Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FireRef

  1. As much as I disagree with some of the issues raised here, I think that we have to respect Disney's request not to have physical caches placed. Hence, another good reason for the return of virtuals. On a side note, we had a cache in the Erie, Pa area that was blown up by the bomb squad. It was hidden outside the police department in a local municipality outside of Erie, with the Police Chief's permission. So even when the person in charge of the department gave permission and knew about it, one of his officers didn't, and this caused a pretty big incident (and a pretty embarrassed officer, I would imagine). Also, on one more side note - I am a member of the HazMat team for our county - other than fuel and other related vehicle use expenses, we don't get paid, so there is no additional manpower cost. Bomb squads would be more likely to be paid, so would be more likely to incur additional manpower expenses, and that is usually where the big cost comes in. Also, how can swineflu keep anything from being published over there, if he doesn't run the site? Edited to add hazmat and swineflu comments - which taken out of context, sound much more medical than they are!
  2. Their website is up and running. - http://www.geowoodstock.com
  3. People say this as if it's a bad thing. We ARE the cache police. Geocaching is a self-policing activity. We are responsible, each and every one of us, for reporting problem caches when we find them. The sport is growing quickly and we can no longer rely on flying under the radar. If we, the participants, don't take care of any problems, eventually someone else will make rules for us that we may not like. +1 It's not the most popular thing to write but GeoGeeBee is absolutely correct. The Area Reviewers are a good first filter, but it's up to cachers to report if there are any problems after a cache is published. That doesn't mean reporting every perceived slight, but if there is something that is of concern it should be noted in the logs. The problem is, like in the example earlier in the thread - "I don't think caches should be placed near schools, because the guidelines say they shouldn't be - therefore, I will report every cache near a school as NA". In my opinion, that is silly. It should only be reported if there is a serious issue - a perceived guidelines violation doesn't seem serious enough to me. They are, after all, only guidelines - not rules, as people have stated many times.
  4. Then maybe we need to get rid of the hysteria instead of bowing to it - educate people. Don't accept it when people get scared over things like this - let them know the truth. Running away from this because it may scare some people means, again, we would never actually get anything accomplished in life. Yes, its only a game - but its a good place to start.
  5. I'm glad to see that some people feel they need to be the cache police, and report complaints because they have a problem with a cache, regardless of if that cache is a problem or not - they see it as a problem, and complain. I am a teacher. I understand the concept of safety. However, we need to stop running around scared of everything in life, and use a little common sense. Not the common sense that says "Someone might have a problem with this hide." - the common sense that says "A person is innocent until proven guilty." I fit the description of the older male who may look suspicious hunting caches. I've learned to accept it. I have explained myself to law enforcement without any issues multiple times - they listen, and have been very courteous. Honesty is the best policy. If everyone made their decisions in life based on what other people would think - if everyone chose not to do things because someone might have a problem with it - nothing in life would ever get done. Yes - I don't generally hunt caches that are in the middle of a playground when there are people with children there. However, I would check them out at a time when the area is deserted. Otherwise, I just don't look for it. My philosophy - you don't like the cache, don't hunt it. Don't deny the people who would the opportunity to do so because you don't like it or wouldn't feel comfortable looking for it. Everyone is just too paranoid these days. There isn't a rapist or terrorist hiding around every corner. If there was, we wouldn't still be here as a society.
  6. I wasn't aware Twitter was working again - I assumed it would come right back - I needed to reenable it, and now it works. Thanks for letting me know!
  7. Does this mean that the twitter integration is fixed now, based on the comments about it in the change log? I couldn't tell if it was fixed because of that or the text on the page was just updated.
  8. I am sure your cache will be published sometime soon. I am glad that people in my area are nice and understand that we as reviewers have personal lives, and sometimes we can be stressed in a big way. Comparing a volunteer cache reviewer to a volunteer fireman is absurd. Your comparison is more insulting to volunteer fireman than it is to volunteer cache reviewers. It is pitiful that you cheapen the work of these people. They volunteer their services to save people's lives and to save their property. I think you need to apologize to volunteer firemen frankly. Unless I missed something, I believe the story I told was correct. I may have been off a day. I understand she was sick. If she was unavailable, there are, as I stated, 2 other reviewers in our area that could have handled it. One chimed in on this discussion. As for insulting to volunteer fireman, I am one. My comparison is based on my experience.
