Team Bayberry

I had a lot of fun with them! Some had educational pages, some had easter eggs, some of the puzzles were nutty and some were genuine. Between my son and myself, we recognized (and explained to each other) the references to SF films, television, books, characters, and so on. The pages were nicely done, and many had us laughing out loud. Most of the logs referenced April Fools, but many tried (until resorting to cut & paste) to create interesting logs. I logged a NM on a cache set on a desert planet,saying that I didn't know how the log book got soaked, OK, so mine was far from the most clever log - I liked the one guy who "lost half my crew, but got the cache." People dropped TBs and coins - on other planets. (They never be stolen!) I'm amazed that anyone here would think that cachers logging these were being scammed - did we really believe that there were caches hidden on the Moon? Mars? Fictitious planets? In black holes? Caches that could only be found with the help of a time machine? "So Groundspeak are tacitly condoning armchair logging"? "Fake logs"? "Violate all sorts of caching regulations"? Really, people? All the whining about a game no one forced you to play... It may have been the world's largest multi-national participation in an April Fools joke. But apparently some people have never grown a sense of humor. Tsk. You mean, were you just reminded that there are no prizes being handed out? Shucks. You may need to re-read the quote you have in your signature: "If you're not having fun playing this game, you're doing it wrong." - Clan Riffster

How many of these have you NA'd?

I generally say that I dislike micros, because it's so easy to forget about that one great one, after you've located and logged so many lame ones. But I agree with The Rat - sometimes you do get one that makes you dope-slap yourself, and of course we all love those! LOL! I did give a fav point to a "lame" micro once. It was a bison tube hanging from a short piece of wire, in the top of a signpost. I "fav'd" it because the sign is a historical plaque that hardly anyone reads, and it is alongside of a nice horse farm, and there is plenty of room to park (you could park a couple of campers there, and still have room for a picnic table, and because it's the kind of hide that thrilled me when I was a newbie. It took me someplace that, although I frequently drive by, I wouldn't have really seenotherwise. And it made me laugh that thousands of people drive by every day, yet so few know it holds a secret. It's a cache I'd take a muggle newbie to. My current pet peeve is newbies who jump on COs for "not doing it right". especially newbies who've never hidden a cache.

Please do not make your comments directly to the State. Contact the people who are negotiating with the State. You can visit SJGeocaching.org, and make suggestions in the forums. Not sure what Central Jersey has going on as far as suggestions. (I had a witty and snide comment about the dubious value of making suggestions via another NJ caching club's site, but I think I'll just leave it up to the readers' imagination.)

Night caches were never allowed since state parks are closed at night. I bought fire tacks in 2004 and could never find a place for a night cache that was legal because in addition to state parks, WMAs and most county parks are also closed at night. Most other parks that don't close at night are places where walking around with a flashlight is sure to attract the police. NJ WMAs are closed from 9pm to 5 am. There are multiple night caches in South Jersey WMAs and they are reasonably accessible for nine moths of the year. There are several nightcaches in Wharton and Lebanon. I was told that Wharton was open 24 hours since there are plenty of campers there. Just before the ban I hid 3 night caches in Lebanon which used solar lighting and a few Halloween decorations, but I suppose they never will get published now. There's a difference between state parks and state forests. Parks are enclosed. Forests are not. No one could say that Wharton, or Lebanon, are "closed at night". That would require gates to block off all the county and local roads that run through. (Kind of like what was done at Fort Dix after 9/11.) Those public roads can't be blocked off, because all of us who use those roads to get places (including private property within the forest) would raise a the roof at the next freeholders' meetings. Right now, the superintendents of Wharton and Lebanon have asked SJGeocachers to please let them know when we hold a group hunt, so that they can let the Park Police know that we're a caravan for good, not evil.

No NJ boycott, please. The Parks & Forestry folks down in South Jersey are not involved in this bullying. If you want to boycott the specific locations that are involved, I won't argue, but please don't put the burden on our half of the state.

