greywolf1242

Thanks!

I have GSAK installed, but haven't used it at all with benchmarks. Guess I'll have to work with it to see what I can come up with. Thanks

What happened to the Benchmark link on the left side of the main page?

I'm taking a trip fairly soon and want to find a number of benchmarks along the route I'm taking. Is there any way to download the coordinates for the benchmarks I want to find, other than entering each one manually into the GPSr? Am I missing something, or is there a way to 'bookmark' a number of benchmarks and then do a query? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks greywolf1242

You'll be able to drive to each one, you'll just have to look to find it. There are roads throughout the area, just not all are passable by low-clearance passenger cars.

I propose you support the cause with the larger containers. Seems most, not all, responsed are from those who have very few, if any hides of their own so have no clue about the expense of maintaining caches, must less the cost of supplying 'larger' containers. Over 13,000 caches found and not one hide? And I should take your advice, why? Speak from experience and I just might change my views. However, the 'rules' of geocaching states "SIGN" the log. Try signing a check with a sticker and see how that floats.

They can sign a group name if they can use one on a sticker.

The power trail I have in mind isn't readily accesible to your average family sedan and the caches won't be all that easy to find; i.e., no rocks piled alongside delineators and such. You will actually have to get out to look for the cache, so not your standard 'power trail'; not, I'm sure, that it would make any difference to the proponents of using stamps and stickers.

This is for the reviewers out there. I'm in the process of developing a 'power trail' and realize you can't put stipulations for logging a find; i.e., no photos can be required, dressing up in some costume, etc. However, I've read the forums enough to know that a great many people believe it is perfectly fine to use rubber stamps and stickers (labels) to mark their presence at a cache site. Sicne the majority of 'power trail' caches are of the micro variety, that usually means a somewhat limited logging space and rubber stamps and stickers can take up as much as four or five signature lines; resulting, of course, in more frequent maintenance to replace logs. According to the Groundspeak guidelines: Easy Steps to Geocaching 1. Register for a free Basic Membership. 2. Click "Hide & Seek a Cache." 3. Enter your postal code and click "search." 4. Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name. 5. Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device. 6. Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache. 7. Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location. 8. Share your geocaching stories and photos online. It would seem to me that a CO should be able to require 'signing' the log and the option of deleting any log that uses a rubber stamp or sticker or otherwise abuses the logging space provided. If the CO(s) can take the time, expense and energy to put caches out for others to find it would seem to me that those finding those caches should have the respect to sign the log in a reasonable manner. So, can a CO put a requirement that the log be signed or initialed with the option of deleting any logs that don't adhere to the requrirement w/o incuring the wrath of those in power?

In terms of being the FTF since the benchmark was last recovered by an official agency, I would have to say 5-29-07 was my best day spent in the desert of Southern Idaho looking for benchmarks. I recovered 33 benchmarks, a couple of caches, got lots of pictures of an approaching storm (which cut my trip short), and nearly stepped on a beautiful buzztail in the area of the first benchmark I searched for. The area I was searching in is the Minnidoka/Arco Highway; not really a highway, just a track road through the desert that gets worse the farther north toward Arco that you go. I was driving my trusty '90 Dodge Geovan when I really should have been in something with a little more clearance. The benchmarks found were: OY0607 - OY0618, NU1680, NU1333, NU0818 - NU0830, NU0832 - NU0836, and NU1684. The couple who followed me out there a couple of years later got FTF on the ones past where I turned around, but I plan on going back to find those also; to make the series complete, of course. I got into looking for benchmarks because of a scarcity of caches in the area where I lived at the time and benchmark hunting gave me an excuse to get out. I also started a series of caches near some of the benchmarks I found called Benchmark It XX. To date, there have been 38 caches placed in the Benchmark It series; not all by me, but more will be added soon. Of course, I'm looking forward to many more 'best days' while benchmarking because of some of the great places the search takes you to.

I found the first of over 400 BMs on 2-24-06, the same month I started caching. I had run out of caches to find in the very local area when I discovered the Benchmarking feature on geocaching.com. I got hooked on caching pretty quick and didn't care what size the cache might be, so making searches for benchmarks became a natural part of caching for me. After finding quite a few and getting up the courage to try placing my own caches I started a Benchmark It series of caches with a cache placed in the vicinity of where I was finding some of the benchmarks. I also found a lot of benchmarks that were not listed. That's when I discovered Waymarking and started listing those benchmarks on that site. I kind of dropped out of doing the benchmarks for awhile, but have now complied a huge list of benchmarks I intend to search for when the weather is more conducive to traveling desert track roads. I've had 80+ benchmarks I searched for that I either didn't find and left notes on, or were obviously destroyed. Unfortunately, I did report three or four as destroyed; before I found out on here that they are a little harder to pull up once they have been listed as destroyed. I enjoy finding benchmarks wherever they might be, but really enjoy the more remote ones that have not likely been found since they were monumented.