  9. I know there is a difference between being a volunteer fireman and this. However, when you volunteer for something, you make a committment. This is why there is such a problem with volunteers being said to be "just a volunteer". I've been a fireman for 20+ years, and I certainly consider myself a professional in every aspect, except being paid. If I did my work as a firefighter or as an EMT at a lower quality than those who are paid, that would be a serious problem. Again, I know some don't like the comparison. But when you volunteer for something, do the job and do it well. Life happens - that's why we either need more reviewers, or just get rid of them since some competing websites seem to thing they're not necessary (and I agree).
  10. Thanks for the info. I was concerned people would whine if someone got the FTF before the publication. If it is considered acceptable to hand out coords before official publication, then we're find. I do feel I can compare any volunteer opportunities - it makes sense that if you volunteer for something, you will be available to do something a reasonable amount of the time, or have someone else handle it. We have 3 reviewers I am aware of around here. Mr Yuck, if you don't like me asking questions, ignore me.
  11. I am trying to hide a cache a week for the year, since I haven't hidden many since 3-4 years ago when I put out several series's. I remember having some difficulties with reviewers in my area, making the hides in some cases more hassles than they were worth to put out, be told you can't put it there, and then have to go back and move it. This specific thread is in response to a special request. I asked that a cache I placed for this cache-a-week series would be published today at 7:30 am. The reason for this is simple. I have a number of students at my school who geocache, and I wanted some of them to have the opportunity for a FTF. Not that it means anything except to some people, but it was a simple request. The cache was placed, moved, replaced, etc until the reviewer was happy with it. Originally, it was too close to the school. Then she was concerned it was on a fire hydrant (which I don't understand why people have a problem with this, being a volunteer fireman, but was told some places you can't do it so the reviewers don't let anyone do it without explicit permission). Finally, a week before I asked to have it published, I was told she was fine with the location, it was ready to be published today, and she would do her best to honor the time request. That time came and went. Not published. It is now an hour and a half later, the kids are in school and will be for the next 6-7 hours, and maybe it will be published while they are in, maybe not. I don't know. I made the request for the time and date several times in the reviewer notes. I know that for events, a number of caches can be released at a specific time. I know they generally honor requests such as this. I am very disappointed in the lack of attention to this detail by this reviewer, as all the other details in the publication seemed to be of paramount importance - the one I considered the most important was blown off. I understand they're volunteers. However, as a volunteer fireman, I understand very clearly the importance of being available when needed. If I decide to respond to a call an hour after it went out, in most cases, it just wouldn't work. Yes, that and this are two different things, but both are time dependent, depending on the circumstances. Can't these be set to auto-publish at a specific time? How would an event work if all the caches for it were just not published when they were supposed to be, if there were caches that were supposed to get published during the event, or at a specific point in the event? I am very unhappy with the way this was handled. What can be done?
  12. Thanks for your concern. I think the OP is not worried about privacy, since the OP brought the issue to the forums as is their right. And, I can assure you that the reviewer is quite grateful for the explanations that have been posted by her fellow team members. This statement is based on a direct exchange between her and me. Since the reviewers only wish to provide an accurate record and to point the OP towards getting their cache published, I would say that we've been restrained in the amount of correspondence that's been disclosed. Little purpose is served by a line-by-line proof. But, as various aspects of the reviewer's work are called into question, it's appropriate to respond with the facts about what happened. As I said above, I applaud the improvements made in this direction. Line by line would make things much more simpler to understand for anyone involved. The OP involved the geocaching community in this by posting the question. Maybe they (the OP) should post the entire exchange? This would clarify everything involved. Will GS reviewers/mods do it? No. I wouldn't expect them to. Like I said - they have made vast improvements in recent times to defending themselves with facts, as opposed to "Because we said so". Lets keep moving in a forward direction with that and become as transparent as possible. This eliminates many arguments, since everything done by the reviewers is said to be in response to the guidelines.
