wmas1960

The Survey Tech post in the same thread got me thinking. I went to military school in high school and part of my JROTC training was military map reading and orienteering(?). We never used that phrase but basically navigation. For that we learned how to use topographic maps and compasses and protractors to locate ourselves in an unknown location and be able to navagate back or summon assistance... For benchmarks from such landmarks, one could go out in a nearby field or on a nearby lake or whatever and locate a couple of these markers. Say for example, using Lake Geneva, Wisconsin, I could, In addition to the beauty shots that I mentioned earlier, of the landmarks, locate a buoy on the lake and then, using a compass figure the directional headings to Black Point and Yerkes Observatory. I believe they are both listed landmarks. From there I would draw an intersection of the lines between the bouy and those marks, on a topographic map and determine the buoy's location. That is how it was done before GPS. The waypoint of the buoy could be kept secret. Giving accurate waypoints for the landmarks and the headings from those landmarks, a challenge could be for searchers to calculate out where they need to go to recreate their position relative to the two landmarks that have been given. The solution to the game could be, the searcher would need to take the headings from the landmarks and plot them on a topo map. Then go onto the lake in a boat and find the point where the intersection is, say a buoy. Then from their suspected location would need to use their own compass skills and verify that they are in the right(correct) relationship to the landmarks. The finder would then take a waypoint or 2 or 3 from that location and get a fairly accurate reading. Then to log the buoy as a find, you would have to find it and get the waypoint for it as well as, perhaps some sort of marking left on it. This could even be a way to merge Geocaching with Benchmark hunting. A virtual cache so to speak hidden at the intersection of two Benchmarks. Using the Waypoint and GPS as a means of confirming the visitors locating the cache point and marking their visit. This could even involve an actual cache. Other possibilities on or along water could be piers, islands, breakwaters... On land, you could have the intersecting point be anything from a monument, tree, rock... You could also specify that photos be taken of the intersection and from the intersection, of the benchmarks. quote:Originally posted by Web-ling:See Jeremy's response to this question in http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=5790959854&m=4040951064. Take a picture of the steeple, and log it. If the BM is a steeple, then there isn't a disk. The steeple IS the benchmark. http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/25021_1200.gif

Church steeples, water towers, control towers, antennae towers, airport beacons... are landmarks in themselves. I am not sure of this in all situations but often, as I understand they don't have any marker or anything. A lightening rod at the top of the structure, a cross, the point of a roof, a nail in the tar paper... or the motor on the airport beacon may be THE marking point. Since you can't get to that point in most situations, I would think you would want to simply use objects like this to practice your creative photographic abilities. Get a nice beauty shot. Then take some other pictures from that location showing the suroundings. Maybe read the info sheet and key into some of the markers located there. If the sheet tells you that it an object or landmark is 75' from the center line of Highway X than you might want to take a picture showing the proximity of the marker to the centerline of Highway X. If there is something special and relevant in the area surrounding the marker than you might want to get photos of that. Say the marker is an airport beacon and the airport just built a new tower and located a new beacon there. And, you notice that there is some demolition near the existing beacon you might want to document that. Just in case the intention is that the marker is going to be removed. Your photos might be the last documentation of that point. Show some photos from different directions or photograph the object in relation to different view points. Proximity to other buildings... An example of an airport beacon near me is that it is about 30' from the edge of a roadway and along side a hanger building. I might want to show that proximity to the building as well as the gate entry to the airfield and the thouroghfare that runs past it. If you want to do a near official job of it, There is an article somewhere on the NGS website that describes what they need for the documentation of a benchmark. I don't remember the link though. The article is published by the National Geodetic Survey, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce. It is titled, Requirements for Digital Photographs of Survey Control . It is Version 10 dated January 25th, 2002. You might be able to find it through a Google Search. I think it might be a PDF format but on Google they might have an HTML version. The HTML might not have photos on it though. This article is good in that it also tells how to clean up a benchmark and highlight the stamping to make them more visible in your photo. The article also tells how to number and caption your photos, what kinds of photos are necessary and how to label your photos so that they can be searched in a database and to assure that they contain references to certain features in the photos. Arrows and other marking divices or printed references inserted and captioned ON the photo. As for the GPS factor of these types of objects that might come in with your ability to reference your photos to GPS points so that others can re-experience your experience. Also so that your documentation of the position of the land mark can be more accurately plotted on maps by people who might want to visit the site. The waypoints listed on the data page are often not very accurate. I make it a point to try an take new waypoints right from the object, or at least as close as I legally and safely can. Don't forget waypoints when writing your logs and documenting your find. quote:Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:I like hunting for benchmarks, but in the case of watertowers and church steeples, you just drive by and there it is - no hunting. So I don't look for them - it just doesn't seem like a GPS game to me. Maybe someone can figure out some sort of challenge involved with them, but I can't. Wait, I guess one could take a picture of watertower and church steeple benchmarks from a nearby regular benchmark. Hmmmm. There would be both a finding challenge and a photographic challenge to that. A significant aspect of benchmark hunting is taking pictures and maybe there's a way to make some kind of artistic collection of pics of church steeples or something. But then, some church steeples and watertowers are pretty without being benchmarks.

I have been wondering about this as well. At the beginning of June, one of them, I can't remember if it was Mapblast or Mapquest, did provide the coordinates. I was trying to go to a riverboat in Indiana and didn't know the way so I looked up the map. On the top edge of the map they had the coordinates on the map. Yesterday I tried to get directions to a friends apartment in a large development. It was a little confused with all the little subdivision streets... I plugged in the address and could not get the coordinates. I looked all over and couldn't find how to get them. It seems that somewhere along the way they must have stopped offering the waypoints for addresses. I do recall that they weren't on the simple map that you get on their pages. There was a special map selection you had to select to get them. Like I said though, it seems that you can't do it anymore. One thing you might be able to do, Go to Mapquest or Mapblast and get a map for the address. Study the map and compare it to a similar map on a site called Tiger. http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapsurfer With Tiger, you put in the city by zip code or name. Then you will be given a map with the waypoint for that city. Center of town(?). Then locate the same location on the Tiger map that Mapquest or Mapblast indicates and click on it. I have heard that the Mapquest and Mapblast maps are actually powered by this Tiger system which is run by the government. By selecting Zoom IN, you can center and zoom in on your selection with every click on the map. You can then zero in on a location. Tiger will give you the waypoint for your selected location. The problem that I have encountered though is with the format of the waypoint not being compatable with my format on my eTrex. I don't know if there is a preference setting with Tiger to change it or another site where you can put in their format and then get a conversion to a more compatable format. If anyone know that or a more simpler way, or even an explaination of the problem I would certainly be appreciative.

As for changing the cache container, I wouldn't do than unless It is a normal un customized container that you can replace with a very similar or identical type. Same basic design or shape... Say Gladware or the ziplock containers or Rubbermaid... If it is custom painted or custom built I wouldn't replace it. I would assume you wouldn't be carrying around a lot of pvc or ammo boxes for instance. My thought is that if you were to replace a container you should be able to make it identical to what the owner placed. Markings Paint Labels... As for zipper bags, definately take those with you. I would suggest 2 gal or 1 gal as they should be plenty big. You could take some sandwich size in case there are small things. Also, it might make sense to have some strong rubber bands. If I came accross a broken or leaking put the contents in a zipper bag or bags and use a couple bands to hold the lid on if it is loose. You could take some clear packaging tape of there are some holes. Then, definately log the condition and email the owner that the capsule or container needs to be repaired or replaced. As for the camera. Again, notify the owner. Let him/her process the camera. I have seen many of those disposable cameras in bins at stores. Sometimes they are reletively cheap as they have advertising on them. If you see some at the grocery store or at your neighborhood photo or hardware store and they are inexpensive enough, it could be good to pick up a few for your backpack. To have on hand. I can't see any problem with putting in new camera.