See, that is quite nice....a good mix of caches. It makes things interesting. If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity... What you say here, or what you said about your opinion on micros has NOTHING to do with why the reviewer would reject these hides. You are simply stating your own preferences, and that has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. Quite true, and I apologize. On topic, I really don't know why the reviewer hasn't allowed them. My only guesses are concerns about the environment, maintenance, etc. Apology accepted. BTW, you can be just as 'creative' hiding a micro as you can an ammo can. That being said.... I did a little research on caches hidden in the Gooding Little City of Rocks. As of today, there are 30 caches that I could determine were within the boundaries of the area in question, counting three that my cousin placed that are unpublished at this time. Twenty of those belong to me, ten belong to others, a few of those belonging to my cousin. The oldest cache hidden: Monolitic Metropolis GCA5EZ, hidden Nov 8, 2002, an ammo can-sized cache. Along the main canyon. Visits: 2002 – 8 2003 – 11 2004 – 6 2005 – 5 2006 – 10 2007 – 3 2008 – 3 Humpty Dumpty GCXJEH, ammo can, within 20 yards of parking area, hidden Aug 6, 2006. Visits: 2006 – 12 2007 – 14 2008 – 4 Ridge Rock GCYPPC, small, hidden Oct 6, 2006, requires an uphill hike. Visits: 2006 – 1 2007 – 4 2008 – 3 AETOYS GC11GMD, ammo can, hidden Mar 17.2007, requires a short hike. Visits: 2007 – 7 2008 – 4 ETD: East Fork Overlook GC12ED7, ammo can-sized cache, hidden Apr 25, 2007, requires hike of less than 1 mile. Visits: 2007 – 1 2008 – 2 ETD: LCR Table Rock GC14GJD, micro, hidden July 20, 2007, requires short hike from high-clearance vehicle road, or approx. .9 mile hike from nearest parking. Visits: 2007 – 4 2008 – 1 Al’s Cache GC15M98, ammo can, hidden Sept 2, 2007, reqires a hike of less than .3 mi., mostly uphill. Visits: 2007 – 2 2008 – 4 ETD: In Memory of Rawhide GC1BFW7, micro, hidden Apr 21, 2008, requires short hike. Visits: 2008 – 4 Little City of Rocks GC1CX4Z, micro, hidden June 2, 2008, can drive right up to this one. Visits: 2008 – 3 Other than the caches hidden by myself or my cousin, none of the caches belongs to a person living in the local area (within 20 miles). The most recent cache placed by anyone other than myself or my cousin was Rapunzel Don’t Look Down GC11D80, hidden on Mar 11, 2007. This is an ammo can cache and has had a total of 11 logs; 8 in 2007 and 3 so far this year. The Gooding Little City of Rocks is a very rugged area with steep canyons and giant rocks scattered everywhere and a few blind canyons. Unless a cache is hidden low along the main canyon, most caches would warrant a terrain difficulty of at least 3.5, and a 4 in most cases. This kind of discourages any but the most serious cachers from exploring this magnificent area. The cachers who seek caches in this area do so as much for what they are shown as for any cache they may find. It is not unusual for a cacher to have just a few caches on their agenda when coming to this area because of its ruggedness. No off-road vehicles are permitted because it is a Wilderness Study Area, so nearly all the caches placed in this area have to be found on foot and require more than a few minutes walk to reach most of them. I practice CITO every time I come to this area and check on other people’s caches as well as my own; primarily for too much foot traffic, so I can either move one of my caches or notify the owner of the cache in question that they may need to move theirs. Perhaps this is why I have such a good relationship with the BLM manager over this area and why he doesn’t see a problem with any of the caches I have placed here. Here is a complete list of all caches presently located in the Gooding Little City of Rocks; including three that have yet to be approved: Little City of Rocks GC1CX4Z ETD: LCR Table Rock GC14GJD Native American Shelter GC1D9ZZ A Place to Rest Too GC1B220 What A Hike! GC1B224 AETOYS GC11GMD Up On Top – QB GC1DR94 Monolithic Visit GCZ3XD Al’s Cache GC15M98 ETD: On the Rim GC1B5G0 ETD: In Memory of Rawhide GC1BFW7 ETD: Short Rest, On Top GC1B5GC Humpty Dumpty! GCXJEH ETD: East Fork Overlook GC12ED7 ETD: Pit Stop GC1B5GR Head of the Canyon GC1D2NT Monolithic Metropolis GCA5E2 ETD: Canyon Overlook GC1B6MD Ridge Rock GCYPPC Rapunzel Don’t Look Down GC11D80 ETD: A Seat in the Wind GCBFVJ ETD: LCR NE Rim GC1BGRB ETD: LCR East Fork GC14MM0 ETD: End of the Fence GC1B4C5 ETD: LCR 1 Mile GC14MKR ETD: End of My Trail GC1B4BV ETD: High Road 1BC8Z Primitive Camp – QB GC1E1E0 A Place in the Sun – QB GC1E1E3 In the Eye of the Storm – QB GC1E1E7