  13. The notes left by the reviewer were quite personalized and contained no material that could be considered off topic. It's not appropriate to label something as a form letter with "unrelated stuff" if you have not even read the communications. I have. From Mtn-Man in post #14 "The reviewer simply quoted the guidelines, and then gave examples of what public officials might think of this type of placement if they were called out due to suspicious activity. The reviewer note is rational and informational and not condescending. " This sounds, and I could be wrong (as it seems you're saying), like letters I have received multiple times when trying to get caches published - and which the reviewers have admitted are form letters. Many of these covered a variety of possible issues, some of which were correct, some were unrelated, and some were clearly not correct, since they contradicted something in the cache description or prior reviewer notes. Since the original issue, as stated by reviewers who saw the conversation with the OP (and we have not, verbatim - just the summarized version by those reviewers - and no, I'm not asking to see it... that starts the whole "private conversation" argument), was permission, the extra stuff about the suspicious activity was not relevant in my opinion. And I could be wrong - you're saying I am. It's very difficult to have an informed discussion about anything when each side only gives part of the details - OP left out some important facts, and the reviewers coming in saying "That's not what was said... other things were said", but leaving out details as well. I have to admit, the reviewers have been much more forthcoming in details than in the past. That is a major improvement. Please try to keep moving in this direction. Transparency makes it MUCH simpler to defend decisions, with much morepositive outcomes.
  14. Granted, there was some stuff left out of the original post. However, I think that the extra information about terrorism and such should have been left out of the OP's reply. I have, for a long time, had problems with form letters from reviewers. They often send a letter which addresses several issues, some of which may apply to the hide, and some of which are totally unrelated. Instead of picking the nearest form letter which seems to come close to addressing the issues in a cache, it would be nice if the reviewers would take the time to read the submission (which I'm sure they do), and reply to the issues with a simple, personal email. Form letters cause more problems than they solve, as seen in this case. Instead of dealing with the issue the reviewer brought up, the OP had to deal with the rest of the unrelated stuff that was brought up in that letter.
  15. I actually have the email sent to my phone as a MMS message, so I get the entire email. I don't get coordinates, but I get the entire email publishing the cache, and it gives links to the cache that I can click on. I have an iPhone, so it works out well. I would like to see that also, if it can be added. Coordinates would be nice, but the site has consistently said its a bad idea because they want people to read the entire cache page. The links do pretty well for me.
  16. So I guess, someone should be putting one or more out on the East coast, or somewhere up near me. Why restrict all the fun to the people out West? (and before the people complaining about them get them banned for all of us).
  17. Without any additional information, it sounds like a thoroughly forgettable cache. Is it some sort of historical location? Is it really a location worth fighting over, or is it just your sense of entitlement to hide your cache where ever you want unless the Supreme Court says otherwise? Thank you for your judgment of my choice of what I consider to be a good cache. You're welcome to forget it, and I would ask that this thread be closed, since some suggestions have been made, and at this point, I'd rather not have to endure people violating the civility (and TOS) of the forums by insulting what I consider to be a cache worth having and insulting me personally by references to a "sense of entitlement" I do not have.
  18. Lack of maintenance shows lack of ownership? They certainly don't come plow the roads in the winter - so maybe I could sue them if I get into an accident on the public road, 100 feet from the active railroad track but clearly in the general vicinity of it, and win because it is their land and they're not maintaining it? I don't believe it is theirs. And it doesn't matter if it is. I have permission to drive my car across it. I have permission to be in that area, walking, biking or driving. I highly doubt there is any regulation for what activities are permitted in the grade crossing area except for stopping on the tracks or in between the gates or lights when the signals are active. (or interfering with a train, the tracks, or the signals). So placing a cache 70-80 feet from the tracks, and 50 feet from the signals, on the side of a public roadway, doesn't seem like any kind of violation of any trespassing laws of any kind related to the railroad.
