mresoteric

I keep hearing that it's all about signing the log so sounds like a legitimate find to me.

Why is everyone jumping on skater kid? He just made a joke. Poor timing sure. But some of the ones beating him up about it now thought his spreadsheet was funny as hell just minutes before he made that post. Cut the kid some slack.

I was thinking more was going on than meets the eye. Don't want to pry, but I'm guessing illness or even death in the family? If so, that will definitely color everything going on in your life right now. I would just ignore the other cachers and allow geocaching to be the distraction you fell in love with to begin with. When you have serious things going on in your life, you really do need silly distractions to get you away from those concerns now and then.

Teacher are the backbone of our educational system. Without them people would not know how to write logs and we would see only blank logs. Ummmm, wait a minute...

I like to eat a can of beans just before I go out caching. No worries about anyone getting anywhere close.

One solution is to archive all your caches in protest. That will teach them.

I'd delete and offer them the opportunity to relog without the part about breaking park rules. I'm pretty sure Groundspeak would back you on it.

You don't see the contraction in that statement? If GBB didn't think the case was relevent, then why did she link to it and explain why she felt it could apply to Groundspeak in her Post #43. And why would she claim "The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant" in the post quoted above (Post #140)? Why bring up an irrelevant case at all? It's more closely related than anything else I could find, as Groundspeak is a publisher, and it's a case relating to a publisher having responsibility for a defective product that they didn't manufacture. If it's the most closely related thing you could find, then just say that. It's incorrect to describe the case as being "directly relevant" when it's not even close to being relevant. Better yet, why not simply ignore an irrelevant case? Better yet why not just ignore this thread. It is clear that nothing short of a Supreme Court Justice is going to satisfy you. You keep calling for citations while continuing to present a moving target of a topic. It's been pointed out that Groundspeak is a rather unique company with a rather unique service. You will be hard pressed to find completely relevant case law until someone decides to sue Groundspeak. There's an idea. Why not bring a suit against them. Then we can finally get a definitive answer.

You don't see the contraction in that statement? If GBB didn't think the case was relevent, then why did she link to it and explain why she felt it could apply to Groundspeak in her Post #43. And why would she claim "The Good Housekeeping case previously cited is directly relevant" in the post quoted above (Post #140)? Why bring up an irrelevant case at all? It's more closely related than anything else I could find, as Groundspeak is a publisher, and it's a case relating to a publisher having responsibility for a defective product that they didn't manufacture. I also cited, earlier in the thread, an article in a legal journal concerning publisher's liability for publishing dangerous information. That article probably has several relevant cases, but I'm not going to pay $12 to find out. Anybody here with a Lexis subscription want to check it out? Some of us understood what you were saying.

Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds evaluating the American civil court system knows that logic is something that almost never makes an appearance. There are even websites dedicated to pointing out lawsuits that simply make no sense, and yet result in the plaintiffs walking away with bulging pockets. Our civil court system is so uniquely perverse that, if someone were to opine that America is the only country where stupid people are rewarded financially, I'm not sure I could disagree. From Canadian Rockies stance, I can only assume that Canada's civil court system works a lot better than ours. Either that, or he is very naive. He seems too well versed in expressing his thoughts through the written word to be naive, though. The problem with our court system is that if a company with big enough pockets is sued and the lawyers can show how evil they are and how poor the plaintiffs are that the Robin Hoods of the world are much too eager to redistribute the wealth. All they need is a decent excuse to do so. And that is why a lot of companies go ahead and settle. In a lot of situations 5 or 10 grand is cheap compared to what a jury might choose to award if the lawyers can make the defendant look bad enough. They don't really have to prove liability as much as show how the company is too big and needs to give back a little.

Because as soon as they say "we aren't going to publish this cache as it is too dangerous," they imply that "all of the caches we DID publish are NOT too dangerous." Yes, I know there's a logical fallacy there. But would you be willing to bet your bank account that you could make a jury understand that? If you understand the logical fallacy, then, yes, I'd be willing to bet that a jury would, too. The vast majority of of potential jurors out there would not necessarily get it. That is my opinion and I don't have one bit of proof to back it up. I just know if I were Groundspeak I would not bet my bank account on it.