See, that is quite nice....a good mix of caches. It makes things interesting. If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity... "If most or all the caches are micros it tends to show a lack of creativity..." Let's see if I understand this statement in the context if was made. You equate the size of a cache to mean it is either 'creative' or shows a lack of 'creativity'; am i correct in reading that statement as how you meant it? Would that mean that of the 15 caches you have put out, seven of them would not be 'creative' because they were either 'small' or 'micro' caches? I had over 250 caches placed, prior to this problem, but have since archived some of them. And, NO, they are not all in the same area. A little research would show you that. It would also show you that I do have other than 'micro' caches hidden in the area in question. As far as 'creativity' goes; that should be determined more by where the cache is placed (location, location, location), the way it is hidden, and in some cases, the container in which it is hidden, regardless of size. If you are, however, more interested it trading dollar store items, it is easy enough to determine before you go afield which caches you don't even want to attempt to find because of their size.

"And so I assume there are 31 very unique locations to which you need to bring me that warrant such a proliferation of caches?" There are actually hundreds of unique locations within this area. "Oh ... since it's a park, I assume you have the permission of the land manager to place all the caches there, correct?" Would you like his name and phone number? He is with the BLM and is the manager over the area in question. I ran the caches by him and he saw no problem with their placement. " "a) find somewhere else to bring cachers to (I can't imagine you have only one park nearby) If you would pull up all the caches I have published, you would see this isn't the only area where I place caches. "d) consider that quality not quantity is better" A review of the logs for most of my caches in this area would show you that most of the people who find my caches believe they are quality caches, even though most of them are micros. Of course, not every one leaaves comments, just a TFTH. Hard to say what they thought of the caches they found.

It really doesn't have a 'park' designation. It is treated as such by many people, but truly not a park. It is managed by the BLM and I have an excellent rapport with the manager of this particular area and have received his blessings for the caches I had out. But, the other park is only a little over 100 miles from this area and has the same reviewers as this area. I do know that reviewers read the formus also and was hoping I might get a response from one of them. And, no, don't believe the caches in question could be considered a 'power trail'. Many of the caches that were not published are more than .20 miles apart from other caches in the area and some were in totally different parts of this beautiful spot. Just hoping to get some kind of definitive answer on what constitutes oversaturation in any given area.

A while back I had a number of caches placed on hold by a certain reviewer. The situation was never resolved and I have yet to hear from the reviewer or Groundspeak in weeks. It was suggested, on here, that perhaps I oversaturated the area since 80% of the caches in that specific area are mine. Then I read on another forum where one person as 16 caches in a State Park that is only 545 acres in size. I have no idea how many other caches may be hidden in that park. The area where I had my caches placed on hold is 2400 acres + and I had 18 caches in that area prior to having additional caches place on hold and subsquently not published, which would have brought the total caches hidden by me to 31....in a 2400 + acre area. This area in question, BTW, is very rugged with no road access into the majority of the area. My question is: If 16 caches hidden in a 545 acre State Park by one person is not considered oversaturation, why would 31 caches hidden in a 2400 + acre area be considered oversaturation? I guess I'm a little confused on how these determinations are made...if they are being made impartially. greywolf1242

Sounds to me like the OP has requested the thread be closed. As usual, Chimp, you read into something you want to read, not what it says. You are aptly named.

In the first place, I'm paid up until July 20, so I guess I have as much right to post as you do. You also have the option of not reading this thread. If you took the time to check all of my cache placements, you would see they are not at my doorstep...ooops, with the exception of one that is on my property. If you don't think the 'agenda' was ever specified, then you only read what you wanted to read. I made it perfectly clear in my e-mail of 5-19-08 to MTFellwalker that I was willing to pull whatever caches he deemed necessary to pull in order to get the rest of the caches posted, and I have yet to get a response from him or Groundspeak...that is the agenda! How much time does it take to reply to an e-mail or a ticket? Especially when I've expressed a willingness to pull whatever cahes needed to be pulled to get the remaining ones posted. Someone definitely has an agenda besides me when they can't make the common courtesy of replying to an e-mail. And, for your information, one way to end this thread is for no one to make any further responses. Because, I will respond when I feel like it until July 20, if it goes on that long, or until I'm bounced. I have just as much right to reply as you do to post.

