Jump to content

mresoteric

Members
  • Posts

    685
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mresoteric

  1. 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?
  2. What about situations when existing guidelines are not being violated? For example, suppose I created a power trail and included some caches on a narrow public road that has no shoulders but does have several blind curves and hills. Assume the land manager has no existing prohibition on geocaches being placed on that road. Should Groundspeak publish the caches near these blind corners/hills? Of course if local law enforcement or the department of transportation asks for these caches to be removed, you do know that they will be archived. I didn't ask whether Groundspeak should archive caches when law enforcement or land managers request it. I asked whether Groundspeak should be proactive and not publish the questionable caches and perhaps prevent serious injuries and/or deaths from occurring. You missed the point. He's saying that there is no reason for Groundspeak to intervene initially. No laws are being broken and there ARE safe ways to approach such a cache. BUT, law enforcement or say, NDOT were to request archival, then it falls back on legality/permission and there are already guidelines in place that deal with that.
  3. Ahhhh, OK. Slowly the story is revealing itself. How about editing the OP to: "I don't think Groundspeak should allow roadside powercache trails". Because I don't agree with that statement. As I've noted before on these forums, I have no problem with power trails. I've even enjoyed finding caches on a small power trail and would like to try a longer one to see I like that as well. Might be true that you have no problem with SOME power trails. But I also felt you revealed you true motive with that post.
  4. 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?
  5. I wonder who I can blame for popping my ankle a few weeks back? I was in a swamp. I got my foot caught up in a root underwater. Hmmmm. On one hand it wasn't obvious that the root was there. I couldn't see it. And I've been all around the area previously without incident. On the other hand I was in a swamp so one could assume the danger is obvious. How do you think I should handle it when I get back to place the cache eventually? Do I really need to put a warning on the listing telling people to be aware of the possibility of underwater roots? If not and Groundspeak was suddenly reviewing for dangers could a cacher sue them or me if they messed their ankle up like I did? It's really not as simple as you try to make it out to be. Sure, your one radioactive example probably makes sense. But again, that is likely to be more of a permission issue than danger issue. I can't think of a place off the top of my head that I am going to be aware of radioactivity without owning a geiger counter where the land owner will not be aware first and deny the cache due to possible liability to himself. And if I am not walking around with a geiger counter when I place caches then just how am I supposed to make Groundspeak aware of that?
  6. How about something along the lines of: Caches that Groundspeak knows are dangerous when many geocachers and non-geocachers are likely to be unaware of those risks? And without sending a reviewer out to assess this danger, how do you propose Groundspeak check to make sure it really is a non-obvious danger? They can't just take someone's word for it. It might not be obvious to you but may be very obvious to me. Cachers should be aware of their environment when out and about. I assume reviewers could use common sense, much like when they determine a cache is "too" close to a school, when a cache is "buried," when a cache "defaces" or "destroys" property, when "adaquate" permission has been obtained, when a location is a likely terrorist target, or when a cache is "commercial." school property - easily verified via maps buried - pretty simple to determine and more of a permission issue defaces/destroys - simple to determine terrorist target - easily verified via maps with exceptions made based on feedback commercial - personally I don't think they do a great job with this adequate permission - definitely would not use this to support your position. Reviewers do a terrible job with this for the same reason they can't determine non-obvious danger. They can't go out to each cache and interview the property owners. The difference is they err on the side that it generally has adequate permission if the hider checks that box. Conversely, because it is all but impossible for Groundspeak to determine what is obvious or not obvious to any given individual, they assume that CACHERS use that common sense you speak of and check for dangers themselves while out and about. It's kind of like driving. When I approach an intersection, I look at oncoming traffic. If I see someone blowing through a red light, I am going to stop my vehicle. It doesn't matter if I am right and he is wrong. I am the one that will be dead if I proceed even when I see danger. So if I am out caching I am going to be looking for dangers. An area could have been completely safe yesterday and present a danger to me today. It is in my best interest to watch out for that danger myself rather than assuming safety because someone hid a cache there 3 years ago.
  7. Shouldn't be an issue since the cache has permission, right?
  8. Take the original account, change the email address and password and you are good to go.
  9. Difference between illegality and danger is permission. In most cases illegality will be easily remedied with proper permission. Someone sees a no trespassing sign while looking for a cache, post NA. Reviewer can easily verify this without needing to be on-site. Someone sees what they consider to be a dangerous cache. How does a reviewer verify this. Permission? Not necessarily. Could have explicit permission and still be considered dangerous. Is it dangerous in the opinion of the person posting NA? Ok. Now let's just get the reviewer to run right out there and confirm. Not as easily remedied as an illegally placed cache. The law is pretty easy to sort out most of the time. Danger is in the eye of the beholder. Especially when you want to then differentiate between obvious and non-obvious danger.
