Jump to content


+Charter Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by gpsfun

  1. For Rhode Island I would use this URL: http://www.geocaching.com/local/default.aspx?state_id=40 For other states, change the state_id number from 40 to the correct one for that state. They are in alphabetical order and I think there is a list somewhere, but you can just try larger and smaller numbers and make note of the states that interest you.
  2. The best case scenario in a community forum environment is for members of the community to answer the questions of others. As to this post, Pup Patrol offered this answer to the question posed by the OP: Two words previously forbidden and now generally allowed without promotional implication As to the immediate hijacking of the thread into a critique of Groundspeak asserting paranoia, Sol seaker answered with this: which includes one of the more profound statements in the topic - "It is important to keep a positive outlook in the forums, but in order to do that one must keep a positive outlook. You can't create positive with negative. It just doesn't work." There were numerous other positive comments and I beg forgiveness of those who made such posts that have not been referenced here. For brevity, I'll close with this post from thebruce0 which lists some forum behaviors that are best avoided: A good reference point With thanks to those whose helpful posts rose above the noise, this thread is being closed.
  3. With copious respect for my fellow moderator Keystone, I'm suggesting that in at least two of the three cases posting those discussions that were intended to be private would not be appropriate. Perhaps they can be discussed through email or a private topic. That was my point, to continue a private dialogue that was already underway rather than dragging it into this thread. I gave a thorough reply to J Grouchy quite recently via the private message thread that began with a "slap on the wrist" type of warning. I opened my reply by saying that I read his feedback "with great interest," which was true. I ended by saying "If you had any other specific concerns, I'd be happy to discuss them with you privately. Otherwise, please continue being a (usually) positive contributor to the forum community." There was no response to this invitation. Obviously I would not discuss the specifics of the issue which gave rise to the warning, but I did feel a need to defend myself against any implication that I was unresponsive to feedback. Well said, and I was unaware of the PM conversation.
  4. With copious respect for my fellow moderator Keystone, I'm suggesting that in at least two of the three cases posting those discussions that were intended to be private would not be appropriate. Perhaps they can be discussed through email or a private topic.
  5. Out on a limb or not, it is a reasonable question accompanied by a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking. One should not assume that moderators operate in a vaccuum nor should one assume that we can look into the future to assess the accumulated impact of a series of posts. We are not going to be drawn into woulda coulda shoulda conversations about moderating actions. We're not taking the bait so please move on to something helpful and productive.
  6. I am closing this thread - the OP has received a helpful response.
  7. I did not come here to be Trolled, yet to seek information. It's called having a sense of humor! Please understand that this response is not helpful and note that the target was not amused. We want people to come here to learn without the risk of being subjected to abuse.
  8. The primary issue that will be an obstacle for your idea is that the geocaching guidelines do not allow caches with an agenda or solicitation to be published. From the guidelines: "Geocaches do not solicit for any purpose. Cache listings perceived to be posted for religious, political, charitable or social agendas are not permitted. Geocaching is intended to be an enjoyable, family-friendly hobby, not a platform for an agenda." The quoted guideline text can be found here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#solicitation Permit me to help explain this. Certainly autism awareness is a program that is doing great work, worthy of both recognition and support. However, as you go down the list of organizations starting with those doing great work, and then those who are doing good work, and then those who are doing fair or so-so work, and on to those who are held in a negative light by nearly everyone, serious problems become obvious. The primary problem is where do you draw the line, and who draws it? This is what is known as a slippery slope issue; once you start on the slope, it is hard to avoid slipping beyond where you wanted to be. Therefore, the answer is that we do not step on the slope at all. I regret that you might find this unhelpful, and hopefully you can find other methods to bring awareness to autism. -Brad Geocaching volunteer reviewer
  9. Circling back to the first post in this thread, the objective was to raise awareness of a situation, an objective that has clearly been met. Maybe it's time for us to grab our go bags and get outside and find something.
  10. I've been around a while and have seen many geocaching organizations. My observation is that increasing the level of structure increases the level of drama in a directly proportional manner. The very loosely knit organizations (and communication mechanisms) have the least interpersonal conflict because the control oriented individuals can be easily ignored.
