conradv

My appologies. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, but a point to be made that Groundspeak has no firm "Agenda" policy and it seems to be randomly implemented. You are correct on waiting for a firm response from Groundspeak.

So why was a moderator one of the ones that wanted a cache? If they are going to ban this one, then they'd better do a little "house cleaning." Reviewers are people that have independent thoughts. They also abide by the guidelines that GC sets. Reviewers are a part of our community. They are everyday cachers just like you and me. The reviewer you are talking about is mtn-man, There is no house cleaning to be done there. He's impeachable in everything he does. You can't find a finer cacher or reviewer. El Diablo I wasn't talking about housecleaning reviewers. Sorry if it came across that way. There are many caches that deal with "agendas". That's what I was talking about. If they're going to have silly rules, then they'd better enforce them across the board.

So why was a moderator one of the ones that wanted a cache? If they are going to ban this one, then they'd better do a little "house cleaning."

So I suppose that the Heroes of Flight 93 cache is an "agenda" cache and will need to be shut down as well. And about every other cache posted in the other "We'll Never Forget #1" thread.... and wasn't there a mod that wanted to put one out too? Leave it to Groundspeak.....

So what is Groundspeak's definition of "agenda"?

Thank you Pretending that a federal agency with no policy is going to remain that way forever is just shortsided. There WILL be a day soon where they will all have something written down about Geocaching.

You're missing my point. The locals here at the FS know about Geocaching. I didn't "introduce" it to them. I personally know the Archeologist (who is semi-against it) and the Ranger (who doesn't know much about it at all) and talk to them each probably once a month or so. What I am trying to do is educate them as to the positive benifits of Geocaching. If they were to make a policy on their own, it just might be something like the State Parks have....

We're lucky enough here in Washington and Idaho to not have to worry about it...yet. I do know that the Forest Service had a draft document for the entire network back in 2004, and in it there was a note that they would have to be moved every year. They dropped it for now and are leaving it up to the local Rangers. Although, if people keep calling and asking them for permission we'll have limits before you know it! They are already looking into "limits", and "they" don't know anything about Geocaching, or at least the ones in my neck of the woods. Why let uninformed, ignorant people make the decisions for us? It's just a matter of time before all of the National Forests will have geocaching policies, and I for one would rather have a "Geocacher-Friendly" policy.

I don't know about "almost always" and "Most", but the Georgia National Forests neither have a "one year limit" nor a form. They provided the extra requirements (i.e. beyond normal gc.com guildlines) to the GC reviewers and they try to make sure these requirements are met. I can't say anything other states NF. I typed that wrong - I meant "Those that have a policy on geocaches almost always have a "one year limit"... etc...

We're lucky enough here in Washington and Idaho to not have to worry about it...yet. I do know that the Forest Service had a draft document for the entire network back in 2004, and in it there was a note that they would have to be moved every year. They dropped it for now and are leaving it up to the local Rangers.

I don't know about "almost always" and "Most", but the Georgia National Forests neither have a "one year limit" nor a form. They provided the extra requirements (i.e. beyond normal gc.com guildlines) to the GC reviewers and they try to make sure these requirements are met. I can't say anything other states NF. I've been in contact with my local NF - they don't have a policy at this time and it's kind of a Don't Ask, Don't tell kind of thing. I searched for other NF policies on the internet and the first 5 that I found all had a policy where there was a 1-year limit before it was moved. Here's some of the information I found: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/superior/r...ion/geocaching/ http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/allegheny/...ion/geocaching/ http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/boone/recreation/geocaching.shtml http://www.mi-geocaching.org/modules.php?n...isting=manistee http://users.conwaycorp.net/lunsford/misc/...Application.pdf Here's the form that they lilke to use: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/superior/r...ration_Form.htm

It sounds like you have some problems with this cache. If everyone followed this rule to the letter, you could probably delete 50% of all Geocaches. Take National Forests. Those that do allow caches almost always have a "One Year Limit", then it has to be moved. Most have a form that needs to be filled out and sent in to get permission. I'd bet that most of 'em have never been listed with the USFS.

O.K. Now you are up to 7. My calculator can't show me what percentage of 16,500 that is. My point is that it is probably easy find a few questionable finds in anyone's profile. But do that with a high profile cacher, sensationalize it a little bit and we're off to the races. People get sucked into this trap easily. 165 questionable posts would be 1% of the find count in your quote. Even if were four times this amount it is still a long way from 6500. But your quote appears to suggest it is bogus finds that have somehow put one or two cachers that far ahead of the nearest challengers. That is sensationalizing. I'm a relative newbie here, but in my mind, any "bogus" finds are incomprehendable, be it whatever percentage of the total. I'm not here for the "numbers game", I'm here to have fun. Taking it to that extreme just to be ahead of the next guy is just laughable. I'm not accusing anyone, but people really need to look at themselves a little closer if they consider posting bogus logs for a game with no "rules" as a healthy thing to do.

35

I put out a 2006 Green Jeep in a new cache, but it has yet to be found. Gemestelle Cache Sigh.... I wonder if it was my Grizzly Bear warning, or the 2100' elevation gain with 1000' gain off trail through a talus slope and up a steep bear grass slope. Sigh....

I'm not so sure about that. I too would like to have some other rating for "0ff-trail" adventures. A lot of people have no idea as it is how to interpret the Terrain ratings, sometimes even mixing up the Difficulty ratings with them in the bargain (which is another of my pet peeves - Terrain is a thing, Difficulty is a condition... but that's beside the point).

Ouch! 3 DNF's? That's what I call persistance....

What's off topic? This Ummm... yeah. I think I knew that. But you know that's not what I meant...

Luckilly, I don't have to worry about that in my area. There aren't a lot of cruddy caches in Northern Idaho/Western Montana mostly due to the "terrain"....

What's off topic?

In my neck of the woods, that'd probably be a 2-1/2. Now THIS is a 4 near my home coords.

Right now, probably 200 is "high" to me. It is very dependant on location. I'm up in northern Idaho where they're spread pretty thin. Now someone in a metro area who has thousands around them? Their version of "high" is a lot different from mine.

I recently placed a cache where I saw a grizzly about 100 yards above me who promptly dissapeared into the brush. The cache placement was above where he was, and I continued onward and hid the cache (granted, I was quite vocal on the way up and the bear was long gone). I posted a warning about my sighting on my cache page. I'm not sure how long it'll take to get that First Finder... It may be years.

If you signed the logbook with a certain date, just use that date online when you log the cache. I don't see any problem with "late" logging at all. After all, you DID physically find and log the cache.

Is the discover button for when a TB is "out of sync" from where it is supposed to be? If it's travelled from the cache that it was last logged as placed in on the internet?