Jumpin' Jack Cache

Nonsense! Life is too short to sit on a log while your partner does something you do not like. C means finding things you both like. It also means doing some things that are only important to one member of a couple separately. Horse crap. Compromise is dealing with life while finding a way to geocache. I've dealt with a lot of things that compromise wasn't even a consideration. You seem to be confusing other issues with the demands of a relationship (the point of the OP) A relationship with demands ain't much of one...

Like this one.Keep in mind (and I thought of this several hours after first reading your post) that the cache owner of the religious tract cache lives in a State where the reviewer allowed caches from all over the State, and in many cases well over 100 miles from the coordinates, to be incorporated into Geo-art in a lake, before being reprimanded by Groundspeak. It's a fact of life some reviewers are less strict than others, and an observation made by BrianSnat in the 3rd or 4th post to the thread. For example, If TTJ picked up that religious tract cache, and moved it 150 miles west into the Adirondacks, it ain't getting published. Just my opinion, of course. Who knows how appeals would react to TTJ's cache if it were originally rejected somewhere.I'm sorry, what's the agenda of that cache, other than to talk about a type of swag one might find in a cache? I edited what I wanted to say pretty brutally before I submitted the cache for the review process, which by the way, included a vetting by other reviewers than just NHPride. Do not get me wrong, TTJ!! You're talking to a guy who thinks the whole commercial/Agenda thing is completely ridiculous. I regularly hide and seek caches on an alternative Geocaching site where there are no such rules. Did you know that I hosted an event in April 2012, and the event page contained the restaurant's logo, and a link to their menu? OMG, the horror!! An agenda is in the eyes of the beholder, and it's very unfortunate for a cache owner if that beholder happens to be their reviewer, or Joe Geocacher who is somehow offended, and has nothing better to do than fire off an email to contact@Groundspeak.com. Oh look, someone from Ontario replied: Well, now, generally speaking. It used to be just mentioning a business was a Bad Thing. Enough drama erupted about that though that the reviewers can now decide for themselves whether they feel "marketed" to, and decide to publish the listing or not. So yeah, generally speaking, mentioning stuff for informational purposes won't raise a flag; just be careful of reviewers could infer. (just thought I'd add Due to a combination of strict reviewer interpretation of the guidelines, and player backlash and taking their complaints "higher up", things once got so out of hand in Ontario that you couldn't even say "park across the street from McDonalds", or "$5 Tim Horton's gift card for the FTF". I am 1,000% convinced that "this cache contains religious pamphlets" would not have passed muster either. To answer your very simple question "where's the agenda on that cache?" To me, there is none. But that's just me. Yeah, who'd a thunk them Canadians would be so dramatic. Actually, TTJ discussed the idea for that one here very openly before ever actually submitting it, surprised your historian self didn't remember that (both digs friendly)

I think your best bet would be to follow advice from an actual reviewer.

Did/does anyone need to "dig or break ground to hide or to find the cache"? Most of the fake sprinkler caches that I've seen have been on top of the ground, either supported by bark or other loose material, or attached to a board that lies flat on the ground. I have never seen a sprinkler cache like that. All the sprinkler caches I have seen are in the ground. These would typicaly require the hider to "break ground"; unless they used a gopher hole or somthing. I think sprinkler caches should be band anyway. They result in widespread property damage at many other cache sites. It'd be pretty tough to ban them, though. How would it be accomplished? Ask the reviewer to check out each cache prior to publication? Really easy, once someone reported on it, all online logs will be deleted, that way all cachers will be aware really fast that its banned, period. Only on newer caches. The older one will stand but archived and locked. Never seen that happen before (all online logs deleted) and sincerely doubt that we'll ever see it. And if somebody feels the need to report it, they can already report is as a buried cache if they really want to. But that still would not be banning sprinkler head caches. I have see all logs "deleted" on a new cache, it was too close to another one and the reviewer deleted it and pull it off the shelf. When you got a whole state on your database, you find those type of action. What happen is, when I want to refresh the cache, it wont. It happen more often in the southern oregon than anywhere else in the state. Something is in the water down there. This happen about once every two months or so. In my experience, logs on retracted caches still stand.

Agreed. Take them to the place you want them to visit and then to the cache location. +1 more. Use the historical site for some numbers that lead to a wonderfully beautiful location. Best of both worlds Except for the fact that a good percentage of cachers ignore multis, especially if they aren't local.

Not sure what a "criminal lawsuit" is. As far as a civil lawsuit in this case, there really is no point as the guy really doesn't have any assets and won't really be making much in prison. Sue the cache hider? The only way that that could fly is if you could convince a jury that he was negligent in hiding the cache. While the cache was on private property, it was not on the property of the guy that fired on the cachers. The property that it was on was undeveloped desert with no fences or markings of any kind. There is no way that the hider could have any expectation that an adjacent property owner would lose his mind and fire a weapon at people. I look at cache listings kind of like a tour book. I know that there was a lawsuit in Hawaii a few years back where someone was injured or killed after following directions in a published tour book. I don't know what the outcome was, but it's my personal feeling that if you point me to a giant rock, a waterfall or a tree, it's my decision to climb them. I should not be allowed to sue you because I made the wrong decision. Not even if I was grossly negligent?