I haven't actually logged any caches yet but regarding benchmarks that I have done some looking for, and I would assume caches as well, my feeling here is that when you log a NOT FOUND, that triggers some responses from the cache owner or other seekers. For example, if a cache owner sees a Not Found entry, he/she might think they need to go check the cache for some problem. I, personally, would not log a not found unless I got to the area of the cache (waypoint) and actually looked for it. I wouldn't want to give an impression that there might be a problem with the placement if I had never been able to try and find the cache. As was the case with my most recent searches, I couldn't get to the locations because of construction fences and tresspass warnings. Therefore I was not able to actually get to the area to confirm the existance or removal of a benchmark. Therefore, feeling that my information could be valuable to other seekers I posted as information. I do plan to go back and attempt to get closer. At that point I would log a not found if I determine that with some more direct attempt I could not locate a benchmark. Same, I think would be applicable to caches. If you don't actually make it to the site because of a steep drop or lack of a canoe or other obstical you might post the information if it is not mentioned in the clues and could be valuable to prepare other seekers. I would think, Not Found should be reserved for your instances where you got there but the cache could not be located.

I have just been reading a similar thread under the topic of General here on the Grondspeak group. I thought I would post reference to a reply that I have made and to the topic in general. It mentions some interesteing views about the Not Found classifications and peoples hesitance or even refusal to log not founds. It has got me thinking a little more of my previously stated postitions about catagories for log entries. It, of course, relates to Geocaches but some of the comments may, somewhat apply here. quote: posted August 12, 2002 07:42 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have been taking to searching more for benchmarks so far than going after the, ony 3 or 4, caches close to me. There are more of them and they offer some interesting experiences due to the historical nature and scenic placement of some of them. They, of course, are a little different but your point is somewhat relevent there too. If I actively set out to FIND the mark, GPS in hand and the clue sheets with me than, if I don't find the mark I might be inclined to post a NF... The actual thread is located at, http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=9860986925&r=7000921035#7000921035

I have been taking to searching more for benchmarks so far than going after the, ony 3 or 4, caches close to me. There are more of them and they offer some interesting experiences due to the historical nature and scenic placement of some of them. They, of course, are a little different but your point is somewhat relevent there too. If I actively set out to FIND the mark, GPS in hand and the clue sheets with me... than, if I don't find the mark I might be inclined to post a NF. The other day, on the other hand, I set out, not so much to find A MARK, but a series of marks on a former military base near me. The base was closed several years ago and is being redeveloped. Enough has been completed that you can now access the property and drive around. Knowing the situation with a lot of demolition and construction and relandscaping... I know some of those marks will never be found. Others will not be immediately accessable because they may be behind fences where there is heavy construction. I took a trip out there just to drive through and check the status and accessability of a few recorded locations. Since I didn't actually attempt to FIND the marks I posted my findings as a Post As Note(?). I took a few pictures showing the areas. I am now going to try and get permission or assistance from the developers and make an actual attempt on a few. In another thread on the Benchmarking topic, I have posted a couple of replies to a similar topic suggesting that a couple other catagories be added to Benchmark Hunting to make logging a little more clearer. This thread here makes me give it a little more thought as you all have presented some great points about the versatility of the Not Found classification. One situation I found was locating a guard house at one of the gates from the base. I located the gate area, went down the street, The gates are still there. Red Lights and all. They are open now and I went into the property to where the guard house should be. The GPS indicated 157' to the East. Behind a fenced posted area that says No Tresspassing. The field there is clear, no buildings and it is clear that the marker might not exist anymore as it was mounted vertical in a brick wall of a building that has be torn down. I Posted this as Info since I intend to go back and try to get permission to determine if the marker may have been relocated to a stone or something on the site. Thus, I didn't mark it YET as NF. If I conclusively determine that it IS GONE or that I can't find it I would probably feel it is a NF. That though is where, With Benchmarking, there might be some justification for catagories to indicate the confirmable or conclusive determination that a marker has been removed, destroyed, demolished or stolen... However, the points here indicate that NF might still be sufficient since I could use my notes to indicate why the marker is not found. For example, Not Found, Guard House at the South Gate is no longer there. Property is undergoing massive redevelopement and the area has been somewhat redeveloped... Of course, as I understand, with benchmark hunting NF is not recorded in your stats(?). I seem to think only the founds are. Thus they may not balance against your record(?). I suppose there is no real harm then just logging NF with an adequate explaination of the circumstances. I still have a feeling though that if a finder goes out and tries to not just find markers, but also varify those that are no longer there, there should be some record of, at least those that were confirmed NO LONGER PRESENT. That would be in addition to NF which could be indicative that the marker may still be there but just couldn't be found. Something like NO LONGER PRESENT would indicate that say a water tower that WAS THE MARKER is no longer there etc. I am going to post a link to this thread with my other posts. Again, I have found all your comments very helpful. quote:Originally posted by Orange:If I get out of the car to begin, then a note will be put on the cache page. But I don't put it as a NOT FOUND until I enter search mode. To me it can't be a not found until I actually start to look for it. That is the rule I use. My most extreme note was: I got to about 200 feet and it was getting real dark real fast and the arrow was pointing off a steep slope. It was a note to me because I hadn't actually begun the search yet. We all play by our own rules and that is mine. But I find nothing wrong with NOT FOUNDS, I even list mine on my profile.

I agree that the existing classifications shouldn't be changed or eliminated. I would also be concerned that adding too many more wouldn't be great either and could even add more confusion. I do think that a couple new classifications would be helpful. I do believe the current choices are Found Not Found Post a Note Or something like that. I would suggest adding, Destroyed Moved or Demolished Which I would suggest should be accompanied with some photos or other evidance that the benchmark or landmark has actually been Moved Destroyed or Demolished. My example of the South Gate Guard House at the nearby former navy base can pretty safely be determined to be gone. Since the marker was located a few feet from the ground, vertically in the face of a brick wall it would be safe to say it is gone too. That, however, is why I asked the question of what they do when they are destroying a marker location. Do they retire the marker or do they resurvey and relocate it in the same spot, say on a post or something. I didn't notice such a post, monument or concrete block in the area and I could not get any closer than 157' due to tresspassing signs. That is why, before I say it actually IS NOT THERE, I posted as a note to the log and I want to get permission to walk the site or get someone with the developer to confirm the removal of the mark. Another possible classification might be Damaged, Disloged or Stolen. For this classification you would be indicating that the evidance is there that the markers location was found but the marker is not mounted or present. Or, that the marker is there but somebody damaged or vanalized it beyond use. In your notation for this you could say, marker found loose and unmounted, laying on the ground. Or, Hole is present where marker should be. Marker not present and could not be located. Or, Maybe, Monument, bridge, tower, witness post... plaque found but there is an empty hole where marker should be. Marker not found. In any case, where you find what you believe to be a location of a marker and you can't find the actual marker, you should also include your waypoint for where you found evidence of a missing marker. You should also do that when you find an actual marker since the waypoints provided can often be off and inaccurate. I would also like to suggest that in the case of my two suggested additions to the classifications, these selections should be treated as the same as if the marker was found, relating to the players record. Or at least tallied separately, say Found/Confirmed Missing or Destroyed. If a player confirms the location and can show evidence that the marker no longer exists, that should be valuable and significant for their record. Lastly, I would emphasize that the last two classifications should only be used when you find conclusive evidance that the location WAS found but the marker is not present, is damaged or disloged. In one case with the total absence of a landmark post or other object that the marker was reported to be mounted in or on. Or, say, using one of my other examples. If I go out looking for the base water tower and the tower is not there, that is obviously a destroyed moved or demolished marker since the tower itself was the marker. On the other hand, If you go to a place looking for a marker that is supposed to be in a field and mounted in a concrete block or post flush with the ground, and you do not find it, and the field appears to be unimproved or regraded etc., you should not post it as lost or destroyed or stolen... It could be that natural movement of soil or growth of grass etc. has covered the marker. You might consider getting a metal detector and going back. Remember, in some cases you might have to dig a few inches to actually find a marker. Unless you can without any doubt determine that you found the location and that the marker is not there than you should log the marker as NOT FOUND. For now though, absent these types of classifications I would think you have no choice but to post as a note to the log. quote:Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:I don't think any of the choices should be replaced. In fact, more should be added for the benchmarks. O Found It! O Couldn't find it! O The structure it was on no longer exists. O Destroyed - I found its remains. O Destroyed - only a hole in the cement. O Post a note. Any number of radio buttons can be added of course. Too many choices would be absurd, but I think benchmarks deserve a couple more. Any other suggestions/wording?

