AustinMN

This might create a problem if it requires entering a business and interacting with the staff. I can't imagine how this would be different from paying an admission fee for something like a state park. See my prior posts to this thread. State Parks are run by... the State. The government is different than a private commercial business (although it would make a good thread for the off topic forum to debate whether government is a business). Buying an annual Parks pass or paying $5.00 to the ranger at the park entrance booth doesn't make a park property "commercial." Having to sign in at the office for a private facility, on the other hand, constitutes interacting with employees, something proscribed under the commercialism guideline. To muddy the waters, in many parks systems in the U.S., the pass is not being sold the state, but by an outsourced company or sometimes a non-profit volunteer. The money may go to the state, but you are interacting with an employee who does not work for the state, or even a volunteer member of "Friends of Ugly Lake State Park."

I hope that cache has been archived.

This might create a problem if it requires entering a business and interacting with the staff. I can't imagine how this would be different from paying an admission fee for something like a state park.

What are you promoting? While it's easy to think "commercial" when you hear "promotion", eagle scout projects are almost never commercial.

You obviously don't speak a second language. One can know "All your base are belong to us!" is wrong, without being able to know what the correct translation should be.

+1.

It is hard for people who do not speak another language to get why using Google Translate or having a translation done by someone who is not an expert in the target language can get so messed up. But I think I can give an example: "I am geocaching." translated to another language and given to a police officer could easily get a response of (in their language) "I am police officer." The grammar and volcabulary would be completely correct. The meaning totally wrong.

Block the IPs of anyone who looks at a cache description but doesn't log it within a month. That's got to be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard, ever. I think that was the point. The only way to enforce a rule requiring on-line logging would be to do something really absurd.

As an Extra you should know the world is bigger than just the US. Here it's illegal to listen to police/fire/air... or anything else "non public". Law enforcement uses digital encryption here too (look up "Astrid"). Hams here are not exempt in any way. On the other hand, police shootings are still "news" here and not a daily habit In fact you can talk to them just like humans Indeed, I know a few cachers in the UK who have been asked what they were doing by the Police, and when they explained the Police officers helped them look for the cache. To be honest if your time is so preious Pinballwiz, I can't think of many things more likely to drag out an encounter with the cops than "refusing to answer questions"..... Actually, the encounter goes by just the same. They can't force you to answer a question besides stuff like your name, let me see an ID. The problem with most citizens is that they are quite content and snappy to give up all their rights because they feel compelled that they HAVE to answer an officer because they feel they'll look bad for not answering? See how that makes no sense. If you have nothing to hide, you still don't answer questions. You never answer questions. Obviously there are exceptions...use your own common sense and watch that video I posted. You do look bad for not answering. And...the officer can detain you for a significant amount of time. Yes he needs probable cvause to detain you, but it is a much looser standard than necessary for arrest. "I thought one of his tail lights was out," and you loose an hour of your day because you wouldn't tell him you were geocaching. Stop giving crappy advice.

I don't trust law enforcement, and sill find this to be rather poor advice . . . unless you are suspected of a crime. Is that your problem?

I keep thinking, "How absurd would a rule be that required logging on-line?" How would such a rule be enforced? Is the CO going to go out and erase your log from the paper log? Not in this lifetime! Is the CO going to try to chase down the cacher and force them to stop counting the cache as "found?" Even more absurd. I log my finds on-line, as does my wife. But none of my children do unless there is something unusual (such as a baby's first cache or moving a trackable). There is nothing selfish about it. There is nothing wrong about it.

Geocaching.com is not a monopoly. Although their caches are few and far between, there are other geocaching sites. There is no guideline violation in listing a cache on more than one site. Just because it was not logged on Geocaching.com does not mean it was not logged on-line.

I've had enough exposure to "real" journalists over the past 45 years to know that their only ethic is selling advertizing.

I brought a case like that to the attention of a local reviewer. The coordinates were soon fixed. When the same CO seemed to have continuing problems with coordinates, his caches started getting disabled...then archived. He/she is gone.

Thank you for saying this. Why aren't people more perturbed about the lack of owner maintenance? If the string no longer matters, why hasn't the owner removed it? Seems he doesn't intend to maintain his cache. When I read the OP, that was my first question... Why so much angst about DonutHoes' logging error, and none about the owner's lack of following up on mentions of maintenance needs in previous logs? It's a D4. Maybe the cache is supposed to have a piece of broken string on it.

Clarification: Hexadecimal is not a code, it is a numbering system.

Well, It's about souvenirs and thus website related. So, it's a business. I would agree with on4bam, IMO the souvenirs were dreamed up to encourage people to keep playing, get more involved (so more likely to buy/renew PM), keep visiting the site (so more hits to their advertisers), so yes the Souvenirs are more part of the business side than the game side. So if I pay for a Minnesota Vikings ticket, I have a right to have them win? Nonsense. It's a game. It does not matter if you paid, it's still a game. Maybe this logic would work with Powerball...

Wrong. It's a business with paying customers. When you pay for a service you're entitled to criticize (especially if there's no valid alternative). Wrong. The website is a business with paying customers. Geocaching is a game supported by that web site. Souvenirs are a part of the game.

If you go to your "Public Profile" (from your profile, there is a link on the right), you can open the tab "Gallery" to all of your posted photos. The photos can lead you to the cache listing.

I think those are both just sock puppets (or is it dog puppets?) for the cat. No self-respecting cat would ever publicly admit to looking for tupperware in the woods, though they just might use it as an excuse for new places to hunt for mice.

Back on topic: Would Others Observe Fun?

I stumbled into a thread (on another site) where people had gotten into a contest on different ways to spell "meow." So I posted the obvious thing: "Woof!" I did not stay around to find out what happened after that.

This could have been written by me. I use caching to bring me someplace that I think needs the front side of my camera pointed at it. Finding the cache is secondary or even tertiary.

I got a couple of FTF's just to say I did. They don't mean a thing to me beyond that, so if someone wants to be an FTF hound, I let them. I have learend to play the game the way I want to. If someone else wants to play it differently, more power to them.

You're welcome to see it that way. To me, working == functioning, and having a comparably difficult route to the final works for me. A work-around is never working.