  10. I see a couple of problems with this. How are volunteer reviewers supposed to determine that these non-obvious dangers exist? After all, they are not obvious. What is the definition of non-obvious danger? How dangerous does it have to be to qualify as one and how obvious does it need to be before it is suddenly ok?
  11. Nope. Wrong answer. I wanted to do this until it was revealed to me, if they (us) find a buried container in one place, they'll start digging at the 1st one they can't find on someone elses property. I know, that I check fence post caps when I'm in a cemetary because I've found quite a few this way. If it's only partially buried (35% to 50%) as the OP suggested, then how would finding such a cache make people start digging at the 1st one they can't find on someone else's property? If anything it might make someone think they can bury one when they hide it. But then that should not get approved unless they own the property or get explicit written permission to hide one in such a manner. a partially buried cache was the cause of caching getting banned in national parks in WA and I believe in the whole US. It was from a partially buried cache in Olympic National Park. State parks here now have created a permit system to get a cache approved there. A lot of people don't want to do the great paperwork that it takes to get a cache approved in a state park. I am glad city parks don't require that paperwork. Imagine if they did and you'll think twice about making land managers mad. The hider did not own the national park nor have explicit permission to hide a cache there. I suggested it would be ok on his/her own property.
  12. Nope. Wrong answer. I wanted to do this until it was revealed to me, if they (us) find a buried container in one place, they'll start digging at the 1st one they can't find on someone elses property. I know, that I check fence post caps when I'm in a cemetary because I've found quite a few this way. If it's only partially buried (35% to 50%) as the OP suggested, then how would finding such a cache make people start digging at the 1st one they can't find on someone else's property? If anything it might make someone think they can bury one when they hide it. But then that should not get approved unless they own the property or get explicit written permission to hide one in such a manner.
  13. If it's on your own property it should be ok.
  14. I sure do! It's disabled since he's not posting any more (at least not where I could see it), but it's still there. Not sure if it still would work though, I think that was from pre-forum-upgrade times. Here, try it out. Shirt or no shirt?
  15. Why not? A bogus log is bogus when it's bogus. It doesn't matter if the CO deletes it or not. Yeah it doesn't say anywhere that a CO must delete all bogus logs, but a bogus log that's not deleted by the CO doesn't become any less bogus. A FOUND log on a cache that has been FOUND does not become bogus just because the finder could not sign the log. Yes, the owner has the right to delete such a log but that doesn't automatically make it bogus.
  16. Stop posting that image! You'll only summon the demon! Is there a username that goes with the avatar? Maybe we can all start chanting it while dancing around a fire naked.
  17. Sometimes the only reason a topic is near the top of the list is because every time it drops to the second page, the thread starter bumps it. Which is the really annoying part of this thread. If the OP would just let it live and breath on its own without bumping it needlessly, most people would not mind it existing even though it is not geocaching related.
  18. In a perfect world you would be correct. However, in several of the recent threads on this subject several people have responded that when the cacher tells them up front that they didn't sign the log that they would delete it while not being as harsh if they just didn't mention it in the log. I'd be happy to quote a few of those if needed.
  19. I can't tell if this statement is correct or not. It's because I'm a geocacher who does not use Facebook And I don't for exactly the reasons described. Then exactly how does ANY of this affect you? It doesn't. I can still have an opinion though, can't I? Please? Sure, as long as I can have an opinion about cache hides.
  20. I can't tell if this statement is correct or not. It's because I'm a geocacher who does not use Facebook And I don't for exactly the reasons described. Then exactly how does ANY of this affect you?
  21. The smiley is what makes something a cache? I guess that makes events caches, but don't think an event comes close to being a cache.
  22. You don't. Some things in life have a limited window of opportunity. Don't put off until tomorrow what you really want to do today.
  23. But that is the way Facebook works. And the geocaching app would work the way you want. So the fact that FB is bass ackwards gives developers an excuse for being stupid? And no, it would work the way other people want it to work. But you're not the only geocacher that uses Facebook. Apparently some people would like to have the app intergrate with Facebook. The cool thing about Facebook is that you don't have to block the app for each person on your friends list. You block it once and it blocks it for all your friends. Problem solved. You have the app and don't want to post to Facebook? Hopefully Groundspeak would make this a toggable option so you can choose whether or not you are posting to Facebook. Then you don't wind up posting to Facebook if you don't want to. I personally would not use this. I really don't need everyone keeping track of where I am going. But for those that want it, it should be easy to implement. And for those that don't want to see this from their Facebook friends, it really would be easy to filter out.
×
×
  • Create New...