AustinMN

If this happened on my land, I would have then asked him why he was there, and if he had probable cause. Seeing someone on posted land is not probable cause. It would likely have led to a disciplinary situation for the officer, as the "No Trespassing" applies to them as well (barring probable cause). I'm not trying to justify trespassing on posted property. I don't do it, and I don't condone it. But at least in the United States, there are very real limits on when law enforcement can and cannot take action. Seeing someone on posted property is not one of them, unless special arrangements have been made. In those cases, special wording on the signage will reflect it. In my state, there are even sets of circumstances that allow armed citizens to enter posted private property for a specific purpose without obtaining permission. Austin

To get within 2-3 meters (6-12 feet), you have to use either a precision distaince measuring system or sightings with a precision compass on two known objects (i.e. compass readings on two radio towers where the location is very accurately known). Austin Geocaching.com's youtube channel has a video about geocaching without GPSr's. The gentleman has a good system of using topo and satellite maps to identifty local vegetation (think coniferious vs decidious tress, clearings, etc) to help him giure his way as close as possible before having to count off distance. "I see it's 60meters from this point on the lake at a heading of 345degrees, so I only need to get to that point of the lake before I start counting paces and using a compass for heading" That only works if the location of the sat maps is correct. I have seen them be off by 200 feet (60 meters). It is a rare situation where the sat maps are closer than 2-3 meters. Austin

Under this system, easily accessible quality caches would be COTM over and over. Meanwhile, quality caches that only get one or two visits a month, would never be COTM even though they may be better (more creative and more interesting) caches. Austin

To get within 2-3 meters (6-12 feet), you have to use either a precision distaince measuring system or sightings with a precision compass on two known objects (i.e. compass readings on two radio towers where the location is very accurately known). Austin

Under ideal conditions at the equator, the coordinate system itself is only good to a square of about 12 feet x 12 feet (4 meters x 4 meters). That's if both your GPS and the cache owner's GPS read the location perfectly, something that never happens. For one of my first caches (still a DNF, BTW), I wandered around for 20 minutes in heavy tree cover, and covered quite a bit of ground (including crossing my own tracks 4-5 times) trying to pinpoint GZ. Mighty frustrating for a micro. Austin

This is exactly what I'd expect the property owner to do. How would a LEO know the difference? Austin He/She would likely ask the proof that permission to be their was obtained. I doubt that, "I know the owner of the property, he said it was okay that I could be here" would be sufficient. I doubt they would do anything beyond noting that a person was there. The owner needs nobody's permission to be on his own property. The owner is not required to have identification on his own property. The owner looks like anybody else on his own property. The owner is probably unknown to the police. If there was a complaint, or if there was a special arrangement with law enforcement, they might question someone (often the case with businesses and such), but for just some guy's empty property with a sign, not a chance. Austin

This is exactly what I'd expect the property owner to do. How would a LEO know the difference? Austin

I also go to the trackable's page, and if it was dropped more than about 3 months earlier, post a note that it's not in the listed cache. You do not need the trackable's number to do this. The trackable owner can also remove it from the inventory, but only if they know it's not there. The trackable's owner may be half a world away, so checking the cache themselves may be impossible. That's why it is important to log the "missing" on both the cache page and the trackable's page. Austin

I'd love to know how you think this is supposed to work. Austin

It sounds like a virtual cache to me: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=310 New virtual caches are not being allowed. Austin

As I read it, that blog is a much better ad for making improper electrical installation and/or maintenance a criminal offence than for not geocaching near electricity. Many of the stories told could happen on a "safe" cache away from electrical equipment. Austin

You can make waving the machete more effective by also hollering "MUGGLES! MUGGLES! All of them MUGGLES!" Don't ask me how I know this. Austin

Any flat steel surface away from electrical equipment (or other utilities like gas meters). Austin

Two words: Time Zone. Makes many times of little meaning without conversion work.

One way to do that is to write it on the page edges (with the book closed, opposite the binding). It would be very difficult to remove, and losing a page would not loose the tracking number. Austin

Thank you for playing, but please go back and read again, separating fact from speculation. It's been spelled out repeatedly, unless you are calling certain posters liars. Sort of makes the rest of your post meaningless. Austin

Am I the only one who finds those two statements contradictory? Austin If TPTB wanted to say that in order to log a find only you must sign the physical log they would have said that. The English language has some ambiguity built in, so there are some who may parse what TPTB did write to mean that "physical cache can be logged online as "Found", once only if the physical log has been signed". Wrong. The parsing is "physical cache can be logged online as "Found", once after the physical log has been signed". This is not ambiguous. I understand you are on a campaign to defend your position on this, but you are wrong. Austin

I suspect it would introduce all kinds of problems. * If a group member is absent, the "logger" has to remember to opt them out. * If there is some kind of disagreement, the "logger" could opt out participants that were present. * The primary logger forgets his personal password and so starts logging with the group account for their non-group finds. * The group leader quits caching, leaving the rest of the group members orphaned. For cache owners who validate logs with the paper log, this increases the difficulty of validating the log. I'm sure there's more. Austin

+1 Although some people might read this as "sqealing" on the CO (which it is), but sometimes that's necessary. Austin

Am I the only one who finds those two statements contradictory? Austin

You quoted her entire post. The least you could have done is read the whole post. Nowhere does it say she did not sign the log. It says she was accused of not signing the log by a third party. I have seen plenty of caches where the entries in the log were on multiple sheets and out of order. Maybe the accuser chose the wrong sheet. Austin

What kind of needle? Sewing needle? Darning Needle? Knitting Needle? Is it in a pile of straw, hay, grass, leaves? How big is the haystack? Is it 3 feet (1 meter) in diameter, or an entire barn full? Is the hay stacked or baled? Round bales or rectangular? How many bales? Are they stacked on top of each other, side-by-side, or spread out? We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument... Austin

Those boxes are so common on the internet that 99.9% of the people who check them don't even read the label on the check box! That you think otherwise worries me. Austin No excuse whatsoever for not understanding what you have just agreed to. Nor did I claim such a thing. What I said, and what I meant, is that it worries me that it worries you. The overwhelming majority of people do not read instructions or TOS. It bothers me not one bit that someone comes and asks for help in understanding. Austin

Those boxes are so common on the internet that 99.9% of the people who check them don't even read the label on the check box! That you think otherwise worries me. Austin

Third accusation. Let's grow up, and realize you have a worthy goal, but the way you suggest to go about it is not fair, not popular, too simplistic, and will not work. Only one of them really needed maintenance at the time I found it. Since then it has been marked as Needs Archive. Your suggestion would penalize cache hiders for simple things like forgetting to reset the NM flag after performing maintenance. And your suggestion would not stop bad cache owners from placing new caches. If I were a bad maintainer and wanted to place a new cache, I would just post false "Owner Maintenance" logs on all my NM caches before enabling the new cache. That would actually make things worse, because now the bad cache does not have a NM flag! Austin