Noting your comments I have a question. You seem pretty knowlegable of surveying etc. In my previous posts I mention a water tower, steam box and a guard house that were marks or where marks were mounted into them. How would you treat such a situation when, say in my situation with the South Gate Guard House, where I got into the gate, stopped at the intersection and the entire area is a vacant field? Obviously the marker that was SET VERTICALLY IN THE NORTH FACE OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE BRICK WALL AT THE SOUTH GATE GUARD HOUSE, 1 FOOT WEST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND 2.5 FEET ABOVE THE GROUND. As you can see from the photos I posted, there is clearly no guard house there anymore. The gate, with it's red lights, is still there. The waypoint that is listed is 157' East of where I parked the car. That would indicate that I was in the correct location but the field is clearly empty. Also, what is the procedure with markers that are drilled and mounted into the face of a monument or building when that building or monument is removed or destroyed. Do they take the marker and locate it in a post or concrete block at the site in accordance with the recorded location? Or do they remove it entirely? I would point out that I don't intend to file my findings with NGS because I am not that experienced and don't think my data is specific or complete enough to be of value to them. Or am I wrong. My questions and points are relative to posting on Geocaching.com where the location and determination of these markers is more of a hobby and for fun. I do not want to give bad information to people but I think in context with this hobby, game or whatever you would classify it, I think posting the known and confirmed non-existance of a marker is of interest and help to other hunters. quote:Originally posted by survey tech:Webling is correct that one should not declare a marker destroyed unless one actually witnesses its removal or finds it laying on the ground. In some cases, the area may have changed so dramatically that the marker cannot possibly be found. A note may be filed describing this situation. Wing Archer is correct that a marker is only found if one can positively match the markings on it to the description. In many cases, one may find a different marker than the one being hunted. Local agencies frequently set additional markers very near existing ones. The situation described by S&M is uncommon but not completely unheard of. Construction crews may notice a marker only after they have detroyed it. They will sometimes try to reset it, hoping to avoid blame. Of course, they never put it back in exactly the same place, so it is worthless, unless a surveyor is notified and detemines the new location and/or elevation. Local surveyors usually soon discover such situations, and establish new coordinates and elevation for the reset marker. In some cases, where a Triangulation Station is destroyed but one of its reference disks survives, the reference disk becomes the new Tri-Station, and therefore gets its own PID number.

I have found similar situations with some of my recent benchmark attempts. I have taken to trying to locate and confirm the existance or destruction of some marks on a former Navy Base near me. There are about 5 or 6 benchmarks on the former base. Control Tower, Water Tower. East Gate, South Gate, Operations Building and a steam box near the base hospital. I recently made a trip through the area trying to see if any marks could be there and to determine the accessability to them. I found that the Ops building and control tower with the rotating beacon is still there but has been gutted. It is going to be incorporated into a new shopping center. I don't know in that case if the benchmark still exists or if it was removed with some of the renovation of the building. The South Gate Guard house is gone so I suspect the marker is gone as well, since it was mounted vertical in a wall. I assume that the hospital area is gone as well but didn't go through that area on my last trip through. The East Gate area is a 2 foot concrete post 2' from the fence line. That might still be there. I didn't notice if the water tower still exists but don't recall seeing it in a while. I too, logged my findings and photos, for now, as information. I intend to contact the developer and see if I can get permission to go and see if some of the markers might still exist on the remaining buildings. Another problem I encountered is that a couple markers might be in posted areas where there is a penelty for tresspassing. I hope I can get permission for those sites as well. My thought, based on this situation and the likelyhood that some markers and landmarks are gone, is that there should, in addition to "Not Found", be a selection for confirmed destroyed. For example, I can almost certainly say that the South Guard House is GONE. I believe the hospital location would be gone as well and probably the water tower. The water tower was a prominent site from many main thouroghfares and the fact that I haven't noticed it in so long seems to indicate that it would be gone. I also have this suggestion. In addition to marks found, there should also be an indication of marks confirmed destroyed or removed and a listing of your last 10 Benchmark log entries regardless of if they are not found or information or found. Situations such as mine and yours, I think, indicate that the same effort and success in locating a benchmark can also exist where a person can confirm and document that a marker or landmark is gone. In my situation, I intend to try, if possible, to locate the exact point of the listed benchmark and take a waypoint and photo of that spot. With benchmark data, and a tape measure, in some cases you can still measure out to find the exact spot. For example, if the location of a benchmark is in a monument located on the E side of the entry of X street and is 16.5' N from the center line of Washington Blvd and 8' from East curb X Street, 3' West from a water main shut off and is mounted vertically 4.6 feet from the ground, then you should be able to measure off the location of the marker and photograph and take a waypoint to show that it is not there. I think this site is great and do not wish to make things too difficult but I think that to make the Benchmark logging more interesting and valuable a recognition of searchers efforts to not just find but also confirm destroyed the benchmarks should be noted. I think positive confirmation of destroyed is just as significant as finding the benchmark. Especially if the finder can document that destruction or removal. The log entry that I filed for the South Gate is, http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=NG0246 Control Towerand Beacon, http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=NG0533 Terminal and Ops Building, http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=NG0248 quote:Originally posted by WingArcher:I'm wondering what the specifics in the survey world are for "finding", or "not finding" a monument. This afternoon during my "adventure" (see other post from today) I positively found a chiseled square, and positively found a copper bolt to be destroyed (the end of the culvert it was described to be in was in a pile at the bottom of the creek!). Other monuments have been less cut & dry. If I find it, and take its picture, and the stamping matches the description, and the location matches the description (closely enough) I found it, no argument there! However, if I don't find it... we can only say that I didn't find it! We can't necessarily say that it can't be found. However, in some cases, we can be certain of a marks destruction, and say that it has been destroyed, thus it can't be found. What I'm getting at is this: What is the professional take on the "Well, we couldn't find it" situation? Some marks just aren't willing to be found, but neither is there concrete evidence of destruction! I'd like to see the "couldn't find" log option replaced with "destroyed/not findable". I've been using the note option to denote this situation, and not logging marks that I just couldn't find that day. What is your thought process when faced with these situations? [This message was edited by wmas1960 on August 11, 2002 at 06:16 PM.]

Sorry for the double posting of my last post. While editing a couple typos I accidentally sent one as a reply to the other. I now can't delete either of them.