Apparently this entire thread has been much ado about nothing. I noticed you conviently left out my response to MTFellwalker, i.e. "Whatever your decision, Im obvioulsy at the mercy of the powers that be and will pull the caches you belive to be too close to others, or whatever needs to be done to get the rest of my caches released; especially Tribute to Quietbreezes (GC1C9HK), who is a dear friend and fellow geocacher. You also failed to give a reasonable explanation why MTFellwalker might be holding a cache that wasn't even in the vicinity of the 'saturated' area. However, I didn't receive an explanation from MTFellwalker on that one either, so I can excuse you skipping over that issue too. And I certainly believe that 36 days is more than ample time for someone to respond to an e-mail; especially one that gives an easy out/resolution to the 'problem'; namely, that I was willing to pull whatever caches needed to be pulled in order to get some of the others approved. Let the same situation happen to you and then tell me it is 'much ado about nothing'. Of course, you would need to have more than 16 caches hidden to run into that kind of problem, unless you put them all in your local park.

I reckon. He ought to sit on that idea for a few more days, reconsider, thank everyone for the enlightening and entertaining discussions, and move the new cache to some new locale. Most folks have short memories, and this whole thread will be forgotten once a new hot thread develops. If he made a cheerful public recanting, I doubt anyone would remember this happened at all in a few months. Cachers can be very understanding folks. Given the opportunity, they would probably publicly rejoice that the crisis was averted. It would also help him avoid having to drive around and pick up dead containers from 250 locations, even if they are in close proximity to one another. A cheerful public recanting? What am I supposed to recant?