  11. Topic summary: Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton
  12. On the bolded part above, Briansnat, what might you have done if the the Utah state parks system insisted you archive the cache? I figure you would have to go along with their wish but, if they then submitted another cache in the same spot or general area,,, would you hestiate to publish it? Could you even deny publishment, if the cache met guidelines? Just curious.. Briansnat can certainly respond if he wants, but in general please refrain from requesting site volunteers to respond to hypothetical situations. Reality is tough enough to deal with.
  13. Before initiating a political firestorm, make sure the upside and downside are clearly understood. Winning a battle sometimes results in losing a war. Things can always get worse. Seriously.
  14. Caching in a park is at the pleasure of the organization or individual who has stewardship responsibility for it. Property stewards are not required to recognize generally accepted geocaching ethics or etiquette. In this case it seems they are placing a higher priority on their current project than on respecting previously granted permission. Permission can always be withdrawn. Unless you can go over the head of the property stewards, which is politically unlikely, it will be best to pick up your cache and find another place to hide it.
  15. I'm seeing a few schools in the area.
  16. Please pass the word to area cachers who may not have seen this. Thanks. -Brad Groundspeak Volunteer Reviewer
  17. A contributing issue is the reluctance on the part of many cachers to place a needs archived log on caches that are in bad shape and are clearly not being maintained. No one wants to hurt the feelings of a cache owner but ignoring poorly maintained caches results in the situation you have mentioned, and that others talk about. I'm not suggesting writing need archived logs on every cache that you cannot find or that has a damp log book. But if there are repeated needs maintenance logs on the cache page, someone needs to escalate the issue. A needs archived log brings it to a reviewer's attention. If it turns out that a needs archived log has been posted in error, the reviewer can sort that out. And if a cache is archived in error, the reviewer can correct that. There is the special case of caches belonging to cachers who have been deployed for service outside the country. Reviewers will usually cut them a break and members of the community will often step in to repair or replace a cache that is in need. I hope this is helpful.
  18. Could you please tell us how that misinformation was communicated? I'm a reviewer and have never received any such direction from Groundspeak. Thank you.
  19. I hope someone does take these over for you. BTW, Hannah's cache is GC40EPV. The other one (GC40EPN) is in Poland.
  20. The existence of a geonick search has already been mentioned. However, geocachers will sometimes place underscore characters or hyphens between words in a name, or the words may be strung together without spaces. Geonick searches are not case sensitive, thankfully. Here's one letterbox cache at Stone Mountain: Letterbox at Stone Mountain park GC3F5BT There has never been a letterbox cache with a name similar to Mystical Beast within 47.5 miles of Letterbox at Stone Mountain park listed on the geocaching.com web site. I have looked at both active and archived caches within the 47.5 mile radius (I have reviewer tools to do this) so the information given to you is not correct.
  21. It could be that the finds were uploaded to the geocaching web site as field notes instead of logs on the cache page. The concept is to allow users to upload basic information about the find through their smart phone application and allow them to access the field notes from a computer with a real keyboard to add details about the search and find, etc. When you are logged into your account on the geocaching site go here to see if there are any pending field notes associated with your account: http://www.geocaching.com/my/fieldnotes.aspx Good luck.
  22. I'm the volunteer reviewer for that area. There are several possibilities for something like that. It may be a cache that has been hidden but not yet submitted for publication. There are a couple of nearby Wherigo caches as well as a number of caches that have been archived, although that wouldn't seem to be the case with a new decon container unless a cache owner is planning to ask for their cache to be unarchived. If you come up with additional details please post here and I'll see if I can narrow it down for you. If you would rather, you can contact me by email through my profile. -Brad
  23. Not passing judgment either, but I had no idea that the shock waves from recently revealed events would extend all the way to geocaching. The ripples will continue for quite some time.
  24. The National Forests are not under SC DNR. They are under USDA and cachers speaking with their rangers have been told that they have no geocaching policy.
  25. So, what was the end result, can we or, can we not place caches in the Francis Marion Forest? Any definate answers from SCDNR?
  • Create New...