I am torn with a few different feelings about your previous post. Should I respond and run the risk of starting something or should I just move on and maybe leave the impression that your posting of my profile somehow offends and frightens me. Yes, I have not actually pursued a cache yet. I have my reasons for that though. They are really nobodies business I do not believe though that since I haven't pursued a cache yet that somehow I am not entitled to an opinion. Actually I don't think your opinion and mine are that far off but you obviously don't see my thoughts that way. Maybe the differences is that I recognize that land owners and cachers may have some responsibility for their willing and deliberate neglegance. Maybe even some for their unwilling or accidental lack of foresight. I think, whether it is a mine shaft, an abandoned well, or drainage pipe that is not covered and is conceled from view in an area where people are going to be looking for a hiding place, and where someone could fall in and get injured, I think that land owner may have some liability. If he doesn't want that responsibility than don't concent to allow people to roam around your land. Post for no tresspassing and protect your land rights. If you invite people on your land and they get hurt, you have some responsibility. Of course, as I said in my posts, if you are tresspassing, do not have permission to place or seek, or are in the wilds of nature than you are on your own. People, (cachers) can not control the existance, travel or actions of wildlife. They can not control the natural decay of a tree and that tree falling on somebodies head, or the rushing waters of a heavy rain in the mountains.... Therefor in those situations I agree that cache owners and parks or even private property owners should not be responsible for those types of uncontrolable actions. Cacher beware... I read a post not too long ago by a guy who wanted to put some chemicals in his cache. He said it was a science experiment and would be packaged safely and that finders could take the materials home and using supplied instructions perform the experiment. One person who seemed knowlegable pointed out the flaws in the writers plan and demonstrated how heat from the sun or moisture trapped inside the airtight container could cause a reaction that could be starved for oxygen inside of the air tight container. First person who opens the container could be subject to a reaction that could be very dangerous. If a cacher did this and presented it in his information sheet as benign and totally safe and your kid opened the box to get a chemical flash in his/her face injuring them, I ask you, would the cacher be responsible? Or is your kid responsible for their own actions. I have to say that my feelings here are that you overstepped reason with your actions. I don't care that people can choose to see my profile on their own innitiative. That is why I didn't put anything in there that I felt might be sensitive. However trying to make a point of emphasizing my lack of experience with caching and trying to intimidate me off by posting it for the whole world, in my opinion, is an action that really SUCKS. I hope all the others here don't have such attitudes. quote:Originally posted by EraSeek: quote:Originally posted by wmas1960: And, I was addressing an attitude that seems to be common in this thread about the rediculousness of lawsuits and that a cacher is totally responsible for his/her circumstances and that land owners or managers and cache placers never have any responsibility for their caches or the properties and locations where they are placed. The common attitude of this thread IS correct! You can always find exception and examples outside the norm. Should I shiver and hide from the world? Of course we are responsible for what we do! That's the point! We ARE responsible for our OWN actions. Let's not try and pin it on someone else. If you fear a pitfall...don't go adventuring! Buck up boy, and come find a cache, then give us your opinions. Profile for wmas1960 Member since July, 2002 Email this user Last visit: 8/10/2002 Caches Found/Hidden: 0/0 Travel Bugs Owned/Found: 0/0 Benchmarks found: 1

I am torn with a few different feelings about your previous post. Should I respond and run the risk of starting something or should I just move on and maybe leave the impression that your posting of my profile somehow offends and frightens me. Yes, I have not actually pursued a cache yet. I have my reasons for that though. They are really nobodies business I do not believe though that since I haven't pursued a cache yet that somehow I am not entitled to an opinion. Actually I don't think your opinion and mine are that far off but you obviously don't see my thoughts that way. Maybe the differences is that I recognize that land owners and cachers may have some responsibility for their willing and deliberate neglegance. Maybe even some for their unwilling or accidental lack of foresight. I think, whether it is a mine shaft, an abandoned well, or drainage pipe that is not covered and is conceled from view in an area where people are going to be looking for a hiding place, and where someone could fall in and get injured, I think that land owner may have some liability. If he doesn't want that responsibility than don't concent to allow people to roam around your land. Post for no tresspassing and protect your land rights. If you invite people on your land and they get hurt, you have some responsibility. Of course, as I said in my posts, if you are tresspassing, do not have permission to place or seek, or are in the wilds of nature than you are on your own. People, (cachers) can not control the existance, travel or actions of wildlife. They can not control the natural decay of a tree and that tree falling on somebodies head, or the rushing waters of a heavy rain in the mountains.... Therefor in those situations I agree that cachers and parks or even private property owners should not be responsible for those types of uncontrolable actions. Cacher beware... I read a post not too long ago by a guy who wanted to put some chemicals in his cache. He said it was a science experiment and would be packaged safely and that finders could take the materials home and using supplied instructions perform the experiment. One person who seemed knowlegable pointed out the flaws in the writers plan and demonstrated how heat from the sun or moisture trapped inside the airtight container could cause a reaction that could be starved for oxygen inside of the air tight container. First person who opens the container could be subject to a reaction that could be very dangerous. If a cacher did this and presented it in his information sheet as benign and totally safe and your kid opened the box to get a chemical flash in his/her face injuring them, I ask you, would the cacher be responsible? Or is your kid responsible for their own actions. I have to say that my feelings here are that you overstepped reason with your actions. I don't care that people can choose to see my profile on their own innitiative. That is why I didn't put anything in there that I felt might be sensitive. However trying to make a point of emphasizing my lake of experience with caching and trying to intimidate me off by posting it for the whole world, in my opinion, is an action that really SUCKS. I hope all the others here don't have such attitudes. quote:Originally posted by EraSeek: quote:Originally posted by wmas1960: And, I was addressing an attitude that seems to be common in this thread about the rediculousness of lawsuits and that a cacher is totally responsible for his/her circumstances and that land owners or managers and cache placers never have any responsibility for their caches or the properties and locations where they are placed. The common attitude of this thread IS correct! You can always find exception and examples outside the norm. Should I shiver and hide from the world? Of course we are responsible for what we do! That's the point! We ARE responsible for our OWN actions. Let's not try and pin it on someone else. If you fear a pitfall...don't go adventuring! Buck up boy, and come find a cache, then give us your opinions. Profile for wmas1960 Member since July, 2002 Email this user Last visit: 8/10/2002 Caches Found/Hidden: 0/0 Travel Bugs Owned/Found: 0/0 Benchmarks found: 1

Did you locate the benchmark here on Geocaching.com? If you did go to the page where you got the original information on the benchmark. Get the page for the mark and in the upper right I think, is a selection for logging a benchmark. Fill that out and send it. It will then ask if you want to see the benchmark page. Say yes. It will then show you the page with your log entry and give you options to edit or delete your log entry. There will also be a selection to upload photos. Click that to upload your photos to your log entry. Fill out the pertinent info and send. If you found a mark while caching or whatever and didn't get the info online here then try searching by zipcode for the area where you found it. See if it is listed in the database and select it. If it is not listed than I believe there is not information online for you to log it to. I understand there are many agencies and sources for benchmarks. The listings here contain only a couple of them or something like that. I am not familiar with what to do in this situation. The only benchmarks I have logged are ones that I located (found) from this site and a few others that I haven't yet found but knowing the area where they are, I went out there to scout or do recon and see if they are still there and accessable (logged information). The location is an old US Naval Air Station that was closed and is being redeveloped. I found the beacon, the main terminal and operations building but could not find the south gate guard house. The ops building tower and terminal are way beyond construction fences, about 497' and is not legally accessable. The guard house is in an empty field about 157' from the gate. The field is beyond a fence and is posted with a tresspass warning. I couldn't go in and see if a post or marker still exists. Obviously though the building is not there anymore. I am going to have to find the proper authority and see if I can get permission to go in and actually locate the markers that might still be there. If I approach it right the historical significance of this might be enough to get somebody to help me out. There are a couple other markers on the site that I didn't know about the other day. A concrete bridge support at a creek and the brick wall of some other building and an old water tower that I don't recall seeing in a while. That should be an obvious missing object but I will have to specifically look next time through or past there. quote:Originally posted by wizrr:I've located and photographed a benchmark, but I can't find out how to submit this info. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. wizrr & mol

