FireRef

Thanks for all you do. Can't say I agree with it all the time, but definitely think you do a lot of work. So Thanks!

I like seeing long logs on mine. However, I don't expect them. I expect an online log when someone finds my cache. If they do TFTC, I know the cache is still there. Any chance people could come up with some really good topics for this set of forums? I mean, I remember when there were actual useful questions. Not people constantly complaining others aren't playing the game the way they want to play it, and so forth. Sorry - getting a little salty - I see the forums as useful in many cases, but lately all the topics have been about people not liking the way other people play. Get a power trail, someone complains instead of just not searching for them. Get a TFTC log, someone complains they don't like the way people logged their cache. Get a LPC, someone complains about it. Get a hard cache with a nice view, someone complains its too hard to get to or to find. Can we just be happy with the fact that people are putting out caches for us to find, find them, and have fun doing so, or not search for them if we don't like that type? And use the forums for useful information, not useless whining because everyone doesn't play the game the way "I" want them to? Seems pretty simple to me.

Caching in the gray area = potential drama. Power Caching in the gray area = potential drama x800. I look forward to the Inevitable Bad Thing that will result in banning of power trails. Unfortunately, the Inevitable Bad Thing may take out some other caches with it. As I understand it, this is a state road, not an interstate which has the restriction of not stopping without an emergency. State roads and US routes have no such restriction.

I really wish people would stop complaining about caches they don't like, or types of caches they don't like. If you don't like it, DON'T GO SEARCH FOR IT! I for one hope this lasts into the summer - I hope to be able to head out to that part of route 66, and get to do most of these. I drove 66 about 12 years ago (when gas was around $1 a gallon), and now have another reason to go back! If I didn't like them, I wouldn't complain - I just wouldn't take the time to go look for them. That's all.

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.

Ok, but obviously there was a lot more involved in that than simply placing a cache. Vandalism was also involved. Thanks for the links. Any other ones? I guess what I'm going for is how can you say it's unsafe to place a cache somewhere that it is perfectly safe to drive a car, park a car, or other similar things? The one I'm looking at placing is at the edge of a parking area, 80-100 feet away from the tracks themselves, but definitely not nearby them, and would come with many warnings that it has nothing to do with and isn't nearby the tracks.

I have a couple questions, and I am looking for documentation, not just opinion, on these things. 1) In terms of active railroad tracks, there was a comment posted on a cache that I placed near a railroad (not 150 feet away as suggested by the website, but clearly not near the tracks or crossing) along the side of a paved road. The comment was that it was against federal law to place geocaches near active railroad lines. When I looked online, under the Federal Railroad Administration website, I found nothing to this effect. As for my state, PA, the FRA website has the following document which states PA doesn't have any laws specific to railroads, beyond normal trespassing ones (which I am not in violation of by being down the road from the tracks). 2) It was also stated that "A Geocacher has been arrested, jailed, had to go to court and paid a large fine for placing a cache near an active railroad line. The local bomb squad destroyed his cache." (Skeetsurfer quote) Does anyone know the details of this? If trespassing was not involved, what law was broken? Again, I'm looking for documentation, not just "Not a good idea". Thanks.

I have a picture of two kids who were with me at the time when we found this - after climbing all over the dam! Where is this, by the way? I can't remember, but would like to go back there sometime. Austin Dam Memorial Park Austin, PA Thanks!

I have a picture of two kids who were with me at the time when we found this - after climbing all over the dam! Where is this, by the way? I can't remember, but would like to go back there sometime.

As I understand it, they claim complete ownership of the cache listing, as evidenced by the TOS which forbid us from doing whatever we want with that said listing, even as the actual owner of the cache. Unless I understand it wrong. I don't think there was ever any debate that they don't own the cache itself.