Not facts? Distorted??? Did you read my post? This is information right from *your* cache pages... How about bringing some facts to the table yourself? I'll let the correspondence speak for itself. Unfortunately, I don't have copies of the tickets to Groundspeak because they don't provide you with same when you submit a ticket. But, here is the correspondence from beginning to end. 5-1-08 -- Copy of email sent to MT Fellwalker -- After making an inquiry about several submissions I've made, I discovered the right person to write to. I made the following submissions several days ago and have received no word on why they haven't been published: ETD: Hikers Challenge N43 07.087 W114 41.753 4-26-08 ETD: Just Off the Road N43 06.823 W114 42.171 4-28-08 ETD: LCR-Hunters Camp N43 06.868 W114 41.567 4-26-08 ETD: Near the Top – LCR N43 08.130 W114 41.637 4-25-08 ETD: Rock Island – LCR N43 08.440 W114 41.764 4-25-08 ETD: Rockchuck Ambush N43 06.702 W114 40.911 4-26-08 ETD: Rocky Point View N43 07.045 W114 42.153 4-28-08 ETD: Shelter From the Wind N43 08.272 W114 41.634 4-25-08 ETD: View N43 07.006 W114 41.576 4-26-08 ETD: Which Way? N43 08.509 W114 41.573 4-25-08 ETD: Sit a Spell N43 06.901 W114 42.672 5-02-08 ETD: In the Eye N43 07.058 W114 42.519 5-02-08 ETD: Top of the Draw N43 07.514 W114 41.413 5-03-08 ETD: Overlooking the Bend N43 09.104 W114 39.439 5-08-08 (Caches in bold, the cooridnates and dates were not included in this e-mail.) I have a very good relationship with the BLM in Shoshone, ID and have discussed with them the subject of saturation in any given area. They assured me they don't have a problem with the number of caches placed anywhere as long as it isn't detrimental to the environment; especially around caves known to house bats. Pulling up each of the above mentioned caches on GoogleEarth would show a terrain that is not very conducive to heavy visitation by cachers or anyone else. Most of these caches would be lucky to get 10 visitors in a year and all fall within the guidelines of being at least .10 mile from any other cache; unless, of course, I missed putting a cache in my unit before placing these caches. If there is a problem with any of these caches I would appreciate hearing about the problem so I know what the problem is and can do something to correct it. (Original was not in bold.) I do realize this is a busy time of the year for reviewers as people are starting to get back into the great outdoors and feel the urge to place caches; so, this is not a criticisim of expediency in getting my caches approved. Thanks for your attention, greywolf1242 5-12-08 Dennis Frisby, Your ticket has been received, one of the staff members will review it and reply accordingly. Listed below are details of this ticket, Please make sure the Ticket ID remains in the subject at all times. Ticket ID: SRX-329586 Subject: NEW-968722 Department: Geocaching Priority: High Status: Open You can check the status or reply to this ticket online at: http://support.Groundspeak.com/Support/ind...ticketid=211847 Please do let us know if we can assist you any further, Groundspeak, Inc. (The link to check the status never did work on any of the tickets submitted.) 5-15-08 Dennis Frisby, Your ticket has been received, one of the staff members will review it and reply accordingly. Listed below are details of this ticket, Please make sure the Ticket ID remains in the subject at all times. Ticket ID: DXT-903964 Subject: NEW-968722 Department: Geocaching Priority: High Status: Open You can check the status or reply to this ticket online at: http://support.Groundspeak.com/Support/ind...ticketid=212819 Please do let us know if we can assist you any further, Groundspeak, Inc. 5-18-08 On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 8:26 AM, Geocaching <noreply@geocaching.com> wrote: > After making an inquiry about several submissions I've made, I discovered the right person to write to. I made the following submissions several days ago and have received no word on why they haven't been published: I'm rather at a loss as to how to proceed here. You and I have had e-mail discussions in the past regarding the saturation guidelines and the problems that come from 'bombing' an area with numerous caches all within a short time. I thought you understood the portion of the guidelines that ask you to not go 'cache crazy' when you hide your containers, even if you personally don't agree with that part of the section on saturation. But with the start of Spring you began placing numerous caches all within a very short distance from one another. Ice and Wind listed the first bunch, but then the next weekend came and there were even more. At that point they started discussing the situation with me, and we also asked for the advice of the rest of the reviewing team. Meanwhile even more caches showed up. I kept hoping you'd slow down and we could then discuss all of the new submissions and come to some understanding, but you never did so. We ended up with two dozen new caches, all within a 1 mile radius, placed within a few weeks of one another. And that doesn't take into account the existing caches in the area, yours and those of other folks. I'm at a loss to see this as anything but you going 'cache crazy'. With all of southern Idaho to hide containers in, how is it that this particular tiny speck of the state has so many special locations that each needs its very own geocache? How could I list all of these submissions, then tell anyone else that the park they are trying to squeeze another container into is full? Please explain to me how each of these spots can stand alone when from the point of view of an outside observer many of them seem to be nothing more than an excuse to stick something under a rock? I'd like to find a way to work with you on your submissions, but we'll need to be able to communicate effectively in order to do so. I hope we can. MT Fellwalker 5-19-08 -- Copy of email sent to MT Fellwalker -- MT, I can understand your concern about the number of caches hidden in the area of the Gooding Little City of Rocks. In answer to your question, ‘With all of southern Idaho to hide containers in, how is it that this particular tiny speck of the state has so many special locations that each needs its own geocache?’, I would imagine pictures of the area would do much more than words in conveying just how special this area is. I would be more than happy to forward pictures Ive taken in each of these areas if that would make your job easier in reaching a decision as to whether the caches in question are to be approved or not. I have also discussed, at length, with David Freiberg, (208) 732-7271, Outdoor Recreation Planner with the Bureau of Land Management, who oversees the area in question, the placement and number of caches in this area as well as the Gooding City of Rocks; both of which are in Wilderness Management Areas. He assured me they dont have a problem with the number of caches placed as long as the activity is monitored to prevent the making of trails. If you would like to review the number of visits to other caches in this area to see how little traffic they receive, it would be pretty clear that this is not a high-traffic area for cachers; especially with the high cost of gas now. The area receives more visitors from nature lovers and hikers than it probably ever will from geocachers. I live on a very small fixed income, which limits the distance I can go to look for or place caches. Placing caches for others to find is my way of giving back to the sport that provided me with the number of caches I have been able to log, and allows others in the area to continue in the sport without having to travel long distances to do so. Most of the caches now on hold, but not all, were placed in strategic locations to get people to explore more of the area. A couple of the caches, ETD: Overlooking the Bend (GC1C2R3) and Tribute to Quietbreezes (GC1C9HK) arent anywhere near the Gooding Little City of Rocks, so I’m still not sure why they have been put on hold. ‘How could I list all of these submissions, then tell anyone else that the park they are trying to squeeze another continer into is full?’ That is a difficult question for me to answer. Although I guess the Gooding Little City of Rocks could be considered a park, but not in the traditional sense, it does cover a pretty vast area when compared to most city parks. I have tried to maintain over .10 distance and thought that I had done so, but I may have missed entering a cache or two in my GPSr before going out and gotten one or two closer then they should have been. ‘Please explain to me how each of these spots can stand alone when from the point of view of an outside observer many of them seem to be nothing more than an excuse to stick something under a rock?’ As stated previously, pictures would do more justice than any words. However, each cache was placed becasuse of a particular view from that area, unusual rock formations, or some historical significance to that particular area. This area was used extensively by Native Americans years ago and has a couple of areas that contain petroglyphs. But, in the interest of preserving the petroglyphs, I wouldnt consider placing a cache anywhere near one of those locations. As Im sure you noticed with each of my descriptions, there is a statement about the area being in a Wilderness Study Area and how it should be treated. NOTE: The Gooding Little City of Rocks, as well as the Gooding City of Rocks, is a Wilderness Study Area. As such, it is requested if you find evidence that there is beginning to be too much traffic to any of the caches located there, i.e., human trails being formed, you contact the owner of the cache so it can either be moved to a new location or archived. Natural game trails and cattle trails are not to be considered as human impact trails. Also, the land you cross from the gate you pass through to where you park near the dam is PRIVATE property. Treat it as such! All the bottom land south of the Little City of Rocks to the fenceline is PRIVATE. No off-roading with motorcycles, ATVs or other motorized vehicles. Practice CITO while hiking in this area so it can be enjoyed by all who come to this unique place. This statement was the result of my communications with David Frieberg. By the way, the reason I usually place multiple caches when I go out is because of my limited income. I could just as easily place the caches and then submit them one at a time over a period of weeks, if that would be more agreeable. It would, unfortunately in some cases, destroy the theme that some of these multiple caches represent, such as the Hikers Challenge caches and discourage, rather than incourage cachers to come to this area and explore beyond the bottom of the main canyon. Whatever your decision, Im obvioulsy at the mercy of the powers that be and will pull the caches you belive to be too close to others, or whatever needs to be done to get the rest of my caches released; especially Tribute to Quietbreezes (GC1C9HK), who is a dear friend and fellow geocacher. I hope this is along your line of thought in being able to ‘communicate effectively in order to work with you on your submissions’. Sincerely, greywolf1242 5-20-08 > I hope this is along your line of thought in being able to "communicate effectively" in order "to work with you on your submissions." > Sincerely, > Dennis Frisby, a.k.a., greywolf1242 Thank you for your thoughtful response. I want you to understand that I am part of a team that are doing what we feel is the best for the sport while upholding the guidelines we have been asked to enforce. I understand from your note that you feel all of these hides are special, but that some like 'Tribute to Quietbreezes' are especially so. What I'm going to do is go ahead and list that one while I discuss the others with the reviewers who oversee this area of the country. It clearly is hidden with an agenda, but under the circumstances I feel you have done an adequate job of balancing that agenda with the goals of geocaching being a light and fun activity. As for the others, I'll let you know what the consensus is from the reviewers so we can proceed. Thank you. MT Fellwalker 5-30-08 -- Copy of email sent to MT Fellwalker -- I apologize if this e-mail follows closely on the heels of another one I thought I sent but can find no record of. It has been 10 days since I last heard anything about the caches that you have on hold. It has been a month and five days since I submitted the first four caches in question. You stated in your last e-mail, "What I'm going to do is go ahead and list that one (Tribute to Quietbreezes (GC1C9HK) while I discuss the others with the reviewers who oversee this area of the country." Might I inquire who these other reviewers are and where they are located that they would be more knowledgeable about the area in question than David Freiberg of the BLM? I'm also curious why any other caches placed outside the area of the Little City of Rocks would be put on hold when they are not in the proximity of those caches you have on hold? I must admit that I feel I'm being singled out for one reason or another to have my caches placed on hold for more than a month without any further correspondence with suggestions of what could be done to have at least some of those caches approved. I've offered to remit pics of the area to help in your decision making process, but my offer was not accepted. I've given you the name and phone number of the BLM official in charge of that area and he has not responded to me that he was ever contacted. I just submitted another cache today: In Memory of Corky (GC1CRNJ). Is it also going to be placed on 'hold' until a decision is reached on my other cache placements? I also asked previously why ETD: Overlooking the Bend (GC1C2R3) was placed on hold, but have yet to receive an answer. I'm beginning to wonder if my e-mails are getting through. A prompt reply would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, greywolf1242 6-3-08 Dennis Frisby, Your ticket has been received, one of the staff members will review it and reply accordingly. Listed below are details of this ticket, Please make sure the Ticket ID remains in the subject at all times. Ticket ID: JHK-426605 Subject: Caches submitted and placed on hold. Department: Geocaching Priority: Urgent Status: Open You can check the status or reply to this ticket online at: http://support.Groundspeak.com/Support/ind...ticketid=219208 Please do let us know if we can assist you any further, Groundspeak, Inc. 6-10-08 Hello, We have all of your tickets submitted to use for this issue. These tickets have been escalated to the Customer Service Manager. Unfortunately, it takes some time for her to get back to you. To expedite the response time, please provide me with the GC#'s for the cache pages in question. Thank you. Eric Groundspeak, Inc. Ticket Details =================== Ticket ID: MJT-835197 Department: Geocaching 6-25-08 Dennis Frisby, Your ticket has been received, one of the staff members will review it and reply accordingly. Listed below are details of this ticket, Please make sure the Ticket ID remains in the subject at all times. Ticket ID: ENR-897046 Subject: Cancel paid membership Department: Geocaching Priority: Critical Status: Open You can check the status or reply to this ticket online at: http://support.Groundspeak.com/Support/ind...ticketid=226432 Please do let us know if we can assist you any further, Groundspeak, Inc. That is the full extent of all correspondence between MTFellwalker, Groundspeak and myself. Draw your own conclusions.

