fizzymagic

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:Has it been proven that she wasn't told by her supervisor(s) to remove the caches? Let's be clear about where the burden of proof lies here. Since ski3pin has admitted to removing the caches, the only question is whether it was authorized or not. If ski3pin claimed that they had not removed the caches, then there might be a requirement for proof, but that isn't the case here. For that question, the burden of proof is on ski3pin. If the police seize your property, they are required under the fourth amendment to show a good reason why they had to do so. If they show up at your door to do a search, they have to provide the warrant; it's not up to you to prove that they didn't have a warrant. In general, any law enforcement action must be justified. It's the way our constitution works. Thus, in this case, since ski3pin acted as law enforcement, it is ski3pin's responsibility to prove the assertion that the caches were removed via proper authority. It is not the responsibility of the cache owners to prove that ski3pin didn't have the authority. I am astonished by Snazz's combined invocation of the Constitution and complete lack of understanding of it at the same time.

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:What if a ranger had removed the caches? The reason I say that it is clear that the caches were removed without authority is that ski3pin has been repeatedly asked for some time to provide the name of the person who authorized the cache removal. Since ski3pin has thus far refused to do so, without providing any explanation for said refusal, I think it is obvious that they were lying when they said they were asked to remove the caches. But if you have some actual evidence (aside from their unverified assertion) that they were actually asked to remove the caches, please let us see it so we can stop being a "lynch mob."

End Of Discussion. It's one of those UseNet terms.... Mike: I'll email Pepper and see what you sent her. I hadn't heard anything, so I assumed nothing was there. Oh well.

quote:Originally posted by C&MMorris:It's my understanding that you complain quite a bit if you cant find a cache the first time. I was warned by other cachers to look out for you. I suggest you read my DNFs and decide for yourself whether I whine a lot when not finding a cache. EOD.

I don't always expect a response to a DNF. If the cache is known to be exceptionally difficult, or it has been found recently, etc. then no response is probably needed. However, in the case of the Knight's Ferry caches, there were several circumstances that I feel merited some kind of response. One of the caches is resportedly quite easy to find, but hadn't been logged since August. The other cache had no logs of any kind since April. It's hard to believe that nobody has even looked for it since then, so you kinda have to guess that there are several DNFs that never got posted. Fern Gully's hint is no longer of any use, since all the ferns are dead (well, dormant). For all of those reasons, I was expecting a response of some kind to our DNF. My experience with Central Valley cachers has always been that they are pretty good about maintaining their caches; hence my dismay. But my post above was probably way too harsh. Apologies for any offense.

This is essentially a trivial exercise to do in Excel. Why should geocaching.com do something that you can do quite simply yourself? Actually, now that I think about it, geocaching.com cannot do it properly. You must do it yourself. If you find more than one cache on a given day, geocaching.com does not maintain enough information to know in what order they were found. FWIW, my total calculated this way is almost 46,000 miles. My total calculated as the sum of the distances from my home coordinates to each cache found is closing in on 200,000 miles. I think both are cool measures; the first one indicates how far you've traveled doing caches, while the second indicates how much caching you have done far from home. [This message was edited by fizzymagic on October 31, 2002 at 07:34 PM.]

...and still no word on GPX. What's the deal here? I thought this was the top priority?

Is Ski3pin still a member of geocaching.com? If so, why has the account not been removed? It has become abundantly clear that these caches were removed without proper authorization; therefore, ski3pin is a cache thief. Such people are not appropriate members of our community. So why has the account not yet been terminated?

quote:Originally posted by C&MMorris:Yes, I have a couple of DNF'S but I did go back and find them. You'd think with your pride in not posting DNFs you would be one to go check on a cache that is reported missing... Maybe other peoples' DNFs don't concern you as much as your own? Sorry about sounding so grumpy, but I have to admit that I am disappointed at the lack of any kind of response to our DNFs at both Michael Jrs and Fern Gully.

...is only open on weekends, for what it's worth.

I think I pick up both the Bay Area and the Central Valley caches. The best of both worlds.

