grey_wolf & momcat

We generally carry small log books and logsheets with us. If we find a cache with this type of problem, we add a sheet, logbook and inform the cache owner that we have done it. Others have done the same courtesy for us too.

I'm not really lurking, Just haven't been on the forums for a while.

I'm not really lurking, Just haven't been on the forums for a while.

The "ape" cache in Maryland would be the largest container.

We do not look for trouble while caching. BUT, we will call the police ourselves if we feel we are in danger, and I will not back down from a BULLY under any circumstances.

WELL, I took a little break to do a little caching. (4 or 5 weeks). I come back check out a new topic and find that the subject is still "micro-spew" and CCCA numbers. Some posters must really be jealous of Lynn, Team Alamo, legna and soulbait, etc. It is all about the numbers YOU KNOW!

here is another site that you can check your GPSr against. GC946E

"WOW", I have added that cache to the file that I keep of caches I will attempt if in the area with enough time available

As far as the "dangerous" part, I believe others have covered that well. No one forces anyone to seek any cache that the seeker may feel is too dangerous. If you think it's too dangerous for you, then by all means pass it up. There is no law forcing you to seek any specific cache. And that I can positively "garantee". <snip> From the State of California Vehicle Code: And I will go so far as saying, I WILL bet that most other states have similar statutes on the books. I guess if we get caught though we can just tell em that some guy who is a geocacher and used to be a cop told us it was all okie dokie.... that and a 100 dollars bail money will get ya outta jail. If you really look for it, there is probably a law in California that says we can't even discuss this subject with out a lawyer present.

I am very new to geocaching and find these discussions interesting. I will address this one point first: I just read a thread about someone that carries a coin with them and if they meet other geocachers on the trail, they let them log it. That way, they can keep track of everyone they have met! I think that's a neat idea and plan to do it. Me keeping track of the fellow geocachers I come in contact with is different than people just trying to log icons on their profile. As for the rest of the points you guys bring up, I totally agree on most points. I have no problem making the stats private instead of public. I like being able to see a map of states I have finds in. It's not a numbers thing for me to compete with others, just a personal goal. I also am going to log every DNF. I think it helps the cache owner know when to go check their cache if there are several DNFs in a row. I don't mind the micros unless they were to ALL be micros. I like the variation and sometimes, location dictates what size the cache can be. That about sums up my opinions at this point in the game. Keep up the good conversations! You all are helping me to become a better cacher by seeing what is acceptable within the geocaching community! You are going to have a great time with a very addicting hobby. There are a lot of great people out there finding and placing a lot of good caches. Hope to see you on the cache trail or at an event someday.

Wadcutter is absolutely correct. Now, MomToo!, if you think that it is "illegal" to place a cache under a bridge per GC.com's "Cache Listing Guidelines" ["Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports."], then you're wrong again. I personally found and logged this cache, and it is under a Residential STREET bridge and not a HIGHWAY bridge. Plus the reviewer didn't have a problem approving this cache, and it was even outlined in the cache title (Trouble at a Bridge Over Water #6). The cache title addresses the "Bridge" issue, and "Trouble" addresses the difficulty. Not to mention the D/T rating on the cache page. MomToo!, if you don't like a particular cache, DON'T DO IT! But don't wreck it for those that want to play the game. D/T ratings are 3, when it requires a combination of climbing, scaling and crawling together with slippery terrain and possible jail time, the "3" is NOT an appropriate rating!! Your comments are just rediculous, John Denver tribute cache wasn't near anything remotely connected to John Denver, and yet it was named John Denver????? There are caches on school property (at least 3 schools I know of in the adjacent town right now), but just because they are there does not mean they don't violate the law!! Why would anyone assume because the name had "bridge" in it that the issue of legal or not legally placed on a bridge had been addressed, because obviously it had not? I dont care how many caches you have gone to under bridges, if you aint got permission from the governing body they are illegal and against geocaching rules, oh and lets not forget.......this WAS PROVEN to be an ILLEGAL cache which also violated geocaching rules! I suppose that you also understand that your GPSr doesn't always show exactly 1ft from where another GPSr might. Sometimes you think you know where something is located only to find it 25+ feet away when you put it down and go into geosense mode.

From what I remember about the original incident, no photos were posted, you are twisting the logic now. I have no idea what you are talking about. Our group always posts some photos.... I am refering to the CCC incident, which is just about the only real world example of a log being deleted in this thread. From the cache owner's post: I suppose it is possible that there is no connection between the real world example and your theoretical one, but thats where it lead me. This may get a real attack from the rest of the forum, but before you judge CCCooperAgency and the others, like some of the others are, you really need to do a few more event caches and do some (fun) group caching.

That area looks like the places i get poison ivy and leave samples of my DNA.