Impeach. </sarcasm font>

Wow. Just...wow. Is the situation in North Jersey really so different than the situation down here in South Jersey? We do work with our land managers. We've been doing that from the beginning. If a cache is seen as a problem, it will be removed. The land managers know how to contact South Jersey Geocachers. We've worked with them on clean-ups, on trail maintenance, and on geocaching demonstrations. Someone said that maybe caches should be removed after a set number of years, to attract people back to the "park" (We don't consider our forests to be "parks"... but that's just us.) In fact, caches often are removed by the CO after a few years, and replaced with new ones. New caches are also being introduced to places that they've not visited before. We've had land managers talk about which caches they especially like, and why. It's been win-win since the start of geocaching. "New Jersey Geocaching" ? Gosh, the whole state? It doesn't seem all that long ago that they fought us piney hicks about creating a state-wide caching club. That's why there isn't one - but there are 5 regional clubs... and they are only one of them. John Neale ought to stick to his own end of the state. There's never been a lot of respect for NNJC down here, and much, much less now.

One of my favorite swag item found is a smooth rock, painted pink, with the year and "geocaching" painted in different colors. I have no idea who made it, but it was fun to find - it meant that somebody had taken the time to paint, let it dry, paint a different color,let it dry, several times. Someone actually put some effort into making something different. I treasure it.

Your picture in your NA log doesn't mean anything. All the signs in that picture are clearly for the fenced inclosure. It doesn't sound like the cache is behind that fence. I will say, I bet the Reviewer is aware of any homeland security concerns. I would guess they do not come into play with this cache location. A while back I found a cache just outside a power substation. When I pulled into the gravel drive that lead to the gate, there was a police car there. (watching the traffic coming down the hill.) The cop pulled his car out a little to give me room to park, and then waved when I left. There were all kinds of no tresspassing signs on the fence and gate, just like in your picture. Clearly, there may have been a permission issue, but that doesn't seem to be your complaint. Power substations in the Mid-Atlantic region are not good cache locations. I've had similar discussions with friends on the west coast and midwest - what is seen as innocuous out there is seen as high-risk here. Proximity effect, I suppose. That kinda makes a difference. I'm sure you don't have earthquakes where people flee buildings (stand in doorways? No way!) and calm down only when assured that it was an earthquake, not a bomb. Or caches honoring local people who died on 9/11. Please excuse us for being just a little bit antsy. Our bad.

I dont know either. Here is another cache with a NA posted a few days ago without any action. The cache owner has only 2 finds. Perhaps it's an official or someone else testing the system. I'm guessing that the sign refers to a point beyond the "trail", but a quick look at the logs tells me I'll never bother with that cache. But... did you notice that one of the finders is a reviewer? Not the same one who published the cache.

Fool, I'm guessing that you've been to the site. I didn't even go to look at the area on the other side. Also, please note that my NA post is the secondon this cache. The first person who posted an NA got slammed for it. A third party asked me to go take a look. I found the cache (took a photo, since the CO seemed to think that the first NA was because of a DNF), but didn't log it because I refuse to log a find on a cache that should be archived(which makes me a rarity around here.) The CO had 52 finds when he hid this. It's a tube wrapped in snakeskin duct tape sitting at the base of a tree. This was his first hide. His second was already archived - by him - after one of his friends reported that it was in a field of poison ivy. (He apologized, saying he didn't know - because he'd placed the cache at night.) I haven't been there, but I have heard details about the site. The first time was the NA notification, and then someone mentioned it in another forum. They were questioning whether geocaching could be used as a cover for illegal activity. Since that spot seems to have no redeeming value, and there are 2 unused buildings nearby, someone could park there and be a lookout, while their buddy enters the buildings. Perhaps there could be scrap metal pipes, or copper wire to be sold, ect. If a cop shows up, they would just send them a text as a warning, while keeping the police occupied and explaining that they were there geocaching. All of those Off Your Rocker caches were mentioned, as Cracker Barrel keeps valuable items on their porches. I would say that 90% of cachers are honest, but since so many coins are going missing, there are questions about what level of theivery could be involved. It would really suck for an outside agency to impose new rules and regulations on the sport, but if valid concerns are ignored, that is inevitable unfortunately. We really should be proactive, rather than reactive. I'm actually more concerned about the reaction of South Jersey Gas to having cachers parked smack in front of their "Private Property sign. They'd be likely to call police. In fact, the police would definitely investigate if they spotted anyone nosing around the area. It's such an obvious problem that there are two NAs postes, and it's being discussed in forums, yet the reviewer refuses to archive it... WTF?