+1

From the Pennsylvania Driver's Manual: Chapter 4 - Driving Record Information PA Driver’s Manual - 79 - Remember, police lights can be red and blue, or could be red only on unmarked police vehicles. You may also see flashing white lights used in addition to these lights. If the vehicle is flashing only blue lights, then it is not a police officer. If you see flashing red and blue lights or flashing red lights only and you are still not certain the person pulling you over is actually a police officer, you may drive to the nearest well-lit, populated area, but acknowledge you understand the request to stop by turning on your flashers and driving at a reduced speed. You may ask the officer for identification, and should do so if the individual who has stopped you is not in uniform or has an unmarked vehicle. Most officers in unmarked vehicles are wearing police uniforms, and police officers always possess a photo ID card and a badge. Problem is that you are quoting a driver's handbook, not the actual law. From the PA Code: ***** § 42.21. Identification and uniform requirements. (a) Identification. Police officers using an unmarked police vehicle shall ensure they are carrying official identification, other than their uniform, to verify their identity, unless it would jeopardize the police officers’ safety due to their work assignment. Police officers shall be prepared to display their official identification upon request. Police officers shall honor these requests when the request is reasonable and the police officer’s safety has been ensured. If the police officer does not carry official identification, the police officer may not attempt to stop traffic law violators, unless there is immediate threat to public safety. ( Uniforms. Police officers assigned to use an unmarked police vehicle to perform patrol duties shall be attired in an official uniform. Police officers assigned other duties that are likely to include or require traffic stops shall wear an official uniform or alternative attire, such as a police raid jacket, that bears the name of a specific law enforcement agency or task force. ***** And, uniform ... ***** 42.3. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this chapter, have the following meanings, unless otherwise indicated: Light bar assembly—A device designed and constructed to display more than one steady burning, flashing or revolving beam of light with 360° visibility. Marked police vehicle—A police vehicle that is equipped with at least one light-bar assembly and displays graphics, markings or decals identifying the agency or department on a minimum of three sides (front, rear, left or right). Official identification—Identification issued, designated or approved by the individual law enforcement agency or municipality. Official uniform—Any attire designated or approved by the individual law enforcement agency or municipality. Unmarked police vehicle—A police vehicle not equipped with a roof mounted light-bar assembly. The vehicle may display graphics, markings or decals, identifying the agency or department. ----- Therefore, without some kind of uniform, a police officer should not be making, at least in PA, from making a vehicle stop unless there is an immediate threat to life and safety. News agencies promoted what I said earlier - drive to a well lit area (which I did not mention, but someone else did), or to the nearest police station (if you know where it is, obviously as mentioned by someone else, at a slow rate of speed, flashers are a nice idea), and call 911 to question this. Not all unmarked vehicles have official plates. In some states, police vehicles don't have plates. In PA, there are municipal and state plates, but there are some state police vehicles used in traffic enforcement, such as several high speed sports cars down near Pittsburgh that I am aware of, that have a normal PA plate on them. The always have a uniformed officer in them when they are used for speed enforcement. Also, unlike most states, PA uses blue lights for volunteer firemen - I have a set on my vehicle. Problem is, we have chiefs, safety officers, and fire police (mostly traffic direction and scene safety) captain and lieutenant that have red lights, so there are 6 people per department with red lights and sirens. Legally you have to get out of the way when these people (red/siren) are coming, but the blues are just a courtesy light. This means you can't file charges if people don't get out of your way, but it would be really nice - I always like to think "We might be going to save your house or your grandmother, so why would you want to stay in our way?" We can't make any kind of traffic stop, but we have had people with red lights that have before - and you get in a MASSIVE amount of trouble for this - it is basically treated as impersonating a police officer, but has a different name (official oppression). Common sense - if someone comes up behind you with lights or lights and a siren, get out of the way. If they stop behind you, and you are uncomfortable, I would say drive to someplace safe, while calling 911 on your phone to confirm that there is a legal vehicle stop in progress at your location. In our area, they are running your plate while pulling you over, so there is a record of it if it is a legal stop. Thanks to everyone who says "Completely disregard what FireRef is saying." Glad I don't know anything. You might want to say this to all of the TV stations who tell people this in my area every couple of years when the topic comes up.

I have always heard to remain in your vehicle when pulled over. Also, be willing to call 911 if they don't identify themselves. You may also be familiar with some law enforcement rules in your area. For example, in PA, it is illegal for a non-uniformed police officer to make a vehicle stop. If you are stopped by and then approached by someone who is not in some kind of identifiable uniform, I would suggest both driving to the nearest police station at that point, and calling 911 while on your way. Just my opinion. Also, as stated earlier, US Marshals do not enforce normal laws nor do they patrol. Be aware, however, that on tribal lands in the US, the equivalent of Sheriff is Marshall in many places. It may not be a US Marshall - it might be a Tribal Marshall, and they do carry authority.