Oh yes, I thought it was kind of funny in a sarchastic way. At least I was hoping it was sarchasm. However these days you never know. I suppose I shouldn't have attributed your points as concerns or addressed them as such serious points but I trying to illustrate a difference in your examples and what the original situation was. And, I was addressing an attitude that seems to be common in this thread about the rediculousness of lawsuits and that a cacher is totally responsible for his/her circumstances and that land owners or managers and cache placers never have any responsibility for their caches or the properties and locations where they are placed. dadgum, I am getting too serious again. Oh well, Sorry about not getting your joke. quote:Originally posted by KD9KC: quote: I don't know and would be interested to know the answers to your concerns. But, I would think that most of the situations you refer to could not be a reason for you being liable. Unless you knowingly placed your cache in a snake pit or a coyote den and said come find this and we can have a party... It was meant to be funny. I thought it was funny. However, YMMV. There was no guarantee that the item was funny. If you did not think the item was funny, you have no legal recourse but to move on to the next message. Just because one message may or may not be funny, you have no legal expectation that any or all other messages may or may not be funny. The sender of this message is not responsibly for your decision as to wether or not this, any, or all messages are funny. Do you understand these rights as they have been read by you? Ddduuuhhhhh - - duhhh duhhh - - duh. Ddduuuhhhhh - - duhhh duhhh - - duh - - duhhhhhhhh. this is the city..... oops, sorry. Wrong station. Mike. KD9KC. El Paso, Texas. Seventeen minutes after her FIRST call for help, police officers arrived to find Ronyale White dead. Prohibiting self defense is the ultimate crime. Police carry guns to protect themselves. What protects YOU ???

I don't know and would be interested to know the answers to your concerns. But, I would think that most of the situations you refer to could not be a reason for you being liable. Unless you knowingly placed your cache in a snake pit or a coyote den and said come find this and we can have a party... As for the arroyo(sp?) or snakes in the area... These are all risks of the wild. Organic, natural or wild occourances for which you do not have control of. If you place a cache in a forest and a cacher seeks it out during mating season and while looking through your ammo box gets attacked by a large white tail buck defending his mate, You, probably, would not be responsible since that is not your control. You have no way of knowing that incident would occour. However, if you deliberately placed the cache in a known coyote den and the seeker reaches in and gets attacked by an angry mother, you might be in some trouble. Of course, I wouldn't mind being there to see how a skilled hider would place a cache in an occupied coyote den. quote:Originally posted by KD9KC:The stupidity has finally hit Geocaching too. I will be removing my caches this weekend. I can't take a chance, I worked too hard getting where I am to lose it all because of some dumb-*** who can't keep from spilling hot coffee between their legs while searching for my cache. Lots of rattle snakes out here, I could be held responsible if someone gets snake-bite in the rump while they search for the cache. I could be sued for the doctor removing cactus thorns from somebody's rump cause they fell into a patch of Prickly Pear. Don't even try a Fish-hook Barrel Cactus! Actually, this might be worth it, if I could watch! What if someone drowns in an arroyo due to a flash flood from rain on the mountain 5 miles away? Is it an act of god that caused the rain, or am I responsible for causing them to cross the arroyo just as the flood came along? Hmmmm... if someone gets into an accident while driving to a geo-cache, is the cache hider responsible? I will need to keep a map of all local caches in the car, and my GPS too. If I ever have an accident, I hope I have time to look-up the nearest cache before the ambulance crew drags me out. If someone is reading the GEOCACHING.COM web page, and lightening hits the power lines, is Jeremy responsible for the damage? All the notices and disclaimers mean nothing against a dumb cacher and a greedy lawyer. Making something "Absolutely foolproof" can only be done if you comprehend how truly awful an "Absolute Fool" really is. After reading all of this, I wonder how many of you will rush out and remove your caches? Watch out for snakes and cactus thorns... DISCLAIMER. I will not be responsible for you getting snake-bit in your rump, or for getting cactus thorns in your rump, because my message caused you to immediately remove your cache! I will also not be responsible if you have an accident on the way! And I am not responsible if you are struck by lightening while reading this. Mike. KD9KC. El Paso, Texas. Seventeen minutes after her FIRST call for help, police officers arrived to find Ronyale White dead. Prohibiting self defense is the ultimate crime. Police carry guns to protect themselves. What protects YOU ???

If I understand the original post, your reply and another previous one may be a little flawed. I am not a lawyer but I think there may be an issue where Geocaching.com can not absolve liability for any other party or prevent you from seeking compensation from another party like a state, county or federal parks or forest agency or a farmer or private land owner. The disclaimer you mention, I believe, is intended to protect Geocaching.com and their owners and operators from liability for caches that are listed on this site. However, for example, If a cacher placed a cache in a location where he/she intended to draw people and do some sick harm to them or force them to go through some unreasonably dangerous environment to hurt them, without informing them of risks, than while Geocaching.com may not be responsible the cacher, I would hope, would be held fully responsible in accordance with the law. The fact that Geocaching.com says that seekers are fully responsible for their actions does not relieve some sicko of responsibility if he places an exploding ammo box as a cache. As for another post that referred to expectations and hunting for caches in the woods etc. This situation is not in the woods where you are, I agree, responsible because you are dealing with natural occouring features of nature and the land. Nobody is responsible for those hazzards because the hazards are formed without the hiders control or influence. What we ARE talking about here, if I remember, is a farm where a drainage device 30" diameter and 6' deep is placed deliberately, and under control of the land owner, in an area that contains high grass, is conceled and not covered with any protective grate. That is where I say, if the farmer/land owner is aware of the cache, the existance of the drainage pipe, It's condition and is agreeable and knowlegable of and to the cache and the searchers browsing his fields (land)looking for the cache and he/she doesn't take effort to make that pipe safe from searchers he/she may be responsible due to irresponsibility or neglegance. A Geocaching.com disclaimer does not relieve a land owner for such responsibilities. Besides, I would like to point out that many disclaimers have been successfully challenged in court and found to be illegal or inadequate. Don't automatically depend on the fine print on a concert ticket, sports ticket, film envelope.... quote:Originally posted by welch:legal reply this note is on every cache page at geocaching.com: "Note: To use the services of geocaching.com, you must agree to the terms and conditions in our disclaimer." the full disclaimer is here: http://www.geocaching.com/disclaimer.asp but to shorten for you its says in bold: "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache." also in there is: "Any person or entity that relies on information obtained from Geocaching.com does so at his or her own risk." the information referred to could be cache coords. of course thats just this site's disclaimer, you could try to sue a personal geocacher but since the disclaimer comes up even to visitors and non-registered geocachers i think it would be hard to win. http://www.scubaboard.com/images/smilies/whack.gif