Welcome back, Ron! Sorry I didn't greet you sooner, but I was out of town. Looks like you placed more caches than you found on your trip. I've been keeping track of my cache-miles (sum of distances from my home coordinates to the caches I've found) and I am now approaching 200,000. I wonder what your cache placement miles are?

Well, hotfoot, you can'tarchive the cache until I've found it! I just got an hour ago (it's 5:30 AM) and I think I'll sleep a little, then go do it. Homeless people can make caching interesting. If you warn on the page, I don't see a big problem.

quote:Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:Ah, so more information comes to light. A do-gooder, whether on her own or not, removes three caches from a _national forest_, where even a geophyte like myself knows is a no-no. Apparently you don't know as much as you think you do. Geocaches are, generally speaking, permitted in National Forests. They are forbidden in National Parks, which is probably what you "knew." National Forests are managed by the USDA, while National Parks are managed by the Department of the Interior. Quite different parts of the government. The geocaches in question here were placed in a wilderness area, which is a specially protected part of a National Forest, in which many activities (for example, the use of motor vehicles) are forbidden. Thanks for playing, though. [This message was edited by fizzymagic on October 23, 2002 at 07:03 PM.]

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:Did NOBODY else see the post by Disquoi in which ski3pin indicated that she was asked to remove the caches by her superiors? I saw it. I didn't believe it. Especially since ski3pin has so far refused to name the individuals who told her to remove the caches. Even if she was asked to remove the caches by the appropriate authorities, common courtesy would dictate that she contact the owners first. So either she's a liar or she's a jerk. Either way, she doesn't look too good. For the record, I would never place a cache in a wilderness area without written permission first. My objection is not to the removal of the caches if that is the desire of the authorities; it is to the entirely inappropriate way in which it was done.

Here are the appropriate links: Aloha Baby Stop Grousing Halfway There! In my opinion, this user should get kicked off this site and all their logs should be deleted. Removal of other peoples' caches without authorization is unacceptable behavior.

I skip the door Nazis everywhere. Fry's, Home Depot, Costco, everywhere. They all know that they can't stop you, and they all rely on people to behave like sheep. I am never confrontational; I am always very nice and polite. And if they were to push it, I would almost certainly show them the receipt with no fuss. But I have never been stopped. In fact, at Costco especially, there is often a long line of people waiting to show their receipts to the door Nazis. I just sail right by them.

C'mon, Jeremy... how's it coming?

A couple of weeks ago, I talked to somebody who has recently been there. Apparently, the cache is now in the one place that Ron specifically avoided when placing it! Somebody must have replaced it wrong.

Oh, yeah. 19 attempts; 14 finds. Pepper fell at one of Ron's rock caches and is kinda bruised up. I think my favorite cache of the day was 21st Symphony.

Well, that sucks. And that cache is pretty hard to get to, also! I'll go fix it this week.

quote:Originally posted by Ron Streeter:Here is the url for a cache I placed on Friday the 18th. Umm, Ron: that should be N 41° 57.737 E 12° 26.426 ! It's hard to get used to being on the other side of the Prime Meridian!

There is a completely trivial solution to this whole conundrum that nobody seems to have considered: how about if a hider wants to make hiding another cache a requirement, they make the cacher do it before giving them the actual coordinates of the cache? That way, everybody is happy: the hider can require that a new cache be placed, and the finder can log the cache when it has been found and the log signed. This preserves the power of the hider while at the same time preserving the concept that a find is a find. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?

I don't think it is entirely babies crying; I think there is a decent point about not getting credit for a find when you've found it and signed the log. There is a trivial solution: What Ron could do is make it a requirement to place a cache in a specified area before giving the cacher the coordinates of the actual cache. I suppose that would be PAC-FAC, but the result would be the same without the objections, since by the time you find the cache you would have already fulfilled the requirements.

You can buy blank puzzles at most craft stores, and then paint or glue whatever you want right on them. Probably cost you about $0.50 each. If you just want one puzzle, then you can get a big one from jigsawpuzzle.com, but that is a whole lot more expensive. Here is a kind of cool product that you print directly onto. It's $1.00 a sheet.