Dogmeat*

I think 8 tracks are too mainstream. Should use laser discs.

Really cool idea. I'm gonna look into it.

It's near a series of paths used during the summer months and sometimes used to get to a nearby high school. Also, it's in a hole either in a tree or on the ground meaning it could have been kicked out by a squirrel or bird, or could have been seen and thought to have been garbage and picked up.

I've never had a problem using the app.

That's why I also meantioned they didn't log anything since November 2010. Since this thread was made, they logged in (august 23). Maybe it'll get fixed. I hope so.

Lol.. We can't eat without it affecting the environment. Get over it.

The rout 66 video proves it's possible. I'd do it if I was in an area and could. Why? For the challenge. I think it'd be tiring, but if I made it through it could prove my will power for doing something so boring haha..

... which is exactly what the situation was here. Instead of just logging NA, I came here. It was answered, I did what I felt I should do, and then the thread died for two weeks.

Yes I would log that it needs maintenance and maybe they could move it to a better location so that this crap doesn't happen again.

It's not commercializing it unless you say things like "stop in for a beer". Just say that the series is based off of the many breweries in the area, and leave it at that and you'll be fine.

I've found a few that weren't found in a year+. Disabling them would be pretty ridiculous.

Can you link us to the cache?

In this case, since there was no assault, by any statutory definition, there is no terrorist threat. So what you're saying is it's not a threat unless it's acted upon? If you're in law enforcement, I'd assume you would know the definition of a threat which is "A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not". Telling someone to watch themselves is indeed an implied threat. Especially with the fact that the man followed them for a mile before making the threat, which shows clearly that the man has a habit of acting irrationally as we've seen earlier when he took a tantrum over a guard rail being used to hide the cache. So we'll go back to that definition where it says "A STATEMENT" not "AN ACTION", therefor meaning it is still considered a threat seeing as the threat has been made and is now apparent. That's how threats work. Would any legal action be taken? No. Would the police talk to the guy? Yes, police that actually do their job would go speak to him. You are not understanding that the court of law (which LEO's have to enforce) cannot legally recognize someone following you for a mile and telling you "you better watch out" as any kind of threat. Even thugh we all know this guy was an aggressive so and so, and yes, threatening - the court of law has to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. LEO's know this and could not just slap the cuffs on him and haul him off. Sadly though, yes, im a state where stand your ground is so easily defendable, i'd be more cautious where you cache and who you deal with. Which is why I said no legal action would be taken, but the police would still speak with him.. which also happens to be the question mr law enforcement asked. "Why would the police speak to him?"

In this case, since there was no assault, by any statutory definition, there is no terrorist threat. So what you're saying is it's not a threat unless it's acted upon? If you're in law enforcement, I'd assume you would know the definition of a threat which is "A statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not". Telling someone to watch themselves is indeed an implied threat. Especially with the fact that the man followed them for a mile before making the threat, which shows clearly that the man has a habit of acting irrationally as we've seen earlier when he took a tantrum over a guard rail being used to hide the cache. So we'll go back to that definition where it says "A STATEMENT" not "AN ACTION", therefor meaning it is still considered a threat seeing as the threat has been made and is now apparent. That's how threats work. Would any legal action be taken? No. Would the police talk to the guy? Yes, police that actually do their job would go speak to him.

I'm sorry you always have to strut around these boards as if you know all and see all. I hear acting constantly aggressive over small things ages you horribly. You should consider getting help with that. In any situation I've seen, an implied threat such as "you better watch yourself" is followed up with the police saying "Hey, stop that." Especially if this was brought on by a previous engagement where the person acted aggressively for absolutely no reason, and then proceeded to follow you to consider the aggressive harassment.

You mean like mentioning that you have a find streak of over 1100 days? How is that a self righteous pat on the back? They simply asked a question, and proceeded to explain what got them wondering about the question.

Yep. I agree that a find means you go to the coordinates, you "FIND" the container, you sign the log. But if that's not the way someone else enjoys the game, who am I to call them down? Either way, we're both enjoying the game to our own capabilities and I think that's awesome.

I would have called the police. Following you and then saying to "watch yourself" is an implied threat, and at the very least he'll have some words with the police and hopefully learn to act civilized instead of an unevolved POS. All of that over a container on a guard rail. Some people need to be medicated.

I read T.D.M.22's comment and thought they were just being too serious. Nope, that video is just stupid. Maybe if they knew what geocaching was it'd be easier to add humor to it.

What really bothers me is when someone can't find one of my caches, so they quickly accuse me of having bad coordinates. "I'd like to know what kind of GPS you're using, because I can't find anything with these coordinates." Doesn't matter that other people found it no problem. All that matters is they didn't find it so automatically, I took bad coordinates.

They did it because the CO was out of town and could not replace it. When he returned, he thanked them for the help even though the cache got archived. You people are quick to start calling people out over nothing. When you become more experienced, reality will set in. You might consider stopping insulting experienced geocachers. Throw downs are thrown down so the cacher can claim a find on a cache they didn't find. The owner might thank them, but the ammo can is now a micro! Okay. The owner could not maintain it. Then it should be archived. The reason the CO could not maintain it is irrelevant. If you cannot find the cache, log a DNF, not a cheap throw down. There are many caches with a cheap throw down next to the actual cache because the cacher did not find it, and wanted to avoid a DNF. Ahaha. It wasn't an ammo can, it was a micro. They replaced the clearly destroyed micro with another micro. They had found the cache before, they knew where it was and what it looked like, they found it melted. They put a new one there. Ta da. It's not a throwdown.

It's a good idea both for the safety of your property, but to get people interested in the game. I like that.

What do you tell people when they call? Are they calling out of interest, or just curiosity as to why it's posted on your car?

If you didn't find the cache, you didn't find the cache. Simple as that.

They did it because the CO was out of town and could not replace it. When he returned, he thanked them for the help even though the cache got archived. You people are quick to start calling people out over nothing.