fine, as long as you don't tell them about it beforehand. It's like getting pulled over and admitting that you have cocaine in the trunk. The officer rubs his ear and says that he didn't quite hear you, winks, and says at least there is none in the passenger compartment, and drives off, saying he doesn't like being a cop. Pretty soon there are many people keeping cocaine in their trunk because they believe it is condoned. The officer is not responsible, but yet is contributing to it. I used to know several officers that did steroids. Once others found out about it, many others followed. There are those that love the badge, but hate the job. Then there are those that create their own little domain where they are the king, and all rules are only interpreted through their own personal prism. It tends to occur with all types of authoritative positions, even silly volunteer ones. Life is more than who we are.

I think the OP needs to stop calling people leeches, and to start hiding caches under a different account so that they don't disappear.

Not really.