twjolson & Kay

I didn't get a picture of it, but there is a town, or some location called "Grand Cache" up in Alberta Canada. Now that's a place to make cachers pee themselves.

I don't think it's drying sap, although it does have a Sap type stickiness. There is no evidence of flow. It's all level, and then takes an abrupt corner on down to the bark. I'm pretty sure it's a mushroom/fungus/plant of sometype, I just don't know specifically which one.

I don't think it's coal, it's incredibly brittle, from what I recall of coal it's much more solid then this stuff. As for granite around here, I don't know. I really don't know much about rocks besides the few tidbits that I recall from 4th grade geology. Do you have a good webpage describing Mica for me to compare it too?

This is a rock (I think) that I found in a creek bed. There is quite a bit of them around there. They are square, and very brittle. They snap in half (even the big ones) just like wafer candy. They are layered like sedimentary rock, and have a look to them like charred wood, but no rings and they are black all the way through. Here is a tree with some kind of plant/moss/mushroom growing on it. It looks and feels really gross. As we walked out, we touched a differant mushroom and it felt the same, firm and wet. But the one in the picture had a sticky quality to it, like sap was coming from it. Can anyone shed some light on these unusual (for us anyways) items?

I just went and read it and don't understand how there is any TOS violation in using google maps to display coords obtained from this site. I can display them using any number of mapping apps without issue, why is google maps different? I think if you wish for people to avoid TOS violations you need to be more clear as to how they are violating it rather than pointing folks to a bunch of lawyer speak and requiring them to figure it out themselves. If you were saying that allowing us to see the data he displayed on google maps is a TOS violation I would understand that, but it looks like the mere fact he created something that will take .loc files and display the coords as points on google maps is what you were calling a TOS violation and I don't see that it is from my reading of the TOS. I would much rather the plain speak of what part of it is wrong as well. But, I'm pretty sure the problem is in the sharing. That way someone can't hijack caches from the GC.com site and start their own using GC.com data. This obviously is minor and unintentional of course, but still violates TOS. That is of course, if my understanding is correct.

I think once Google comes out of beta, some really cool stuff could happen, I hope GC.com takes advantage. I would LOVE to see an option to show several caches on Google at once integrated right into the search pages.

That's the only thing I can figure out. Legalize scares and confuses me. But I would guess they would have that in thier TOS in case someone tried to hijack the cache listings for thier own competitor caching site.

This violates our terms of use. Please don't do that. I'm quite curious how loading data that GC.com gives freely into a home made script is against the terms of service. How is that differant then loading the same file into the differant programs that GC.com links to on the resources page? Or am I reading things wrong?

Well, don't leave us hanging man, what was the deal then?

Wow, that's a good question. I've been leaving DVDs (legal copies from the Wal*Mart bargain bin) in caches recently, thinking I was doing a good thing. I hope I don't end up inadvertently causing harm to somebody's DVD player. So, what - did the Mythbusters do something on this? Yes they did, but the focus was on how fast to bust a CD. They did some things with tempature, but I don't think it affected the CD as much. I'll let you know after Sunday, they are having a Mythbusters marathon! I think it may weaken them, but for the speeds that DVD and CD players run at, it won't matter. I think for all intents and purposes, as long as you don't have very hot or very cold weather, it will be fine. And if you get the disc after it's been very hot or very cold, give it time to reach room temperature slowly. I think a quick swing from 100+ degrees in a cache to room temp. would hurt the CD more then being in the heat alone. I'm not an expert though, so I could be wrong. From my understanding, as long as you own the original CD or song, you are allowed to make copies, for your own use. However once you give it away, then it becomes illegal. But I might be wrong, they passed some stricter laws recently (since the whole file sharing thing started) that might have made it illegal to make copies at all.

The Alberta one is closest to me, which I would love to find. But dang, I have to climb a freaking mountian to get it.

While I have no problem with dogs being off leash there is one thing you should remember. Dogs are animals. They don't need a reason to bite, at least not a reason like you and I would see it. Some dogs are more prone to biting then others, and even if yours is a breed that is very calm and not prone to biting, it is always a possiblity, however small. I am sure you are a responsible owner, and your dog a nice dog, but it would be a mistake to think your dog is exempt from it's natural instints totally. Mostly, maybe, but definitely not totally. Even a nice dog can bite unexpectedly. You are right and I agree. I was just trying to get the point across that it was not the type of information I was looking for. I keep a very good eye on Lacey even though I do trust her. I know all these things. It did not come accross in your post. It came across like she was a little angel that could do no wrong. I wanted to make sure you didn't head on out into the wild with her thinking that, and have her bite someone. I meant no offense, I just wanted to make sure you knew those things.

