AustinMN

I do not agree, and I do not have any caches at all. I already told you to be careful about making accusations. Austin

Great. I want my caches to be the only new ones, so I will go out and post NM on everyone else's. I can't agree that it is a huge problem. It may be just 2-3 cache hiders near you. Or it may just be your expectations. Austin

First, this sounds like an unreasonable accusation. Second, do you have a problem looking to see if a cache has a Needs Maintenance log before you go looking for it? That is the real solution to your problem. This hobby relies on volunteers willing to create and place caches. Putting needless obstacles up because you don't want to check for a Needs Maintenance log before you go caching isn't the way to go. Austin

Be sure you understand what he is saying before continuing. He had 1 cache that was marked as NM that did not NM. You would prevent him from creating a new cache because of an incompetent cacher. He has 1 cache marked as NM that cannot be maintained at the present time, and he has done the right thing and disabled the cache. You would prevent him from creating a new cache even though he has done everything right. He has 1 cache that was marked NM because it needs something secondary to the cache. The cache is still functional and has not been damaged or muggled. But you would prevent him from creating new caches for...nothing at all. The presence of a NM log does not indicate a cacher who does not maintin their caches. I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but the rule you want is not reasonable. Sorry. Austin

Thanks! The Blog article is the one that I was referring to. I thought it odd that the FAQ entry, which links to the blog article, seems to disagree with it. I don't see an inconsistency between those two. Both reccomend sampling for at least 5 minutes and preferrably 7-10 minutes for short term, and 4-8 samples at least 90 minutes apart for long term. Austin

How do you calibrate a mathematical calculation? Anything that might be made "calibratable" when it comes to the coordinates (such as receiving frequency) would cause the GPSr to not work at all, not give incorrect coordinates. Austin

I have not placed any caches yet, but there is one scenario where I would definitely delete a log. If someone declares the cache is not there and places a throwdown, but when I check the real cache is in good order, the throwdown will be removed, the "helpful" cacher will be politely notified that they can log a DNF if the choose, and the find log deleted. Austin

Maybe your find count has gone down AND you're crazy too. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Occasionally when I'm against a thorny problem at work, I'll ask the team for someone to "tell me I'm not crazy." While I usually get the help I need, nobody has yet actually told me that I'm not crazy. This right now seems strangely satisfying. Austin

+1. Whether this cache stays or goes should not be at the sole discretion of the CO. Austin

At every bridge within 10 miles of my home, I am going to assume someone in, on, or around a bridge is either fishing or scouting a place to fish. Someone walking along the road with a baby stroller would be more unusual than someone poking around a bridge. Austin Also consider what a bridge inspector might think if he encounters a cache. Several caches have been discovered by bridge inspectors who called the police, who in turn shut down the bridge and called the bomb squad. That is a consideration anywhere. Caches found deep in the woods have been blown up by bomb squads. Austin

OK, I have been assuming that broadly here and I realize that is not necessarily the case. There will be cachers ignoring common sense in any situation. My point is that playgrounds generally are not a place of concern. Austin

In addition to the concerns above, I think sometimes people sign with the wrong name. I have been consistent in using Austin as part of nearly all my screen names, but that is not true of everyone. If I signed the log as Austin260 would you realize that it was the user AustinMN? Probably yes, but I doubt you would ever connect ElTaco1756 with Rand Therren, both on-line screen names my adult son uses. I have also had to remind my wife to use AustinMN (she signs for both of us when we cache together because her handwriting is better than mine). You would not likely connect AustinMN with Tom C, which is what she sometimes wants to sign. My adult children all use multiple screen names and may forget and sign a non-geocaching name. I don't think that's cause to delete their log. Austin

I learned years ago that the "if only one" always applies. "If only one person is killed by electricity..." "If only one person falls down the stairs..." "If only one person slips in the shower..." The truth is, if only one mother forbids her children to play on a playground, then that one mother needs to get help. That is not my problem. But you would ruin caching for my granddaughter because of that mother. Pathetic and misguided, I'm afraid. BTW, using all caps is shouting. That doesn't help your case. Austin

The problem is, there are cachers who have no common sense. Cachers who hide on Posted private property. Cachers who go into areas after hours/at night, knowing full well they shouldn't. Cachers who hide caches in locations that will raise suspicion by anyone looking for them. Cachers who hide caches that look like explosive devices. Etc. First, everything you list above is already banned. Second, since your concerns apply to all caches, therefore all caches should be banned. See how silly this is? If you don't like the cache, move on. Don't ruin it for everyone else by banning the cache. Austin

There is no standard for coordinates in exif. (I use Panoramio.com, which is all about geolocating photos. For a time, it seemed hardly a week went by without someone coming up with a new situation where Panoramio's reader could not deciper the coords that were in the exif.) If it's a format that the reader does not understand, it might not display the data. Austin

How far apart are the two locations? If they are 15 feet (5 meters) different then it is effectively the same spot. If they are 200 feet (62 meters) different then you need to search at one location (I would start at the easier one) and if not found, try the other. Austin

At every bridge within 10 miles of my home, I am going to assume someone in, on, or around a bridge is either fishing or scouting a place to fish. Someone walking along the road with a baby stroller would be more unusual than someone poking around a bridge. Austin

Right. Because all cachers are adults. No, but just as most people on playgrounds are kids, most people in retirement homes are old, and most cacher are adults. And most geocachers will never go on the International Space Station. Does that mean the cache there should be banned? This hobby covers a lot of niches (such as people who cache with their small children). Not every cache is for every person. If a cache is not for you, move on. But banning it for everyone else is just silly. Austin

You are right. But... I gues not all have this common sense. Otherwise I cant understand why someone can be so bone-headed an place a Cache on a smal playground. Am I the only one who finds this combination of statements extremely ironic? Having read through this thread several times, I still don't see a problem with hiding a cache in a playground. All the complaints are really about people caching in a playground full of muggles. Those on the side of banning are admitting to not having this common sense. Austin

ironic I don't get it. Tetanus isn't iron it's a bacteria. You have clearly never stepped on an iron nail. The doctor's first question is "When was your last tetanus booster?" Austin

Hint: They found the hat. What does it say? Austin

I sometimes cache with my 5 year old granddaughter. You search for the caches you like, and I will receive plenty of pleasure when she is thrilled that the cache is at a playground. Austin

Keep in mind that if you camp in state or county parks, many of those have their own rules regarding geocaching. You will not get a listing approved if you have not complied with those rules (often including getting written permission from park personnel). I can't see where that's worth the effort for a long weekend, or even a full week. Austin

Nope, that's my point: there's no difference. A log containing nothing but "TFTC" means exactly as much as a log containing nothing but "Thanks for the cache". Sure, some loggers are being lazy, and some are being nasty, but I don't see any reason for anyone, in general, to think they mean anything less than they're saying: "Thanks for the cache." Please try to understand the post you are quoting before replying. I think it is abundantly clear to many of the rest of us that in this case you did not. Austin

My first time hearing the term was as an acronym for Scientific Wild _ _ _ Guess. I think it was my 5th grade science teacher who used it as such. I've never seen the "scientific" use, only "stupid." Austin