I just had a scary thought relating to some other threads I have read. What would people here think of a cachers liability if he/she placed a cache that was located in proximity to an area frequented by people hooking up for sexual activity. Then some teenagers or young college age kids wandered into the area looking for the cache and were confronted harassed or even assaulted by somebody who missunderstood their purpose for being there. If the cache owner was made aware of such an environment and the potential for such a situation and didn't note the risk on his cache page or decide to archive or relocate the cache, could sombody some day try and hold the cache owner responsible. If the park or forest preserve knew of the existance of this location and activity, could they or are they being held responsible? quote:Originally posted by Steve Bukosky:I'm no lawyer but while it would be nice if everyone took responsibility for themselves, it seems to me that it would fall under what a reasonable person would expect. Is it reasonable to be walking, even tresspassing across an open field and suddenly find a man-made hazard without any warning? I was just on a 45 degree slope trying to find a waypoint tag. What if I slipped and fell. Would I have recourse against the cache owner? Scarey, but those kind of situations are bound to come up. Maybe we need cache placer's insurance? God forbid. But, the day a situation comes up like this, it could close a lot of areas to caching. Or, require that a well lit, maintained and marked trail, with hand rails, be required from a designated parking lot all the way to the cache. Steve Bukosky N9BGH Waukesha Wisconsin

I am just beginning this thread so pardon me if I say anything that has already been said. I am not one who is a big fan of the litigious society we have. There is way too much abuse of our legal system by opportunists that will leap onto any chance to get a pay day. Some of them are not driven by their own need for compensation but by an attorneys influence to take advantage of the situation. Then, who collects the payday. The injured party? Nope. The lawyer. I may be extreme on lawyers here but as much as I agree that there are good lawyers, I used to work as a legal assistant and knew many, there are those who are always looking for their lotto ticket. All that said, I would agree with a comment that you need to check your states laws and the totality of the situation. It probably isn't a clean cut issue. A lot of questions would probably need to be asked and the situation judged on a case by case situation. For example, Was the person who placed the cache the land owner? Was the cache placed with the land owners permission? Were you seeking the cache with the land owners permission? Regarding the hazard, Was it in a state of disrepair or other condition or position that was neglegent? Was the pipe in a location where hiking or other activities would be expected and the fact that the high grass wasn't cut to reveal the hazard and and the absence of a grate placed over the pipe to protect from children or other people falling in was in any way an illegal danger neglegent or irresponsible ? If the land owner, with knowlege of the hazard, gave permission for the caching activities and didn't secure it there might be some liability if you were given permission to engage in an activity where that hazard was of a known risk to you. Unless the cache owner is the land owner, or had some sepecific knowlege of the hazard and it's harmful and irresponsible concelment, and lack of a secure shield from people getting hurt, I don't think the placer of the cache should be responsible. I also don't know if the cache owner has any legal responsibility to know of that situation and make note of it on the information listing. I think a responsible cache placer should, at least, be knowlegable of every location that he is placing his/her cache. Is it a legal responsibility? I don't know. An ethical and moral responsibility? I think so. That is my opinion though. However, if the cacher didn't have permission to place the cache on private property, Knew of the hazard and didn't tell of the expectation of the hazard and knowingly placed the cache without regard for the safety of the people who would seek it than there could be some accountablity. This issue may very well be part of what is on the minds of land stewards who are reluctant to agree and authorize the placement of the cache. They may be affraid that if sombody gets hurt searching for a cache, or by something contained in a cache, they might be held liable for any injuries. That may be especially true when dealing with private land owners. Government entities may not have as much concern since they have deeper pockets, adequate insurance, taxing authority to pay for settlements... However placing on a private university or college campus, private school or church grounds, cemetaries, personal property, farms... and the range of private properties you might encounter stiff opposition from the land owners or their representives due to these potential liabilities. The moral of this thread, Make sure you have permission to place. Especially on private lands. Know the surroundings and the caches impact on them or their impact on your cache or cachers that you are drawing to the cache. You might say place and apologize later but what apology are you going to make when the complaints are being hand delivered by the sheriff with SUMMONS written on top. It may seem unrealistic and unfair but unfortunately it is probably just a matter of time. [This message was edited by wmas1960 on August 10, 2002 at 06:10 PM.]

I agree that this proposal is not a good idea. Many of the posts that I have read about caches that had been removed didn't even involve the authorities find out about them here. Many if not most are the result of some parks worker or cop locating a suspicious trail or some damage to some vegitation or in one case some suspicious individual looking around a college campus at night. The most recent post mentioned a lone car in a parking lot that may have caught the attention of Campus Police. Upon investigation they find the cache or cacher. Or, a couple involved a non-cacher, worker or police officer just stumbling accross them and not knowing what they are. They call the police who blow it up and find out what Geocaching is all about. To cover themselves from potential embarassment they make a big deal of it and emphasize how inapproriate the cache was in the location. They highlight any law that can be used to warrant or justify the actions that they took. Littering, Abandonment, Burrying items in a city park, tresspassing on railroad property... If parks officials or forest rangers start to notice illegal caches being DELIBERATELY placed without following policies, laws or rules they may start looking down on us even more and taking it as a personal disrespect. Those who are reasonable and willing to work with us may start turning against us on the impression that we can't be trusted. It is one thing to place and apoligize and play dumb but when they find the information that makes them realize you knew it was illegal or inappropriate and you went around them and placed it anyways and were trying to hide it from them. All bets will likely be OFF. Just my feelings here. quote:Originally posted by dinoprophet:First of all, this is the same idea as hiding coordinates from people who are just out there to vandalize/steal caches. That's been hashed out repeatedly on the forums, and the result always seems to be that there's no workable way of doing it. I've seen this sort of tactic against anti-cache parks proposed elsewhere. I think it's a really bad idea for the simple fact that it creates an image of geocaching that is more likely to get us kicked out of more parks than accepted by the one being invaded. Not to sound alarmist, but it could even result in legislation. All they'd have to do is call it "littering". "Geocaching is punishable by a $500 fine and/or 30 days in jail". There are plenty other illegal outdoor activities available.

Reading this afternoons batch of responses here I have a couple comments and a question for Jeremy. First it is a good point that shouldn't have to be repeated that if you are in an area that is known to be off limits to caching than don't place a cache there. If you are in an area that is known to contain sensitive natural features or archealogical value do not place your cache there. Also it should be reinforced that especially in potentially sensitive areas like this and actually any area, if you notice trails forming and getting out of hand, litter building up to unreasonable areas, destruction to vegitation terrain, erosion... than you should take some action to repair the damage or archive or relocate the cache to allow the area to recover. You should also consider potential traffic to a prospective site and think, What damage could be caused here? If there is anything of concern, you should probably find a better place. I don't know how many cachers there are out there that are like this but when you place your cache you should accept a responsibility to it that you will check in on it from time to time and keep it maintained. You should not place a cache so far away that you can't get to it regularly. If you do place one near a vacation site or other remote location, try to have some designated person who will check on it for you. Some clubs, I understand, will find sombody to adopt your cache or look in from time to time. I get the impression that there are some who place a cache and just sit at their computer and monitor it. A few posts I have read are from people who went back to their cache after a period of time and were shocked at the condition of the environment around their cache. They seem to have not had any idea what was going on. If you read your online log and notice a large number of people are posting finds than you should probably go out and make sure the traffic isn't too heavy for the area. I guess though, sometimes you don't know what the impact will be until you have placed your cache. Like the saying goes, If you place it they will come. Or, maybe if you place it they will come and come and come... Also check if not just to make sure that the container is holding up and that it is getting replaced properly. I have read logs about caches that have gone weeks or months without being in their proper place. When improperly placed you might cause an impact on an unintended area or non-cachers may stumble along your cache and spread it around the area causing litter. Now for a question that had occoured to me. Maybe Jeremy can address this. If a park or forest department etc. were to contact Geocaching.com with a demand that caches not be placed in an area, If they provided the general Lat. and Lon. boundries of the area, can that information be placed in a database and matched with all the caches that are registered on Geocaching.com? I notice there are maps on the cache page that points to location. My understanding is that, is it NGS or The Census or whatever but most of these mapping programs are powered by the government. I think they are based on Tiger. http://tiger.census.gov/cgi-bin/mapsurfer If those maps already have the boundries of national forests or parks..., certain State Parks, already plotted, could Geocaching.com Red Flag all caches that fall in those areas and not allow them displayed online? If a given area has been declared a location by permit only, than maybe some of the land managers, rangers, stewards... can issue a serial number for their approvals and the database can check postings of caches in those areas to make sure they have a proper serial number attached to them. The reason I ask the above question is that in the article and a few other posts I have read it mentions how there are know rules about where a cache can and can't be placed yet there are several caches listed in those very areas. I will admit it does create an appearance that we are all talk and no action.