With contradictions like that, I can understand why you aren't a lawyer. In the Good Housekeeping case, footnote 49 explained: Groundspeak offers no such certification for the caches it publishes. Indeed, in its Terms of Use agreement, Groundspeak makes it clear that it does not certify the safety of the caches it publishes: And in its disclaimer: A legal decision based on the fact that a company went out of its way to certify the accuracy of advertising claims is not relevant to a company like Groundspeak. You did see the part where she said there was NO relevant case law as no one does what Groundspeak does? All she was saying is that the only relevant case law that has been presented was the Good Housekeeping one and even it isn't relevant. I think at this point you just want to argue.

When Toyota voluntarily recalled more than 82,000 hybrid SUVs in the United States due to safety issues, did that increase their liability for all their other vehicles? Do you think they're guaranteeing all non-recalled Toyota vehicles are perfectly safe? They didn't have much choice since they were already liable for the ones they recalled. Not even in the same ballpark.

I'm afraid hiring a lawyer is the only way you would get a proper answer. And if you hired 2 of them you would probably get 2 different answers. That would probably be interesting to watch though.

Then, please explain again about blind curves? Something is truly wrong because I agree with you that blind curves are by definition blind cures and when one approaches a blind curve it seems that one might sometimes expect to find hidden dangers. In most situations, one might decide that this is a risk that's worth taking, but the possible consequences shouldn't come as a surprise. So we think blind curves fall into the same category as rock climbing: obvious dangers.

I am glad to see you acknowledge that reviewers usually will be unaware of hidden dangers that might exist for caches and that you don't believe Groundspeak reviewers generally should decline to publish those types of caches. However, you continue to say things like this: Since you now acknowledge the difficulty for reviewers knowing non-obvious dangers prior to publication, maybe we can stick to what you think they should do when alerted after the fact by finders.

Groundspeak came to an agreement. Carnero did not. It seems that Carnero, for whatever reason, refuses to use the forthcoming API and apparently he is getting tired of fixing his non-compliant application every time Groundspeak updates the website. What I get from his post and the feedback topic is Groundspeak has offered a lesser version of the api to developers while reserving a newer, better version for themselves. Sounds kind of like Groundspeak invited Carnero to the table; the children's table. After reading and parsing Bryan's post on the feedback site, some of Jeremy's posts on Facebook and Carnero's geo-cide I think the issue is the API he was offered required premium membership for it to work. It was fully functional and had all the features of the API being used in the official apps, it just required a login and premium membership while the official apps did not have that restriction. He chose not to have that restriction. Sounds reasonable to me then. If people prefer to continue using cgeo which Groundspeak receives no fee from, premium membership seems about right. Perhaps a few people with programming skills could pick up the project and continue it.

Groundspeak came to an agreement. Carnero did not. It seems that Carnero, for whatever reason, refuses to use the forthcoming API and apparently he is getting tired of fixing his non-compliant application every time Groundspeak updates the website. What I get from his post and the feedback topic is Groundspeak has offered a lesser version of the api to developers while reserving a newer, better version for themselves. Sounds kind of like Groundspeak invited Carnero to the table; the children's table. Sucks, but it's their house True. I didn't pass judgegment either way. Just seems there is a reason for not using the api. Wish I knew more about programming to comment further.

Groundspeak came to an agreement. Carnero did not. It seems that Carnero, for whatever reason, refuses to use the forthcoming API and apparently he is getting tired of fixing his non-compliant application every time Groundspeak updates the website. What I get from his post and the feedback topic is Groundspeak has offered a lesser version of the api to developers while reserving a newer, better version for themselves. Sounds kind of like Groundspeak invited Carnero to the table; the children's table.