You say "power trip." I say "obligation." Too dense to discuss with. SO, i won't try, it's time to find a couple of ammo cans in the woods

Right on target, BrianSnat! Sort of. There are few issues here. The first is 'What constitutes 'signing the log'. A number of people who cache in groups have stated that it is normal for them to sign a group name in the book. One even posted that they had been asked to do this, on occasion. If the logbook contains the group sig, is it wrong to take the word of the cachers as to who was in the group? I don't think so because, I believe, that it is important to retain an amount of trust in my fellow cachers. If I later learn that I was lied to, I'll delete logs and feel really good about myself. The second is whether any individual cacher can create a rule that only individual sigs are acceptable. Of course they can, in my opinion. However, they should include the requirement in the cache description and they should clarify the grey areas that I brought up a page or two back in this thread. These points become moot when you have an event like GWIII or GWIV or any other time, when you have 500 signers in a week. The log sheets get full,get torn up, get replaced because they are full, etc.... You cannot possibly verify for sure all of the cachers. I trust that cachers have signed the log unless i see that they logged my cache the same day they logged one in Seattle or Portland, or etc. Have some faith folks and get off of this "power" trip some seem to be on. Grey_wolf (Mike)

We all know what would likely happen anyway if and when a city denies permission for all caches on City property. I don't think there are too many cities that would/could dedicate the resources necessary to keep tabs on and gather up every offending cache on a perpetual basis. I think they wisely see the value in allowing caches placed on City property as much as possible. Speaking from a professional standpoint, the last thing we want to do is worry about how to regulate geocaching and the proper placement of caches. Remember, most City property is public property. Talk about trying to herd cats! Now, speaking as a future geocacher, I have seen in this past week in this forum the means of "policing" ourselves. Trust me, most problems are better off handled "in-house" if at all possible. Not every municipal official out there will want to be as understanding to the geocaching community as yours truly! Semper Fi Watercop Just what we need is having to get "muggle types" approval in all caches we post. Been stopped by the cops before and have been one. Better get a cache "future Geocacher" Semper Fi Grey_wolf

Yes, but if a cache page doesn't have a bunch of disclaimers about how stringent a hider might feel, then it gives an implicit approval for the opposite to be true....and then people start signing the outside of the container. Do hiders need to put a "do not sign our container" disclaimer on all of their pages to help keep the angst down? I believe common sense and a bit of community trust has gotten us this far without the wheels falling off and I'm sure it'll do us fine down the road. If people want to delete a log, maybe they should contact the log writer first. If they don't get a sense of trust from the point of contact (or any response at all), then they should delete the log. If they delete a finder's log, then the opposite is also true. The finder should contact the hider and ask for clarification and if it's final that they can't log it, then move on and find one of the other billion caches out there. When you place some caches, you might try keepin track of each log that is posted. If it doesn't sound bogus, i just maintain my caches.

Whether i do dangerous caches is my call not yours. There are a lot of 1/1 caches around.

Only after making an attempt to contact the cache owner privately, I hope.Make note of the fact in the log that I post and send an email to the owner. All three actions will be taken silmultaneously. With all due respect, I think the concern that many have regarding your comment is that we don't know what your definition of 'irresponsibly dangerous to the caching community' is. Should talk to the cache owner first, you might not have a good understanding of what you see or don't see. The approver level should be a last resort IMHO. We have found out that caches were in forbidden locations long after the cache was located. They have always been removed "post haste" even when we hated to lose a great cache.

Good point, but what if it's the cache placer who's ruining it for the rest of us? If they're placing without permission and those caches get removed by cops or whomever, then what if the city uses that as a basis for rescinding permission on all caches? If we find it is in an improperly place cache, the owners in this area pull it as soon as the owner finds out, we the cache owners and cachers in this area look out for each other. We watch for these problems as well as do the approvers.

I personally would hate to have the challenging caches go away. I don't do the ones that don't appeal to me and if someone is too soft or sweet to do the physical and exciting ones, they shouldn't do them. They also shouldn't whine and ruin it for the rest of us. (Another Semper Fi)

To ask the question a person would almost have to be a government employee or a ?

Your 20+ years of "commissioned service" may be the problem not the reason. This is from a 2 service NCO, so don't go there this is not the military. I want to apologize to eagletrek and the forum. the above statement had nothing to do with the subject. Sorry

How often do you hike out to your own caches just to read the logs to see what people have written down? Can we have a show of hands for people that actually do this?! The only time I go out to my own caches is to replace them because they've been muggled. But maybe you're right! What am I thinking? Why write my log and show my appreciation on the website where the owner can easily read and enjoy it? So in the future I'll write my log in the logbook and when I log the cache on the website I'll write: "Go to your cache to read what I wrote in the logbook!" I go out to maintin my caches, I read the logs on Gc.com

Your 20+ years of "commissioned service" may be the problem not the reason. This is from a 2 service NCO, so don't go there this is not the military.