I do recall another post in another thread where you voiced a similar sentement. However I have to greatly dissagree with you. I think you penned in with a comment when we were discussing the MN situation where an employee of a state park wrote some unprofessional and antagonistic log entries. If I am wrong here, I apologize. However, the issue here is not tearing down the land stewards as much as the improper and unfair assumption that a cache was in the vacinity, therefore it WAS cachers that looted the pottery shards. I am all for the concerns that you mention. Rangers, Stewards, Park Directors... all have the responsibility to preserve and protect the parks for which they are entrusted. In your paragraph, Why should this matter? Math. There are hundreds of millions of people in the US, billions of people on the planet. Most public 'natural' areas would be eradicated if every single person exercised his/her legal right to visit them and perform whatever activity he/she felt like. So, land managers have to balance keeping something of what makes the area worthwhile and allowing people to enjoy it. To them, distinguishing between people who are there to look and enjoy, and those who are just passing through to find a tinker toy is, without cooperation, education, and support, a reasonable point of view. The problem is, THAT IS NOT A REASONABLE POINT OF VIEW. We are dealing here with a policy that is being formulated by many land managers where THEY are determining the value in a park users pursuits. I would ask you, What is the difference in the following scenarios? First, a bird watcher who while wandering through the woods sees a bird perched on a branch of a distant tree. That bird is a little too distant to get a good view. There is also a tree in the way of the birdwatcher. Therefore the person walks, OFF THE TRAIL, into the brush to get a better vantage point to view or photograph the bird. He/she, tramples a patch of a protected plant. Then there is the geocacher who determines there is a cache in a brushy area off of a trail. He/she, ventures off into the brush to look for his prized happy meal toy. The issue here is that both activities are equally destructive to the environment but we are not hearing mention of the birdwatchers destroying the environment. Both are engaging in the exact same pursuit. Hiking, Biking, Climbing... We both have a prize at the end of our hunt. Them a view at a pretty bird or maybe a photograph. Us a happy meal toy. Who has the right to say that I am not permitted to hike through the woods or desert for a dime store rubber lizzard while the other person can trample anything they want because their reward is more valuable. After all, as has been mentioned, it may not be the lizzard that we are seeking. It may be the thrill of the hunt. Just like the birdwatcher may not really be out there seeking a log entry of a rare bird but the thrill of hunting it down and bagging it on film. Or, maybe both the cacher and the birdwatcher may be grossly obese and in desparate need of some exercise and this is the pursuit that they choose to get off their fat #$$3$ and get the cigarette smoke out of their lungs and loose some weight. I guess I have ranted a little but to me the issue is that we are all tax paying owners of these wilderness and archealogical sites. We all have equal right to enjoy these resources. What the issue is here is fairness. It is not up to the forest rangers to determine if my health, prized bird photo or happy meal toy is worthy of being pursued in his park or forest. It is his job to make sure that EVERY HIKER regardless of what they are hiking for, is pursuing their recreation in a legal and permissable fashon. If these land stewards were talking about pursuing those looters that are taking archealogical treasures and holding them responsible that would be one thing. But the article in this issue did not express that. It expressed, unfairly I believe, a desire by the land stewards to blame the theft of these artifacts on Geocachers. An assertion that I feel is not adequately supported by evidence. As for your statements, Now, you can all vent that the problem is the stewards, and say the problems they see don't exist, in which case, you will continue to have access problems and bad press. Or, you can take a clue from the other activities that have successfully used advocacy and cooperation to maintain (and, in some cases, expand) access on public lands. First, I didn't hear anyone state that the problem IS THE STEWARDS, or that the problems they see don't exist. What I have read is that there are SOME stewards that are seeking a path of least resistance by trying to attribute these problems on us when there are people engaging in other activities, many the same as ours, that may also be responsible. And, that their ignorance of others possible responsibility is unfair to us. And, I point out that it is not just land stewards, rangers or park directors. It is also reporters and certain environmental groups that are unfairly attributing these damages on us without seeking our input. To me, the problem has nothing to do whether we are hunting ammo boxes or an elusive beaver in the woods. As I said, we are all hikers, bikers, climbers... Your point about advocacy and cooperation? That is the loundest point that I hear on all these threads. I have heard time and time again about inviting the reporter or a ranger on a cache hunt and explain it to them. Write a rational and non ranting letter asking to have a meeting with a ranger and discuss the concerns. The problem is that LIFE IS A TWO WAY STREET. Just like they said in the article that Rand Hubble(?) tried to contact Geocaching.com for assistance and has not received a reply, I have heard many cachers say they emailed wrote or called their parks or forest officials and have not received a response. You are right though. Advocacy or lobbying and cooperation is the proper path to take. However I think cachers have a right to be concerned about the press that is being put out there. And if we have to rant a bit that is fine too. I would just ask, Keep it civilized though. OK, I am done ranting for now. Maybe more later.