I'm always afraid of rules and guideline that purport to be proactive and avoid some "foreseeable" problem from occuring. Does that mean you're afraid of the guidelines concerning geocaches near schools, military bases, or potential terrorist targets? Would you prefer that Groundspeak waited until after someone complained before they archived such caches? Can you foresee how that might get geocaching banned in even more jurisdictions? All of those are fairly easy to determine remotely via maps. You said something about schools earlier. There was a thread a couple of weeks ago where one of the mods stated the distance they use. I don't remember the number but I do remember it wasn't even ON school property but within a radius of it that apparently they have predetermined. Again, easily viewed from maps. You keep mentioning obvious and non-obvious but have yet demonstrated a reliable way to differentiate the 2. Repeated again, what is obvious to you may not be obvious to everyone. What is not obvious to you may be obvious to most. It's okay for Groundspeak to take into account the concerns of children at schools and the safety of nesting ducks. But when it comes to the safety of people at certain types of dangerous caches, you'd prefer to let the system work as it currently does. They don't care about the children as much as they care about having the bomb squad called in. I have no idea what you are talking about with the ducks. So, are you saying it's okay for NDOT to be proactive about certain types of safety, but it's not okay for Groundspeak to be proactive about the dangers of geocachers who illegally stop on a shoulderless road near blind curves/hills? Isn't safety actually kind of NDOT's job and not so much for Groundspeak?

Thanks for the feedback... He's probably unsure of where this is happening as am I. Can't tell you exact posts from the past since I have forgotten most of them, but I found one here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=276593&st=0&p=4757119&fromsearch=1entry4757119 Wow. That did come out of left field. Seems like most of the responses were really helpful. However, I can say from personal experience that not all the responses newbies get are so nice. Some of the posters are not really kind to new posters. But there are a lot on really cool people here willing to extend a friendly hand to you and encourage you to stick around. I'd like to say thanks to those that emailed me early on.

Thanks for the feedback... He's probably unsure of where this is happening as am I.

Yet, you submit an example of an obvious danger for consideration. Or, is it possible that you see the blind curve as not obvious while I see it as obvious as hell? You see the problem? As I've pointed out before, the danger is obvious to the geocachers who accept the risk and decide to park illegally. The danger is NOT obvious to the innocent occupants of the vehicle that comes around the blind curve and collides with the illegally parked car. The danger SHOULD be obvious to ALL drivers regardless of whether they geocache or not. This is the problem that you are not getting. You apparently don't pay attention to such things when you drive so you see it as not obvious. I pay attention to these things when I drive so they are very obvious to me. If you and I can't agree on it how is a reviewer supposed to figure out if it is obvious or not?

In your opinion. You don't seem to get that what is not obvious to you may very well be blatantly obvious to the next guy. Again, I am very aware of the dangers of blind curves. You may drive along completely oblivious to this danger, but that doesn't mean every else does. So, are we really talking about non-obvious dangers or are we really talking about dangers you don't like?

I thought you were campaigning against non-obvious dangers? That's a pretty obvious danger AND easily avoided by parking up the road where it is safe and walking to the blind curve. Is it Groundspeak's problem that some insist on driving their vehicle right up to every cache? Experience has shown that some geocachers doing power trail runs will park illegally on narrow roads and create dangerous situations. While the dangers are obvious to the geocachers, they aren't obvious to the occupants of a car coming around the blind curve. If Groundspeak reviewers can reasonably foresee these dangerous situations even before publishing the caches, then I think they might very well have a problem with gross negligence. Experience has also shown that such caches were hidden without adequate permission. I bet any future such caches will be vetted on the permission issue a bit stronger in the future. And what you are talking about is attempting to predict human behavior. You've stepped right past radiation which neither the hider nor Groundspeak could know about unless they carried around geiger counters but at least made some sense into trying to figure out if finders are going to ignore obvious hazards or not. While at the same time you continue to insist you are talking about non-obvious dangers. Any way you write it, blind curves are pretty obvious dangers; at least to me.