In my opinion, you have it backwards. In an urban environment, there is less risk that multiple geocachers going from cache to cache will cause a casual trail, since sidewalks are hard to wear down. Also, since urban areas are owned and managed by many different people, there is less risk of a landmanager being shocked when he suddenly finds out that there are thirty caches on 'his' land. I guess you didn't read the part about the BLM person in charge of the area in question being well aware of how many and the location of the caches on HOLD. The local BLM office keeps track of all caches placed on BLM land in the area that may have an adverse affect on the environment of those areas; caves that are home to bats, wilderness study areas, and raparian areas to name a few. And if cachers took the time to get acquainted with and run their ideas on cache placement by these land managers there would be no 'surprises'. I have taken the time to work with the BLM, since that is where the majority of my 252+ caches are placed. And I do have the approval of this gentleman for the caches that were placed on HOLD by MTFellwalker.

Perhaps you could enlighten me on what 'somewhat-shifting array of information' provided by me you are referring to. And the only thing 'rather clear and straightforward' in what Mtn-man had to offer was just an opinion, not based on facts that weren't distorted to present his case. And it seems all the emphasis has been placed on saturation/over-saturation, when in fact, the whole problem revloves around the failure of MTFellwalker and Groundspeak to reply to numerous request for information on how to resolve the issue of my caches being placed on HOLD. When a cacher has placed multiple caches over a one or two week period that are placed on hold and that cacher offers to do whatever is necessary to resolve the problem, then it behoves the reviewer to put forth recommendations to bring about a solution. That hasn't/isn't and probably would never be done by MTFellwalker since I have had no communication from him/her since May 20. To me, that is a gross deriliction of his/her duties as a reviewer to offer prompt and reasonable recommendations to resolve the perceived problem. That, more than saturation/over-saturation or any other item of discontent of mine or others is what this thread was about.

