mresoteric

I was personally accused. Next time tell 'em Coldgears did it.

Kind of figured that when I read this: At the time I posted that I had no idea what I wanted to do with the cache. It took me about two hours of nearly non-stop google maps "stalking" to find that place. Now that I found what I wanted to do with it, I don't want any other suggestions... If you say so. I believe otherwise and "no arguing can change my mind... " You're new to geocaching... And these forums. Perhaps you should spend more time here, your opinions of me are quite negative, probably because you haven't been here as long. get 1,000 posts then we can talk... I don't have a negative opinion of you. On the contrary, I find your threads pretty entertaining. I like to see if people figure out they've been had on their own or if it takes you revealing the rouse for them to get it. It's a fun game.

BTW, now that you don't want any other suggestions you should probably ask for this thread to be closed too.

Kind of figured that when I read this: At the time I posted that I had no idea what I wanted to do with the cache. It took me about two hours of nearly non-stop google maps "stalking" to find that place. Now that I found what I wanted to do with it, I don't want any other suggestions... If you say so. I believe otherwise and "no arguing can change my mind... "

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads I know. Difficult, eh? You do realize that the removal of exactly this is what everybody's talking about? Yep.

So am I, but I'm not looking forward to those "my profile is set to private, how could they figure out which caches I've logged" threads I know. Difficult, eh?

Kind of figured that when I read this:

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered. It would possible for someone to reconstruct your caching history, but it would require significantly more work than just viewing someone's profile and getting the list handed to you. and what possible harm can come to me from someone that knows where i've been last week? I don't know. Notice it's not my name on that feedback article. But if Groundspeak agrees with the 600+ votes and decides to implement it, I'm ok with that.

I've had mixed results with regular posters here but have found that a lot of the lurkers are really nice and supportive people. If events hold any correlation to the forums, then I imagine the guy just ran into some of the more negative, competitive players at the events while most geocachers just play the game and are probably really nice people.

And if your signing the paper logs and your logs appear online then then someone determined to track you will generate the profile. So what's the point? If your terrified that someone will know what caches your going to then the best policy to hide that information is don't sign the paper log and don't log on line. Given the programming prowess of this site I would be highly suspicious and very untrusting of any security offered. It would possible for someone to reconstruct your caching history, but it would require significantly more work than just viewing someone's profile and getting the list handed to you.

What number would make it worth their time and effort? I see ideas that have been implemented with a lot less votes. in this case, if more than 50% of the users requested hiding their logs i would say the majority wins yes, other features have been implemented on lesser votes because it was determined that the said feature will benefit the majority of users, perhaps because there was no other way around it, but there are a lot of very easy and clear options, which have been mentioned numerous times in this thread and others, for those trying to hide their profiles due to privacy concerns maybe someone should create a new site called "Caching In A Bubble" where users can be invisible to each other...personally i really enjoy the current interaction with other players through their logs I don't think Groundspeak is a democracy. So even if you could muster 50% + 1 votes (50% is not a majority), there is no guarantee they will implement your idea. The idea that is being touted on the feedback site is to be able to hide your finds in your profile. Your logs would still remain on the cache listings for all to see. Whether it gets implemented or not probably depends more on the level of difficulty involved from a programming perspective than it does on the number of votes. I'm pretty sure that's why some of the simpler ideas with fewer votes get implemented quickly while other ideas with tons of votes take months to be implemented. As far as the OP's idea goes, I don't get it either. If you're concerned about others seeing what you write, just log a blank log or none at all.

You have to reactivate the current one. You're not allowed to list a new cache in same location just because you're replacing the cache. At least that is the way I read this thread.

There is no rule that permission has to be stated explicitly on the cache page or that cachers must notify their neighbors and how is the reviewer supposed to know the coords were bad? Explain why the reviewer would have reason to deny the cache if the hider told him he owned the property.

He could also place a nano out by the road and supply accurate coords and talk to his neighbor and mention the fact that it is his property and mention he wants to talk to other cachers, etc. The nano is not the problem. People hide those all the time. The bad coordinates are the issue, as they are with other caches with bad coordinates.

I think geocaching (or at least the forums) has a lot of complainers intent on letting minor issues bother them.

BTW, reading through the logs on the cache page 2 things become clear. 1. The OP should have had ample warning of what kind of cache this was. I think this bit is either intentionally misleading or the OP loaded up coords without reading the listing. 2. The answer to one of the OP's questions is right there in the logs.

You mean this exchange in the logs?: June 8 by cukeereed (6 found) Ok sorry for the misunderstanding....this is my property and the cashe is within reach of the side walk and it is difficult to find but it is there. And it is not on the electrical service box....Visits during the daylight hours are prefered. And feel free to knock on the door and introduce yourself my son and I like to meet other geo cashers. June 7 by HighCountryAdmin (15 found) Hi cukeereed, Please add some text to your cache description letting cachers know that you have permission to have the cache where it is. Thanks, HCA Hard to know for sure if he asked prior to posting the cache or was asking after the fact to provide proof of permission. However, I take exception with the CO for replying in the cache logs that it is their property, without posting this important information in the cache description. That log has already dropped off the page. Then the next note from the CO tells people the address of the property to search (in order not to disturb the angry next door neighbor) but again she doesn't post this important information in the cache description. I didn't say the co wasn't a bumbling idiot. (Still not saying that, so not breaking any rules there) But it looks to me like that due to the problems that the reviewer asked the co to specify the permission on the listing. Nothing there leads me to believe that the reviewer was not aware that the cache was on the hider's property. The problem here is with the execution of the cache. It was bad. Apparently really bad. But that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with me putting a cache on my front porch or in a large wooden ammo box located on the side of my house.

Because the problem is with the execution of the hide, not the type of hide.

What number would make it worth their time and effort? I see ideas that have been implemented with a lot less votes.

You EVIL EVIL porch cache hider! How dare you?

Bingo! If he really wants to know, contacting the person in question is the way to go. Starting this thread is just a means to rant about nonsense.

How do you know if this particular reviewer did not ask such questions? Do you have facts to back that up for this cache? I have reviewers' track records to make an educated assumption that he did ask.

Weird. I thought the title of the thread was "caches on your own property", not "caches on someone else's property". Just because the hider doesn't put a note in big bold letters stating that the cache is on his own property doesn't mean that the reviewer didn't make sure of it. Now you are kind of making a mockery of the reviewers. You would have us to believe they are bumbling idiots when in fact I am 99% positive that the reviewer questioned the hider about the vicinity to homes and private property.

There is a difference between completely ignoring someone's opinion and recognizing that it is just his opinion. It happens to be what he and a sector of the caching community feels geocaching should be all about. I happen to agree with him. I prefer the out of the way caches. At the same time, I recognize that some people like things that make little sense to me. Power trails, guardrail caches, etc. But, they like it and why is it any of my business how they enjoy geocaching?

Yes I can. And I wonder if Groundspeak could be held liable in that situation. But that's another thread. Poor coordinates are a different matter from hiding a cache on your own property. The same thing could happen when hiding a cache in a park. Bad coordinates COULD lead people onto private property, but does that mean that caches should not be hidden in parks?