  19. Perfectly stated. But it's not an accurate representation of what's going on. Debates about power trails have been taking place here for awhile, and there are some that keep on trotting out the "if you don't like them, don't do them argument". There have been many which have put down power trails and even lobbied to revert the guidelines back to how they read before they were changed (in 2009) and resulted in the proliferation of power trails. However, many of those doing so are not just claiming that power trails should be eliminated (or at least better regulated) based solely on the notion that they don't like them. The inability to filter them out of a PQ without misusing one of the attributes is just one of the arguments. BTW, the use of the scuba attribute would not have prevented hundreds of instant notification email messages being sent to everyone that live within close proximity of the power trail. But I digress. In other PT threads concerns about environmental damage and other issues which some feel degrade the game in general and have the potential for causing land managers to deny access to large portions of real estate that might, for now, be available to place a geocache. These concerns will exist whether or not someone likes power trails or not. The issues will exist even if someone chooses not to find caches on a power trail. It's not a matter of liking power trails or not. It's a matter of how one subset of geocachers playing the game is negatively impacting how others play the game. I honestly think this is mostly a lot of nonsense. If you don't want notification emails or texts (how I have them set up, I receive both), don't set the site to send them. Don't complain when you asked for them, and then get more than you asked for. I get them for a bigger area than I am likely to cache, but I still like seeing them. If I get a bunch in a short period and it bothers me, I shut my phone off or put it on silent for a short time until they are done. If they bother me enough, I'll remove the notifications entirely. Emails are filtered into a separate folder - if I get one, or a bunch, I see them there and check them out when I'm interested in doing so. If I don't want them, or they bother me, I disable that option. Misusing an attribute - well, there's a legitimate argument there. If it impacts the people who legitimately use that attribute, I see a problem, and a good reason to make another one. I do think using the scuba attribute in the middle of the desert seemed to not be likely to cause problems, but I do see where it could. GS should make another one. The issue about land managers has a little legitimacy, but a little education goes a long way. Not being allowed to put them in NPS lands has softened a little, and was a result of a misunderstanding, but that could have been corrected by pushing the right people in the right places, instead of banning them from the website - but, as you said, I digress, and debated this one in another thread. As for environmental impact - you said it yourself - this is a possibility with any cache. Most of these power trails are in the desert, and don't have a likelihood of doing much damage in the sand. When animals go through an area and leave a trail, people don't bat an eye. When we do, people throw fits. Unless people have forgotten, we are animals too - we have a HUGE impact on the environment. But we don't see people throwing fits every time we build a new building, or a new parking lot, etc. Well, maybe we see some people complain, but it doesn't change anything most of the time. Here, a small "Geotrail", which often looks like an animal trail, is treated as a horrible thing. As for people following rules - they don't do this on caches already sometimes. Whether it happens 1 or 800 times, its going to happen. It would be nice if it didn't, but it will. Could it possibly impact the game? Maybe - but the bomb scares probably have more of an impact than a little trail leading to a bunch of micros hidden in various places. Those make the news. Those stop people from wanting geocachers in their lands. Not a group of people finding a bunch of film cans. This subset of cachers, having an impact on the entire game, just isn't true. It took word of one "buried" cache to get NPS lands off the table - but how many places have been closed to us because of power trails? Evidence? Or slippery slope theories of what MIGHT happen. Let people play the way they want, and don't try to shut down types of caches or sets of caches YOU don't like or YOU think aren't good for the game. Maybe I should start lobbying against puzzles which are too hard - well, for me, anyway. Better not have them. No scuba caches either, because I can't do that. No caches which require climbing - I'm certified to do so, but don't feel like making the effort. No Multis - those don't follow the spirit of hiding a container and posting the correct coordinates online. No more earthcaches - that's a direct violation of the no virtual rule (why make an exception - that's not right - a rule is a rule). See where I'm going? Just because I don't like the way a cacher caches, makes his caches, finds caches, posts their logs, or does whatever he or she is going to do, shouldn't affect how I get to play the game. Please provide evidence of negative effects to the game of these power trails in the form of the denial of access to lands. I understand there may have been permission issues with the power towers in the one, but other than that, what lands have we lost access to? What geocachers have been thrown in jail, fined, or anything like that for power trails? Evidence, please - not "what might happen".