Let's look at that. Here are five that I clicked at random in the unlisted list: Cache 1, nearest 10 caches all within 1.06 miles, all yours, one of them archived some time ago. Cache 2, nearest 10 caches all within 0.42 miles, six yours, one that could not be listed since it was too close to one of the other four. Cache 3, nearest 10 caches all within 0.91 miles, nine yours, six on hold due to the saturation issue. Cache 4, nearest 10 caches all within 0.42 miles, all yours, two on hold due to the saturation issue. Cache 5, nearest 10 caches all within 1.09 miles, all yours, three on hold due to the saturation issue. I took cache 5 out to nearest 20 caches, 1.39 miles, 15 of them yours. In all of your above statistics, you only mention how many caches are in a given radius; you failed to mention that none of the caches are closer than .13 miles from any others. Most people think in linear terms and stating that there are 10 caches within 1.06 miles makes it sound like a lot of caches when, in fact, it is not. If there is one cache that is closer than .10 miles of another cache, I have not been made aware of it prior to this; which is what I would think MTFellwalker should have done to begin with. If you click this link, you can see the GC.com Google map of one area that has been saturated by caches. Oddly enough, in your description, you mention that this is a Wilderness Study area. "As such, it is requested if you find evidence that there is beginning to be too much traffic to any of the caches located there, i.e., human trails being formed, you contact the owner of the cache so it can either be moved to a new location or archived." Wouldn't over-saturation of the area with extensive and excessively close caches cause such damage? I know desert terrain, and the answer is yes. Feel free to look at my profile and the map of the area I have found caches in. When questioning someone about what they know about the country, you should probably examine their credentials. I do go more than 20 miles from my house to find caches. Though I have not found caches in your 14 mile radius (yet), the terrain is very similar to areas I have been to for vacation and for caching. If I remember correctly, you live somewhere in the southeast, but have done some caching in desert country. I know the desert terrain around here, but I can't profess to be an authority on all desert terrain in other parts of the country. And I don't recall saying anything about how far you go from home to do your caching. Unfortuanately, some of us are not privileged to be able to travel as extensively as you have. But, I fail to see where that makes you any more of an authority on the type of terrain around here than it would make me an authority on the terrain around where you live just because I visited there for a short time. You may know desert terrain in some of the places you have been, but you obviously have not been to southern Idhao. You really should come and check out the caches in our desert. This is canyon lands where these caches are placed, for the most part. There is more activity from hikers and sightseers than there ever will be from cachers; and, mostly in the main canyon. Very few people ever leave the main canyon because of the difficulty of the terrain. Check some of my existing caches in this area and see just how many visits they've gotten since being placed. I'm impressed with your financial ability to have cached in all the places you've been. And perhaps you have been in similar country in your travels, but until you've cached in this area, you should reserve your judgement of what type of terrain it is until you've actually done so. I do hope some day you will be able to visit this area; I'll be more than happy to act as a guide. You referenced a quote from a note I put in all my descriptions of caches placed in wilderness study areas. Here is the entire note: NOTE: The Gooding Little City of Rocks, as well as the Gooding City of Rocks, is a Wilderness Study Area. As such, it is requested if you find evidence that there is beginning to be too much traffic to any of the caches located there, i.e., human trails being formed, you contact the owner of the cache so it can either be moved to a new location or archived. Natural game trails and cattle trails are not to be considered as human impact trails. Also, the land you cross from the gate you pass through to where you park near the dam is PRIVATE property. Treat it as such! All the bottom land south of the Little City of Rocks to the fenceline is PRIVATE. No off-roading with motorcycles, ATVs or other motorized vehicles. Practice CITO while hiking in this area so it can be enjoyed by all who come to this unique place. This note was a result of my working with the BLM official who oversees these areas. He also approved the caches that were placed on HOLD by MTFellwalker, as not saturaing the area as far as he was concerned. So, you are saying that driving 6 more miles is going to break your gas bank? Sounds to me as though you have reached your limit as to the number of caches you can maintain if driving six more miles is your breaking point. I apologize for the misunderstanding of what you were getting at in 'driving 20 miles away next time'. I understood it to mean 20 miles more than where I placed the caches in question. My mistake. And I do maintain my caches...every one of them. Yes, precisely. The caches around Seattle are placed by hundreds of cachers, not just one as in your case. Team Misguided nails it perfectly. My mistake again. I must have missed that 'rule' when I first started placing caches, or the notice that must have been sent out informing all cachers that only a certain number of caches could be placed by any one individual in any given area. Could you point that rule out to me, I can't seem to find it anywhere. To my way of thinking, over-saturation is over-saturation, regardless of the name attached to the cache. And I believe if you'll pull up all the caches placed within 20 miles of 83330 you'll find very few people hiding caches. Does that mean that this area should be practically devoid of caches just because I'm just about the only person placing them? How many other caches have been placed within that 14 miles referenced to earlier by other cachers? Sorry, and I hope you reconsider archiving your active caches, but the facts are not in your court. Some things you have said do not bolster your case either. Rather than reconsidering archiving my active caches, you've only reinforced my reasons why I should. I'm not sure what things I've said that 'do not bolster your case either', but misconstruing facts certainly hasn't bolstered your case to me. I'm normally a pretty agreeable person and offered to do whatever was necessary to get even some of those caches approved by MTFellwalker, but that fell on deaf ears, as does most things when addressed to those who like to exert their 'power'. I can just imainge that one of my responses, sooner or later, will get me putnted off the fourm; which will just reinforce what I've already said.

For those that don't know. Gooding is on the edge of "Nothing". Yet if you know where to look (and the locals do) there are a heck of a lot of spectacular small natural wonders and areas of interest well worth the trip and a blown spare tire or two. Renegade, I see you're familiar with our deser/hill/canyon country around here. Isn't it great! You almost have to LOVE this area to appreciate all it has to offer. I've only lost one tire and two oil pans on my van to geocaching, but it was worth it. And those were on other people's caches, not mine.