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience. I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem. But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria." So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle. Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log The hassle is not in the mechanics of the report. Rather, it's in being targeted by a batch of local newbie cachers as "a problem" (they're already hassling other cachers, especially one who failed to sign a couple of logbooks), and in the fact that I do want to continue to put caches out, and don't have a choice of reviewers. SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem? That cache is definitely on private property without permission. The "No Trespassing" sign on the road out front was installed by the DOT to prevent motorists from using the parking lot to circumvent the nearby traffic light. The "No Trespassing" sign on the fenced in pipe area is intended to address access to that area. So it appears that the land surrounding the gate is not specifically intended to keep people out. However, it is not open to the public either.. I have no idea why that was published, and no idea why it has not been archived. It would be sad for a cacher to be ignored, but for the police to have to call Groundspeak themselves to have it archived. Since the office is closed, and the building on the other side is boarded up, anyone parking there and acting oddly would attract their attention. I also have no idea why someone would want to hide a cache there, unless they wanted to break into either building.. Fool, I'm guessing that you've been to the site. I didn't even go to look at the area on the other side. Also, please note that my NA post is the secondon this cache. The first person who posted an NA got slammed for it. A third party asked me to go take a look. I found the cache (took a photo, since the CO seemed to think that the first NA was because of a DNF), but didn't log it because I refuse to log a find on a cache that should be archived(which makes me a rarity around here.) The CO had 52 finds when he hid this. It's a tube wrapped in snakeskin duct tape sitting at the base of a tree. This was his first hide. His second was already archived - by him - after one of his friends reported that it was in a field of poison ivy. (He apologized, saying he didn't know - because he'd placed the cache at night.)

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience. I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem. But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria." So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle. Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log The hassle is not in the mechanics of the report. Rather, it's in being targeted by a batch of local newbie cachers as "a problem" (they're already hassling other cachers, especially one who failed to sign a couple of logbooks), and in the fact that I do want to continue to put caches out, and don't have a choice of reviewers. SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem? If I truly thought that it was critical that the cache be removed I would write him a detailed email explaining why. I would stick to the facts and try not to tell him how to do his job. Beyond that, I would not pursue it further. Otherwise, I would just move on. You said that the cache was at a "natural gas gate station", did you mean a natural gas station gate? And what is a natural gas station? In our area we have a few which are set up for the public to fill their LNG powered vehicles. No different than a typical gasoline station. Are we talking about something different, and was that made clear to the reviewer? We have to keep things in perspective. Bridges can be a terrorist target, but that does not mean that all bridges are terrorist targets. This is where the reviewer's discretion, based on facts known to him, comes into play. the gate station is where natural gas (the stuff you cook and heat a house with) comes into an area in a large transmission pipeline, and where it's diverted into smaller pipelines with lower pressure. It's the gas company's version of an electrical power substation. You wouldn't want caches placed within 150 feet of either of them. I said as much to the reviewer in an email, and he responded that there was no danger to cachers, and anyway, other caches are dangerous, such as guardrail caches along highways. My email was intended to supplement the NA post on the cache page, which clearly points to "Homeland Security". I really don't want to keep going back and forth with this reviewer (don't know who he or she is), and the cacher in question WILL keep putting out caches like this, because he has a fan club urging him on. Take a look... GC3TV9C I have a photo there. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough in my email, but I kind of don't think that's the problem.

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience. I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem. But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria." So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle. Hassle? Really? It's an option on a pull down menu. Add in a line or two of text, and it's done. That's not hassle. Hassle is being questioned by property owners because somebody was too lazy/complacent to log an NA log on a cache that needs an NA log The hassle is not in the mechanics of the report. Rather, it's in being targeted by a batch of local newbie cachers as "a problem" (they're already hassling other cachers, especially one who failed to sign a couple of logbooks), and in the fact that I do want to continue to put caches out, and don't have a choice of reviewers. SO - what would you do when a reviewer failed to see the cache placement as a problem?

