Sioneva

I nominate Vinny for his off-the-wall, out of nowhere crazy posts that never fail to enliven a discussion. Not to mention all those Psycho caches that I wouldn't in a million years have the nerve to do... but I sure like reading the logs!

But at least they aren't doing throw-down caches from 20,000 feet!

I was disappointed to see that one shut down. I was hoping to see the OP's concerns addressed; it seems he had a legitimate issue. Hopefully he'll come back and tell us how it all worked out.

I disagree.. Because even after being informed about the guidelines, they continue to rant. They simply feel entitled, regardless of what the guidelines say... I'm honestly quite sick of the whole thing. My new response to these folks will be "Please read the guidelines and if you disagree with them, you are welcome to find your cache listings elsewhere" Careful, there. You, too, might be labelled as rude and dismissive. Some people just do not want to take 'no' for an answer. This isn't necessarily a bad trait! But it doesn't look like arguing this is going to change anything.

I think you're right... The summary should help with that, but...

Postscript to the footnote: Like I told you before I deleted your logs, Vinny, it doesn't count as a find if you claim you never saw the cache, create a replacement cache and sign the logbook, then throw it out the window from 20,000 feet. Though it did move me to petition Groundspeak for a new attrib - "Danger: Falling bison tubes!" Personally, and back on topic... no signature in the logbook = no online log, in my book. That's how I play the game; I would keep deleting their logs.

I'm following this topic with great interest and concern. I know the reviewers in my area would never impose these sort of restrictions, which is just as well, or I'd have to archive some of my caches. I don't know if posting in the forums will help much, either, though. I'd be really frustrated, too! Have you tried to email appeals@geocaching.com, or did I miss that in my skimming?

It's certainly affected me... I used to take impromptu weekend trips to try to finish the local DeLorme/County Challenges - those have pretty much stopped now. I tend to stick within a 10 mile radius now, as much as I can. Debating whether I should go to an event 75 miles away tomorrow or not... but I probably will, I'm going stir-crazy! I need to buy a bike.

This is my rude, dismissive agreement with Write Shop Robert. I agree. I would do the same thing, re: deleting logs.

<snip> On a side note, perhaps, rather than to reply like this it might be more productive to reply something like this... Please don't tell me how I should reply to posts. And I will continue to extend you that courtesy as well. Thank you.

I usually cache alone... and I rarely cache at night. And NEVER alone, unless it's to a micro in a city park. The possibility of situations like this would be a good reason why. I'm just glad you were able to protect yourself and your girlfriend!

Thanks I will check out those areas especially Red Rock Canyon, don't they have concerts there? I have a 100oz (about 3 quarts) Camelbak I carry and if it looks like I get the chance to stay out longer I will take extra water with me. In the abandoned mine country do you go into the mines? Not sure if I like that or not once you got inside the GPS stops working doesn't it? I used to go in caves/mines when I was a kid but not so sure about it any more, I have got a lot safer the older I get and realize I can not get out of things I used to be able to. You can go into some of the mines there - some are really abandoned, 'enter at your own risk' types, some have guided mine tours... the caches I found down in that area were not IN the mines themselves, but the rock in that area is really sharp and rough, like super-grade sandpaper. I can almost gurantee that you won't come out of there with all the skin you took in... LVHiker's caches are always worth visiting; if you like really tough, out of the way caches, go for any ic_nevadamike cache.

Yes. We gathered that.

I don't know. I've never been in your circumstances. Well, if I'd built a lot of software based around this thing, yes, I'd probably be upset. Sorry, but it seems to me that you were just inviting trouble, and it finally caught up with you. You've been caching for 2 years, about the same amount of time I have been, and you never ran into this before? That is what seems oddest to me, not someone deleting multiple find logs on the same cache.

Well, can't you let this go, then? Looks like you did say something, after all.

I think you'll be waiting a long time. That wouldn't be a cache I would go after, personally. I would. But you would certainly have puritans who would say this is a multi-cache and would only log it one time (either after they found all 12 locations or after they find the first one depending on how they interpret the requirements for logging a find). One effect of the way the system currently works it that puritans (those who believe only 1 find per GC number) are able to play their way no matter what rules a cache owner makes. It's difficult to come up with some way to force someone to log a find they don't think they deserve to log. Why does everyone make 'Puritan' sound like a bad word? Anyway, back on topic, you're right. I don't claim to be a Puritan, but it does sound either like 1 multi-cache, or 12 separate caches that should have 12 separate GC listings. I see where the OP is coming from, I just don't agree.

I'd suggest Red Rock Canyon (just outside Vegas) or the Valley of Fire (maybe an hour away?). Also, if you drive south, you get into abandoned mine country, which is incredible. Just pack plenty of water!

I think you'll be waiting a long time. That wouldn't be a cache I would go after, personally.

Dude, it's a CITO event, not a cookout. I don't think they'd be eating, from the listing, and I doubt they'd be charged to pick up trash. And you really should lay off the "!" and try using "." instead, maybe? Calm down... (Edited to note, off the subject, that !all means 'not all', in programmer-speak. Which isn't what I think you meant.)

Actually, I think the word you are looking for is 'idots'. And I think the reason the world sucks is called 'gravity'. Which dictionary.com defines as: the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth. I don't see anything about money in there, but I'll keep looking.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you. I never thought in terms of physical finds vs unique finds, they should be one and the same. Anyway, it seems that you are in the minority, judging from the posts on this forum board, which only a fraction of cachers go to. Even if that wasn't the case, the cache owner has the final say in what logs stay on his cache page and what ones don't. Nothing done or said here by anyone will change that simple, impossible-to-get-around fact. Arguing the merits of multiple logging of single caches - we could do that all year, and not change a thing. Maybe just dropping it and saving fingers wear and tear would be a good idea?

May. Emerald Isle, NC. (Florida was too expensive and too far away.)

Not again.

Well, I've hidden caches up in trees, in rock fields with uncertain footing, and on steep slopes. What was I thinking when I placed these caches, you're wondering? I was thinking, "This is a nice spot for a cache, and hopefully, it'll be a good challenge." I issue the 'warnings', as you put it, so that people who don't like those kind of caches know what they are getting into when they go looking. After that - well, it's their responsibility, not mine. You did the right thing, you passed on the cache; but that doesn't mean others wouldn't like it, and that it doesn't have a right to exist. I was literally out on a limb today, high in a tree going after a cache. I'm scared to death of heights, so it took a lot of willpower to get up there. Did I enjoy it? Sure did! Was I really proud of myself after? You better believe it! I like to think that's what hiders are thinking about when they place 'hazardous', ie, challenging, caches.

I agree... smile and move on. A cute little icon on a page isn't worth get annoyed over.