I do agree with the OP - I have always taken pride in the fact that PA is a commonwealth. I was a Notary Public for 12 years, and my seal was from Erie County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Legally, it really doesn't make much of a difference. However, that is the proper name. I don't think anyone in here would like to just have someone call them by a common pronuncuation of their name instead of their given, correctly pronounced name, or spell their name in a common way instead of the correct way, if there was a difference. They chose back then to be commonwealths. We should respect that.

The most exceptional cache I have found has only been found by seven people, thus it can only gather seven votes. I put a cache out four years ago, it's been found twice. I'm sure if the two finders get into the "favorites" thing, they'll vote for it, but still, it can only get two votes. There are some drawbacks, but over all I like it. I would have liked to see it set at 5% however. That would make people be more selective in their distributions. Any consideration to have a finds vs favorites ratio? That might be useful.

Way too spread out - takes 3-4 times as long to read through a set of topics because you have to keep sliding down the page - needs to be more compact. Is this a setting we have some control over?

I have no problem working with anyone to achieve a goal. And I am not known for actually breaking rules - just questioning them. Loudly. I'm glad it seems some NPS managers are willing to work with us. I do want to mention, however, that as a kid, and as an adult, I never accepted (or now accept) "Because I said so.", and I don't use it. I refuse. We don't have a king or god in charge of us, under any circumstances I am aware of. I feel a reason should always be behind any decision, and random "Because that's the way I want it and I'm in charge and you have to live with it" is never a good reason for anything. If it's for my safety, explain that. If it's because it's illegal, say that. If it's simply because you don't want me to, not good enough. Some examples: Little kid wants to play in the street - they shouldn't, because it's unsafe - not because "I said you can't". I want to place a geocache on someone's private property, and they don't want me to, it's illegal because I don't have legal access to the property, not "Because I don't want you here." NPS doesn't want geocaches because they say so... because of a mistaken belief. No reason not to question and challenge them on it. Now, actually putting one out? That's violating a rule/law. But questioning that rule/law? Nothing wrong there. I would honestly love to see them try to ban virtual hides (should they ever "actually" come back), or waypoints on a multi-cache. There would be some serious enforcement problems with this one.

Seems this is against the guidelines. If the person found the cache, they aren't even required to log it online. Simply marking it as found, with nothing in the field, is perfectly legitimate, and the logs would likely get restored if they complained to Groundspeak. Can't say I agree with doing it, but I tend to write a story with my logs. But no one is required to do so. ALR's (except ones which are allowed by the site...) are gone. Now, about this bot thing. When has a bot been logging caches? I don't remember hearing anything about that.

Along with littering, there are plenty of NPS managers who believe that if they allow physical geocaches, there will be hordes of cachers showing up with shovels and pick-axes to either bury or dig up a cache. It's a tough perception to overcome and the onus is on us to overcome it. I would hope that cachers aren't looking at opencaching.com as a loophole to listing caches in National Parks. That would be a horrible idea and one that would go a long ways towards making sure physical caches will never be allowed in NPS lands. It's more important to get NPS managers to say yes to geocaching in general than to do an end around because a new site pops up. Actually, what I am hoping is that opencaching.com is looking at reviewers as not a necessary evil, but not necessary at all, and allow for caches to be placed in places where Reviewers typically have shied away from allowing caches.

I would consider this a perfect example of how over-the-top the guidelines/rules have become in terms of protecting... well, are we protecting the game, or someone's legal liability? And who is that someone? No concerns over there. And don't say our problem is because there are more geocaches than letterboxes... that's just not a valid argument.

I don't think there is anyone in here that doesn't understand their process. We just find it a bit backwards. I agree with the logic behind most of the GC guidelines, and most of the OC guidelines. Over here, many of the guideline violations get stopped before they get published, which I see as a good thing, as I believe a cache that is in violation of the guidelines has the potential to hurt this game. Over there, a cache that doesn't meet the guidelines gets published, and stays that way, until somebody reports it. The CCC thread has several examples of caches that violate the GC guidelines, slipping through the reviewer cracks, and getting gobs of found logs, with few mentioning that they might be problematic. This tells me that relying on peer pressure for guideline enforcement is ineffective at best. Or maybe that sometimes, the guidelines are wrong, and someone going ape over a cache which is a very good hide, because it doesn't meet someone's (or some website's) arbitrary idea of what constitutes a legitimate hide isn't a good thing.