I do recall another post in another thread where you voiced a similar sentement. However I have to greatly dissagree with you. I think you penned in with a comment when we were discussing the MN situation where an employee of a state park wrote some unprofessional and antagonistic log entries. If I am wrong here, I apologize. However, the issue here is not tearing down the land stewards as much as the improper and unfair assumption that a cache was in the vacinity, therefore it WAS cachers that looted the pottery shards. I am all for the concerns that you mention. Rangers, Stewards, Park Directors... all have the responsibility to preserve and protect the parks for which they are entrusted. In your paragraph, Why should this matter? Math. There are hundreds of millions of people in the US, billions of people on the planet. Most public 'natural' areas would be eradicated if every single person exercised his/her legal right to visit them and perform whatever activity he/she felt like. So, land managers have to balance keeping something of what makes the area worthwhile and allowing people to enjoy it. To them, distinguishing between people who are there to look and enjoy, and those who are just passing through to find a tinker toy is, without cooperation, education, and support, a reasonable point of view. The problem is, THAT IS NOT A REASONABLE POINT OF VIEW. We are dealing here with a policy that is being formulated by many land managers where THEY are determining the value in a park users pursuits. I would ask you, What is the difference in the following scenarios? First, a bird watcher who while wandering through the woods sees a bird perched on a branch of a distant tree. That bird is a little too distant to get a good view. There is also a tree in the way of the birdwatcher. Therefore the person walks, OFF THE TRAIL, into the brush to get a better vantage point to view or photograph the bird. He/she, tramples a patch of a protected plant. Then there is the geocacher who determines there is a cache in a brushy area off of a trail. He/she, ventures off into the brush to look for his prized happy meal toy. The issue here is that both activities are equally destructive to the environment but we are not hearing mention of the birdwatchers destroying the environment. Both are engaging in the exact same pursuit. Hiking, Biking, Climbing... We both have a prize at the end of our hunt. Them a view at a pretty bird or maybe a photograph. Us a happy meal toy. Who has the right to say that I am not permitted to hike through the woods or desert for a dime store rubber lizzard while the other person can trample anything they want because their reward is more valuable. After all, as has been mentioned, it may not be the lizzard that we are seeking. It may be the thrill of the hunt. Just like the birdwatcher may not really be out there seeking a log entry of a rare bird but the thrill of hunting it down and bagging it on film. Or, maybe both the cacher and the birdwatcher may be grossly obese and in desparate need of some exercise and this is the pursuit that they choose to get off their fat #$$3$ and get the cigarette smoke out of their lungs and loose some weight. I guess I have ranted a little but to me the issue is that we are all tax paying owners of these wilderness and archealogical sites. We all have equal right to enjoy these resources. What the issue is here is fairness. It is not up to the forest rangers to determine if my health, prized bird photo or happy meal toy is worthy of being pursued in his park or forest. It is his job to make sure that EVERY HIKER regardless of what they are hiking for, is pursuing their recreation in a legal and permissable fashon. If these land stewards were talking about pursuing those looters that are taking archealogical treasures and holding them responsible that would be one thing. But the article in this issue did not express that. It expressed, unfairly I believe, a desire by the land stewards to blame the theft of these artifacts on Geocachers. An assertion that I feel is not adequately supported by evidence. As for your statements, Now, you can all vent that the problem is the stewards, and say the problems they see don't exist, in which case, you will continue to have access problems and bad press. Or, you can take a clue from the other activities that have successfully used advocacy and cooperation to maintain (and, in some cases, expand) access on public lands. First, I didn't hear anyone state that the problem IS THE STEWARDS, or that the problems they see don't exist. What I have read is that there are SOME stewards that are seeking a path of least resistance by trying to attribute these problems on us when there are people engaging in other activities, many the same as ours, that may also be responsible. And, that their ignorance of others possible responsibility is unfair to us. And, I point out that it is not just land stewards, rangers or park directors. It is also reporters and certain environmental groups that are unfairly attributing these damages on us without seeking our input. To me, the problem has nothing to do whether we are hunting ammo boxes or an elusive beaver in the woods. As I said, we are all hikers, bikers, climbers... Your point about advocacy and cooperation? That is the loundest point that I hear on all these threads. I have heard time and time again about inviting the reporter or a ranger on a cache hunt and explain it to them. Write a rational and non ranting letter asking to have a meeting with a ranger and discuss the concerns. The problem is that LIFE IS A TWO WAY STREET. Just like they said in the article that Rand Hubble(?) tried to contact Geocaching.com for assistance and has not received a reply, I have heard many cachers say they emailed wrote or called their parks or forest officials and have not received a response. You are right though. Advocacy or lobbying and cooperation is the proper path to take. However I think cachers have a right to be concerned about the press that is being put out there. And if we have to rant a bit that is fine too. I would just ask, Keep it civilized though. OK, I am done ranting for now. Maybe more later.

You are correct that the article did mention the input by a geocacher. It also did mention that there are land stewards that haven't noticed any problems. It also mentioned one person Rand Hubbell, a spokesman for the Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Department. was reported to have said, he supports geocaching and believes most people wouldn't knowingly destroy archaeological sites. The article also states, The Web site does have rules: The game cannot be played on lands maintained by the National Park Service nor on or near archaeological or historical sites. It also advises users to ask permission before hiding on private land. but then rebuts, Still, there are at least 18 known Arizona caches listed on the Internet that are on or near archaeological sites. leaving an impression that we say one thing but don't really care about these sites. It also rebuts the Hubble quote with a comment that he had contacted the website about having caches removed that are on county property and has not heard back yet. The point of my post here is to address the, appearently common, practice of beating somebody, some cause, some organization or some issue to death in the first couple of paragraphs then be fair by pointing out some balance in the middle or end of the story and rebut all the balance with a big WONK on the head. This article was in no way fair or balanced in this issue. It was mentioned by Jeremy that My major concerns about this article are that a) No one contacted me or any other admins on the site and we have responded to the Arizona park managers, so I don't understand why it says we haven't The writer, as I pointed out states that Hubble did contact Geocaching.com but didn't get a reply. Based on Jeremy's statement, whether it is the writer or Hubble, someone is mistaken here. None the less, it makes us look like irresponsible, unresponsive and uninterested in the archealogical or environmental concerns. All olive branches that are offered in the article are immediately burned in the the following statements. What really bothers me is that it gives an ILLUSION that the article is unbiased or balanced. It also may recognize that many people will read the first couple paragraphs and formulate their opinions and reactions and move on to the next article. The problem is the other side is offered well after that point where the reader has moved on or formed an irreversable opinion. For those who are willing or interested in reading the whole article it then takes all the statements on the other side and refutes or deminishes them. Going into the 5th paragraph of this post now, most readers have probably moved on long ago. I will end with my concern that, combined with all the ASSUMPTIONS based on what could be coincidence or with no evidance that the ATVer was a cacher or if he/she was, that, that person took a single piece of pottery, or with no evidence other than a trail leading to a cache to PRESUME that the existance of the Lat: Lon: coordinates here on Geocaching.com led some looters to this archealogical site it is clear to me that this story had a predetermined motive and biased conclusion and that the writer and those other land stewards who contributed really didn't seem to have an interest in both sides of the story. They are trying to eliminate Geocaching from the parks or are trying to project blame for other established activities onto the activities of a much smaller less organized group before their popularity and straingth gets too big to deal with. I would agree that the editor, writer and the various agencies mentioned in the article should be contacted with appropriate, fair and rational rebuttals to the concerns and points made. It should be made clear, even if it is with a published editorial reply, that there is a whole other side to the stories assertions that were not adequately solicited before the article was published. quote:Originally posted by jfitzpat:Well, the article did bother to solicit feedback from local enthusiasts, and quoted other agencies as not having observed any problems. If the core assertion, that despite geocaching.com's rules some caches are at archeological sites, then you better save your breath complaining about the stewards and do a better job of self policing... -jjf

quote:Originally posted by Irvingdog:Yes Dteec, yes. If you would have approached me like a gentleman and explained that people with slower connections are experiencing slower load times because of the photo on my signature line, I would have been appreciative and eliminated it right away. The next poster pointed this fact out to me (sorry, I run a cable and I'm not the most experienced surfer out there) so I immediately removed it. Does this put your question to rest? I wasn't intentionally slowing down other peoples surf time "because I could". That's not my style. I was ignorant. (more my style, I'm sure you'll agree) It's a game folks.......... I am not familiar with the photo that you had on your post and how it might have impacted load time. However, if kept within reason I don't see that it has to be a problem. I use dial up, for now, Usually only about 22bps with my bad phone lines right now. I am looking into broadband cable modem access. In fact a tech is coming tomorrow to look into our cable and see if it is adequate. We have Digital Cable and are having some problems that may be low signal strength. Anyways, hopefully will have it soon. In my situation with the 22bps dialup connections most pictures in the specs that I posted before, load fairly quick. My computer, also, is about 2 years old and isn't as lightening fast as many out there. 320 pixels dimensions 72 dpi, .jpg and medium compression is perfectly adequate for computers and net viewing. There is no need for much bigger or higher resolution or quality. Keeping your images to within certain limits can add that impact and cheracter to your posts and still be efficiently viewed by most viewers.