Would it have been that hard to put this in a reviewer note? It's a bit snarky, but it probably still answers the questions. It was already there, for the most part, from how I read it. And it wouldn't be hard, if one knew beforehand that it needed to be.

Irregardless of to the "location" posts, I have to wonder, copper for support? Never seen that.

Shoot! I'll never get that 1/5 for my grid.

I pretty much use the same approach as you.

Hmmm, my husband and I do things like that (with each other, people! ). But we're a bit weird. You two are awesome! Anything is possible, but I'm 100% convinced I witnessed a meet in the park adultery necking session. And one that really ticked me off, because I couldn't look for the cache! I also remembered I did also witness a whoopee session in the woods as a teenager. They didn't so much as even notice I walked by, best I can tell. That was way before Geocaching though. Way, way before. Dude, free porn! Geeze! Talk about gift horses...

Really? I'll be blasted, I didn't know that! (SGW, now you see.)

The last time I was there, I was too busy looking at petroglyphs, checking out abandoned buildings, seeing ghost towns, finding trilobites, visiting the lunar crater, looking at a boot hill and other old cemeteries, discovering history, talking to the folks at the Inn in Rachel, and sky watching to stop for any of the repetitive caches. And it is very near the Valley of Fire, the Old Santa Fe Trail, and within reach of the Toroweap overlook (not to mention other places on the North Rim, Zion, or Bryce). There was enough caching for me -- with several favorites among them. The experience is what you make of it. Of course my general advice for any traveler is to find places you want to visit and let the caching follow. What geodarts said. The North Rim of the Grand Canyon is gorgeous, and has a fraction of the visitors of the south rim. A little harder to get to, but worth it. Bryce Canyon is stunning. Zion has lovely views and great hiking/climbing opportunities. Death Valley is nearby to the ET trail as well. Go during the winter, and it is absolutely wonderful. At night, look up into the sky and you will see more stars that you thought you ever could. Thats place is on my list to do because its below sea level. Yes, I want to find a cache thats below sealevel someday. Theres only a few places in the world to do that. And as of a few days ago, Death Valley has been deemed the hottest place on earth. Although Bryce Canyon is relatively in the same area as the ET Trail, it's still almost 300 miles away. Ad hominum attack. Instead of addressing the numerous arguments against powertrails, just characterize those that make them as "haters". "powertrail poohers" feel more comfortable? OP, if you want to do ET, do it. I recommend spending at least one night in Rachel and looking at other caches in the area. Ignore the "powertrail poohers". It's a big country, that's a beautiful part of it, as are many others. Come to Appalachia, I'll show you a beautiful, green, temeprate rainforest (unless it's winter).

I don't think that is a good idea. It has the potential of dragging angst from the other subforums into this one, and perpetuating the cycle. Why perpetuate the negative? Let's focus on the positive. This is the "Getting Started" forum. It's not the same as the other subforums. Let's keep it that way, please. B. I wouldn't mind seeing some examples. That work for ya?

Consequently, I expect that he would never buy an iPad, iPhone or iAnygizmo. Not so far

If DeLorme would use a more easily replaced cable (not proprietary), they'd get my business when I decided to buy again.

Been our reviewer for 5+ years. And at one point owned the most urban micros in the area. She was the person who introduced the idea of micros on every corner in this part of the country. Why, when people quote Jumpin' Jack Cache, does it only say "Jumpin'"? I have noticed this. I will have no further comment on the inherent inconsistencies of the volunteer reviewer system, or reviewers under their player accounts introducing micros on every corner into New England States. It's the '. Somebody in OT figured it out. Came with the forum update. Check it out ^

I have been hiding caches for a long time. I contact my reviewer if something might possibly need explaining. I add reviewer notes for pertinent information. Never a problem guideline-wise. Now my reviewer (not mine specifically, just general) give me a boilerplate questionnaire? I'd wonder, too.

Problems with violations like were mentioned in the area lately? Sure hope it isn't a new standard site-wide.

Newbie reviewer?

Howdy, Man, that feels like a long time ago. I think I've got it sorted out, it's awaiting review.

I must have gone through a couple bucks worth of pennies and another 10 or 20 in other coinage on the tracks, good times. Them fancy machines gots nothin' on a plumb slick, train-run-over penny

Hell, I played on the tracks all the time as a kid. Cool way to smash pennies! You get a cache turned down near the tracks or what? Why beat it to death?

I hate to be the one to give you the bad news, but you'll have to host your animated gnome elsewhere and link it, too. (you can make it show on the page.) On the contrary...my animated embeded "Gnome, elf, dwarf, leprechaun",HTML code, is working just fine! Animated gif hosted here? If so, things have changed.

I hate to be the one to give you the bad news, but you'll have to host your animated gnome elsewhere and link it, too. (you can make it show on the page.)