  20. And really, wouldn't it just be easier to find a different location? Of course - it's always easier to bow to people's requests not to do something somewhere, even when it's nothing more than someone having a problem with it (not a legal issue or anything like that). But the point of this game, or one of them, is the "location" aspect, and I want them to be close to this area to see something I hold near and dear. If I have to move it down the road (I found a spot 152' away from the track), I can - but that's not the point. If I recall, the location you picked out was really darn close to the active tracks. Did you ever do the leg work to prove that it wasn't in the ROW? Darn close was 80 feet down the road from the active tracks - probably back about where the third car would stop if the gates were down. It was at the end of a small parking area, well back from and not in any way associated with or to be confused with the tracks, down a drain grate (hanging tied to it). Public roadway. Not sure who I would ask for permission, except maybe the county. It certainly is not owned by or maintained by the railroad. As for right of way, no - I didn't. I certainly think that if the railroad owned the property that far back, they would be responsible for maintenance on the road there, the sides, cutting down brush, etc. They don't.
  21. Thanks - probably double what I paid for them before... Any other suggestions?
  22. I bought a couple of 10 packs of nano caches (the little black tiny ones) from ebay a while back - like maybe 20 years ago. I'd like to buy another couple packs, but can't find anyone selling more than one or two.. No 10 packs or larger quantities, and they're even really hard to find multiple sellers of 1-2 of the things. Does anyone know a good place to get them in larger quantities? (please, no discussion of how people hate them - I'm looking for help buying them, not a discourse on how bad some people think they are)
  23. I see it more as they are complaining that there's not a better way to find a cache they don't like. Goodie for you that you want to find every cache. Some people don't. Your solution seems to be to either find caches they don't want to or add them, all 800 of them to an ignore list, one at a time. You seem to be painting them as whiners while ignoring the actual logistical issues of caching around the footprint of an 800 cache power trail. If you choose to play the game, you choose to play with what is out there. Someone took the time (or a set of someone's) to put a series of caches out that some people want to find, and some people don't. There used to be over 100 micro caches around my area. I went and found most eventually, and some I never went to find. I can live with unfound caches on my map. I don't see why people have such a problem with it. Ignore them if you want. Find them if you want. Ask for a better way to filter them if you want. Don't put them down, or lobby for them to not be allowed, because you don't like them. That's all I'm saying.
  24. Have you ever put 800 to 1000 caches on your ignore list? Lazy, because we want tools to better enjoy geocaching, that does not require hours of tedious ignoring of geocaches? Nope - because I don't ignore caches. I actually attempt to go find them. Honestly, I don't think I've ever used the ignore function, because I believe that just about every cache is worth finding at some point. I know there are some that drive me up a wall, that I haven't been able to find, and some that I just don't think I'll ever have the time or resources to go find. However, I don't ignore them - they're part of the game. Better tools? Sure. Complaining that the caches are bad because you don't like them? Not good. I would love to have a PT like this around me - I would go after it on a weekend day in a heartbeat. I can't go to California in time to do this on a weekend until summer - and I hope they'll still be there then.
  25. Had you read the OP, you would have seen that the issue is that they pollute the PQs of everyone, not just those who like them. It is easy to do a PQ to filter out puzzles, for example, but not possible to filter out power trails. Thus the discussion. The easiest solution, and one that has been repeatedly requested, is the ability to ignore caches by a particular hider. I would say that the powertrails make this request more relevant and urgent than before. A friendly hint for the forums: it helps the discussion along if you take the time to read the first post in a thread so that you can understand exactly what is being discussed. I did read it, and I have no problem with having a power trail attribute, or some other way to filter out the ones people don't like. Or to filter them in for people that do like them. I support this idea. I have a problem with everyone complaining that they lower the quality of the game, shouldn't be allowed, should have an easy way to ignore ones you don't like, etc. If you don't like them, don't find them. There is an ignore list to get them out of the PQ and other lists. Use it. And thanks, M5, but I'm not exactly lazy. Argue all you want - it still comes down to people complaining they don't like a particular kind of cache, that it shouldn't be allowed, or should be banned, or you want an easy way to ignore ones you don't like. Honestly, it sounds to me like the people who want the easy way to ignore ones they don't like are the lazy ones - not those of us who like to have lots of different caches to find, easy or hard.
  • Create New...