fizzymagic: Wow, I've never seen anyone get so worked up over something so stupid. Is creating virtual caches on vacation that life or death to you? I understand you have a opinion differant from them, but is it really worth getting so overwhelmingly worked up over it? It's ok to have an opinion, but when others can practically hear the anger in your text, it's time to cool down. You keep arguing and arguing that no long distance virtuals was an arbitary choice. So what if it was. Last time I checked, Jeremy and his henchmen ran this site, no me, not you. Arbitrary or not, the choice was made. I don't agree with some of the things they do or choices they make sometimes either, but they started, and run the site, not me. If this issue is that critical that it gets your blood this boiling, go start your own site. You are so intent on putting numbers to things here. But look at the numbers you put out. (If I understand what you did, otherwise correct me). You got a pocket Query that listed such and such a number of virtual caches, and of them you found 1% of them that were disabled. That's quite a limited sampling to continue to pound into everyone as a rule of how things are. Did it list the ones that were archived? I assume not, but again, I could be wrong. If it didn't, you're looking at the caches that are ok, and declaring that there is no problem. In theory, there could be just as many archived that had to be archived due to a problem. Stop putting a number to this. Jeremy flat out said he made the choice arbitrarly. If they made it behind closed doors, who are you or I to say one way or another about it. Do you go to Microsoft and tell them how to run their site? Do you tell CNN which stories to run? I assume you don't, because it's their business, they get to choose how to run it, for good or ill, whether you agree or not. From my understanding of Jeremy's point of view, it wasn't that there was a problem with maintence, and thus they banned long distance virtuals. While it maybe a hassle, and there maybe a problem. But from my reading of Jeremy's statement, he banned them to stop a flood of virtuals, which would be submitted and quickly forgotten by the submitter. Your WHOLE argument was based on maintence problems, but Jeremy flat out said it was an arbitrary choice to stem the tide of virtuals. If you have a problem with policy, at least argue against the reasoning behind the ban. Don't be so quick to dismiss anecdotal evidence. That makes up the numbers that you so hunger for, behind every number is a story, stories that you are tossing away without consideration. It is quite unfair of you to dismiss the approvers opinon of how widespread the problem was/is. They are the ones that see the problems with the caches, not you or I. And if they say such and such happened to this cache or that one, it's quite unfair and unwise to argue. It's like us arguing what color shoes you wore today. We weren't there, if you say they are blue, who are we to say otherwise. My two cents, I agree with them. If someone is so amazing that it deserves a virtual, the locals would have set it up long ago. And if anyone can just set up a virtual just anywhere, the number will skyrocket. I could see virtuals overtake regulars. Think about it, anyone with an internet connection and a little resourcefulness can flood the site with virtual caches; which then bogs down the approvers to approve them and if something goes wrong archive them if the creator doesn't. I really don't want to search for caches and have to wade through virtual after virtual just to find decent caches to go to. That is my taste and my opinion.

Awww, I never get to be Pope...

While I have no problem with dogs being off leash there is one thing you should remember. Dogs are animals. They don't need a reason to bite, at least not a reason like you and I would see it. Some dogs are more prone to biting then others, and even if yours is a breed that is very calm and not prone to biting, it is always a possiblity, however small. I am sure you are a responsible owner, and your dog a nice dog, but it would be a mistake to think your dog is exempt from it's natural instints totally. Mostly, maybe, but definitely not totally. Even a nice dog can bite unexpectedly.

And after teaching the dog to obey verbal commands off leash you should teach it to sniff out plastic tupperware containers.

I agree that there is such a thing as too many attributes, however I believe the Mosquito is worthy of a new icon. However I will concede that a broader icon and attribute then just mosquitos would be better. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think expanding the Tick icon would work. Ticks don't get repelled by Off! and such. Although I could be wrong for sure. I would put my vote behind a new Bug Spray attribute.

While I don't agree with some of what you said, I am grateful for The Selector link! I've seen that on caches and will use that on mine toot sweet. Thank you. Don't listen to me. Most of it was tongue in cheek with a side of bitterness at some of my own experiences making suggestions around here. I think I can relate. It's quite the uphill battle suggesting new ideas to people and things that are bigger then I am. Either it's not a good idea (in thier eyes) or it's not worth the time or they are far to overworked. It's understandable, but frustrating.

While I don't agree with some of what you said, I am grateful for The Selector link! I've seen that on caches and will use that on mine toot sweet. Thank you.

I have a travel bug up in Whale Park, Ketchikan, Alaska. Someone grabbed the tag, but the item attached had seperated and he didn't grab it. He's now in Utah. Maybe someone can go and get the item, then mail it to him and I'll reimburst shipping? Here is what the bug looks like

I disagree, there are no bad trade items, save for illegals. Everyone has thier own tastes. You may not like stickers (i'm just picking that one, you could replace it with anything), but someone out there obviously does, we take stickers all the time. Especially when you bring kids into the picture. The McToys so many don't like, kids, and me, love! (Even last night we went out to Burger King to eat, so that we could get Star Wars toys). Simply put, every item in the cache someone liked it enough to buy it in the first place, so someone out there will like it enough to get it for free. That said, I try to leave items that the majority of people, or kids, would like to find. Cars, Action toys, etc. And I pass on items that only a few people would like to see in the cache. Broken toys of any sort, for example. The golden rule of trade even or up is important, even for kids. It helps them learn that they can't get something for nothing for one. We for one follow this rule always. Although I will admit that not everyone does.

I can't for the life of me find the link to it, but one cache is on a remote ocean island that requires, and my figures might be wrong, a 3 day trip there at a cost of 2000 bucks. Another is at the top of a remote mountain that requires a 9 day trip! So 6 miles from shore is nothing. Place it, if no one finds it, as long as you have fun placing it, then it doesn't matter if anyone finds it.

I offer the opposite advice. Go and find a dozen or more hides, and then do what no one else has done. Most cachers are looking for a plastic tupperware thing under a pile of rocks or bark, but none would be looking for a false log, rock, etc.

Where does it mention 48 hours in the guidelines? The guidlines say 36-72 hours, so 48 is kind of a happy medium. @ fly46 I know it's not black and white, but I think it still would be worthwhile to have some sort of a system. And from what I've read in the previous posts, and the links therein. Simply put, caches are put in order, and reviewed in order. Some caches though, multi's, incomplete info, etc. Can bump you back down. I don't know how a system like this would handle that, but initially they are put into a line-up. I am not a expert programmer, nor do I know all the ins and outs of the gc.com system. But I think something like this might do good.