I understand that you are fairly new and don't want to make waves, but if you look at the part of your quote that I underlined, this is exactly what the cache owner is doing by insisting that the cache is okay. He led you into a bad situation, and he is willing to lead others as well. The typical response to such a situation is to post a Needs Archive log which alerts one of the area's reviewers. They can then communicate with the cache owner and figure out the best course of action. If you feel more comfortable doing this out of the public view, you can email the reviewer privately. Give them the cache GC# and explain your experience. I recently was asked by a friend (fairly new cacher) to go look at a cache (placed by a even newer newbie) that may or may not be on private property. It's in a copse of trees, definitely the property of the local office building owners. The question was raised because of two "Private Property" signs nearby. One sign also said "No Thru Traffic" (the property is on a busy corner.) This sign I ignored, since there was none on the other end of the driveway. But the 2nd was on a fence surrounding a natural gas gate station. Right in front of the gate is a gravel parking space. I just know that someone will call police when a cacher parks there. Bad enough that the building owner didn't give permission, and the CO refuses to understand that it IS private property. But the close placement of a cache to a prime terrorist target per Homeland Security - whether we agree or not - is a problem. But the reviewer said that the cache wasn't dangerous (?) and "However, it should be pointed out that the cache would not have been published had it not met the reviewing and publishing criteria." So I doubt that I'll post any more NAs. It's just not worth the hassle.

Agreed, not sure I would poke a sleeping bear just yet if how coldgears represented is fact. When doing so, realize it is the cache hider that created this issue, not the property owner or city council. Going in with that attitude and explaining that this cache hider is not representative of cachers in the area or caching in general will go a long way. OMG Please please do not suggest that random cachers go to Township Council. South Jersey Geocaching (sjgeocaching.org - membership is free) has a representative who has worked with various municipalities and PD's to introduce Geocaching. That volunteer knows what she is doing. The first two archive logs in the post that started this thread were MY caches. The problem there has nothing to do with private property issues. So far we have had a friendly relationship with Medford PD, despite several provocations by reckless cache owners, and despite nasty things having been said about MPD in logs on forums. Those of us who live in Medford would like to keep it that way. A while back there was an issue, and cachers who don't even live here were talking about marching in to a Council meeting to demand that the MPD be somehow stopped from interfering with geocachers. The issue at that time was a cacher who ignored the "day time only" warning on the cache page. Neighbors called police - police responded by having the cache removed. They work for the local taxpayers, not the geocaching community - they were right to do so. If Township Council felt that geocachers coming in from out of town were creating a problem, they could simply ban the game from township parks. So - please - don't tell people - even local cachers - to take matters into their own hands. We already have an organization equipped to work on this.

Back in 2004 I spotted panther tracks at GCAE22, in the Pine Barrens, in Shamong, Burlington County. The tracks showed it stalking, then pouncing and missing, then chasing a deer. I had no camera with me, and no way to record the tracks. Very few people I told about it believed me. Oh, well. Opinions don't change facts. They are here. Bears are down here in South Jersey, too.

Oh. Duh. Well, it wasn't there the last time I set up a cache page. Besides, it's too easy. How do they expect me to figure out an easy thing like that?

OK, where exactly do you put the line of HTML for the background? I know HTML -- I do the markup for several websites -- but I've never dropped any into someone else's page like this. I keep trying to add it in, but I get nada. I even uploaded the .jpg to the cache page and referenced it from there, but it's not working. SO what's the catch?

Camping With Dogs! May 18-20

Aw, c'mon, EC, don't give away the club's secrets! Oh, wait... you're just cozyin' up so's we kin lure 'em down here and feed 'em to Mister JD Leeds! (Think our Jello shots might be too potent for 'em? Ought we to make them from that stuff they sell in the liquor stores, instead of Gran's applejack?)

I'm in Burlington County now, the farest north I've ever lived. I only heard about this "border" a few years ago. When I was a kid, growing up below the imaginary extension of the Mason-Dixon Line, we occasionally debated just where the border might be. Asbury Park was definitely North Jersey (not "the Shore"), Long Beach Island, being overrun by summer people from NY, was ceded to North Jersey, and Toms River was possibly South Jersey, depending on who you talked to. (I think the closer you lived to it, the more you wanted it to be in South Jersey, because that pushed the border further north, away from your home.) SJGeocaching.org has chosen to include all of Ocean County in South Jersey, mostly I guess because it's too difficult to explain to people from Lakewood why they aren't in South Jersey. (Yes, Tommyboy, I mean you!) This is the first I've ever heard North Jerseyans make a distinction between "South Jersey" and "the Shore". Down here, we know that the shore is part of South Jersey. Although I heard a rumor that you all have a "Shore", too!

I can take it and either hide it myself or hand it off to another member of SJGeocachers. Where is it now? Where can we meet? Can you get to BCC in Pemberton? Bayberry

Bayberry and LittleRock will be there! (Stratman won't.) We look forward to it, and to grabbing at least some of those caches that we missed last time around.