Problem is, it isn't littering. You would have to define littering much more specifically for it to be considered such, since leaving a functional container with a purpose is much different from leaving something which is considered trash by the majority of people who would come across it. Candy wrapper? Trash. Empty pop bottle? Trash. Container with a specific purpose that people are coming to find, swap things into/out of, and return? Not trash. Not by any definition I can think of. As for considering them abandoned property, in no way are they abandoned - they are left with a purpose, and an intent (as evidenced by the guidelines of the website listing it, and your acknowledgment of the guidelines by checking the boxes in the listing pre-publication) to maintain, check on, and retrieve eventually. As for working within the system, I don't consider 2 approved caches, and a bunch of people who say "Nope" to be working within the system - it is bowing to a higher authority who thinks they know better how to manage lands which belong to us as taxpaying citizens. Honestly - I don't have a problem with the fact that they don't want them. I don't agree, but that is their decision. However, this website has a double standard - "The cache is yours and you are responsible for it and for making sure it is somewhere it is supposed to be, but we are going to not list ones we don't think meet the guidelines." That's a oxymoron - you can't say it's my responsibility, but then tell me you're enforcing rules that aren't yours because... well, because you seem to think it's your responsibility. Either take responsibility for the listings (which they won't - too much liability of course), or let us take responsibility for the listings (and stop not approving things you don't like, or don't meet your interpretation of some reasonably fuzzy guidelines in some cases). Don't say one thing and do another. Opencaching.com may be a more viable option in this situation - if there really are no reviewers checking listings before they're published, maybe we may see a shift in how listings are treated here, depending on how well their site works out. No idea now, but who knows. A different model may be better.

And request any and all account information of the cache owner. If you have ever been a Premium Member you left a nice paper trail for them. That would require a court order for them to release that information, unless the company has no respect for the privacy of their members. And considering the fact that most park services are low on cash to start with, wasting money going after people for doing things they don't like, which aren't a violation of any actual "law" in most cases, seems pretty unlikely to me. Threatening to go after people, and actually doing it, are two different things.

Will they prosecute you? If I leave garbage behind when I go through, will they find the pop bottle, and try to figure out whose it is, and then spend the money to have me arrested and drag me through court hearings to fine me for leaving that pop bottle behind? What if I leave a phone bill? Easier to figure out who it is, but will they go through the expense and trouble? What if I leave a geocache? And what if hundreds leave geocaches? When people decided they didn't like the FCC rules on CB radio, they bucked. They got radios and didn't get licenses. The FCC eventually realized it was a bad decision, and made one license for everyone, instead of prosecuting tens of thousands of people "illegally" using CB's. I'm not looking to stir up trouble - I'm looking for a common sense approach to this perceived problem. We don't want you playing your game here, so you can come in, you can look around, you can do everything anyone else can do, but you can't play your game, which isn't illegal except by our rules because we don't like it. And the website supports this. 2 containers hidden on NPS lands, as vast as they are? I've found more caches in a single Wal-Mart parking lot. Better quality? Probably not - but they're there. And they're being listed and being found and not destroying the game. I just don't understand how the website says it is your responsibility to obtain adequate permission, yet they choose not to list some because they don't feel you have it, while others they list simply assuming you have it. The standard double standard as far as I am concerned.

Honestly, I don't see a problem with a lack of reviewing. It means caches will truely be the responsibility of the owner - not the website overseeing them, telling them what they can and can't do, and restricting placements based on their own personal guidelines (the website). Not saying the site is good so far - lots of bugs. But not having big brother telling you what you can do may open up a lot more possibilities. And competition is good - in anything. If they take off, and do a good job, maybe Groundspeak will consider some of the things that they have not allowed, or looked down on, or restricted - to change to make the site better and more competitive. GC.com is good - its the best we have out there. A good source of competition can only make it better.