CoyoteRed

If the selection of caches are across a broad range, then it could simply be little different than most shoplifting I come across: took it just because they wanted it and didn't want to pay for it. The vast majority of the time the shoplifter either had the money for the item on them or could have asked a friend or family member with them for it. They all then want to simply pay for the item(s) and be done with it. It doesn't work that way. The risk for shoplifting isn't simply having to pay for the item(s) after all. It's a large fine, possible jail time, and a record. In SC, if you have two previous convictions for certain property crimes then you get charged with a felony and can get up to 10 years in prison. That dollar item you steal could remove you from society for a long time. I would say most shoplifters get away with it for a while. Most stores either don't know specifics--only that they have shrinkage--or don't want to confront the offender. However, when the same shoplifter comes into a store that vigorously pursues and prosecutes then it's a different story. And I'm told about 95% of the time, it's their first time getting caught. Rap sheets tell a different story. A lot more 5% have been arrested for property crimes. And you'd be amazed at the backgrounds of some of these folks. I've arrested daughters of active deputies. I've detained and released (with documents the same as an arrest and jailing, but for juveniles) offspring of retired high-level brass of my own department. (Not a pleasant experience.) They all had the money on them! What's amazing is how few of the truly indigent we arrest. Sure, we get a few of the winos and crack addicts, but it's actually rare in my experience. I've personally never arrested a non-addict, homeless person for shoplifting in my short time as an LEO--or even responded to a call for one for that matter. Most shoplifters and the like are folks who have a roof over their heads and money in their pocket with no valid reason or excuse. It seems like the homeless would rather beg for money than steal food. Perhaps Mr. Repak falls in the same category as these shoplifters. Restitution could [/i]start[/i] with returning or replacing the stolen caches. Perhaps the person having dialog with Mr. Repak can get to the bottom of simply how many and which caches were stolen. Then work out a deal with Carole Darling to drop the charges in lieu of the restitution. I'm sure something could be worked out.

I don't have a dog in this hunt, so I don't know. However, I'm the type of person who does a lot of thinking on different things. I like to step back and look at the forest, get a new perspective. I can read Mr. Repak's statement a little differently. Like I said, I don't know what kind of caches were stolen, but he could be meaning placements that, in his opinion, should have never been placed. I can sympathize. I see caches going out all around me that I think should not have been placed. I think Groundspeak, in an effort to maximize profits for themselves, have compromised the hobby I feel in love with. If I were in the same mindset as Mr. Repak, I could have forced my region to comply with my notion of geocaching. I could have gone around and stolen every single cache that didn't have purpose other than providing a smilie. I could have sabotaged the anti-anti-geocaching efforts and it might have been enough to have practically banned all caching in SC. (Except for a lot of the trache I see getting placed anyway and sometimes why did we bother.) I don't know the mindset of Mr. Repak. I don't condone what he did and how he set about doing it. But, just think, Dave Ulmer himself once publicly speculated that geocaching was a bad idea. If it hadn't become a business for Jeremy Irish where do you think it would have been? My thinking is probably right along side letterboxing: small, healthy, and under the radar of most authorities. Then again Mr. Repak could have a whole different notion of the situation altogether.

I know. Let's make a chart with pictures of every known container and put them into sections that relate to the proper size. A cacher only need to click on the container they are using and the proper selection is made. Of course, an "I don't see it" button would there and correspond to "Not Listed.

Oh, the joy of unintended consequences. Just think, got a disgruntled roommate or ex? You come home to it completely trashed, stuff missing, and your weed in plain view. They knew you weren't home so no worry of getting caught and had plenty of time to do it. No longer do they need to know your work schedule or that you eat with your mother every Wednesday night. Beauty.

"Other" has everything covered fairly well. "Not listed" is just another way to say "other." With "virtual" it positively describes that there is no physical container.

I would agree, but the reviewer would have to enforce this when the description provides the size. It's not a mystery if you're telling people the size. "Other" has become the defacto Nano category and gets filtered out. Just like too many micros are trache, too many "others" are also micros. It all gets filtered out.

Could be cache information or could be his journal. Some of us carry a journal of all of our activities. Unlike the online logs, we keep our personal thoughts of a cache in there. Probably don't want to read it if you're a cache owner and don't want to know how we really feel about your cache. It also has puzzle solutions, puzzle ideas, possible future cache locations, etc.

I don't know how they do it in NY, but here, if I were the arresting officer then there is next to zero additional costs for prosecuting. First, it would have written on a traffic ticket with a court date along with all my other traffic violations, shoplifting, simple possessions, disorderlies , etc. No extra time, I'm there anyway. Second, I could win the case if he wanted to proceed. I rarely lose cases in municipal court. I've won cases against fairly smart people over such minor things. I've prosecuted over 82 cents and when the guy didn't show up for court he got a $1092 fine or 30 days in jail warrant. HOWEVER... The guy is smart and with a lot to lose with a conviction. While I'm have no idea what he mindset is, he could play the environmentalists card. He could claim he was cleaning up illegal placements that are causing jeopardy to the hobby and rogue reviewers are allowing it--therefor he was protecting the hobby and no different than picking up trash. (Remember, this is going to be argued in front of folks who don't know about the hobby and could think this is extremely silly.) He could even argue the arrest was in retaliation to being a "cache cop" trying to do the right thing. ...or he could simply stay quiet and request a jury trail. The case would get shuffled and then eventually dismissed. Best case scenario I see is he is not prosecuted, he keeps his job, turns his efforts to creating upper-scale caches and stops stealing others. Worse case is he takes a turn for the worse. He no longer cares if folks find out who he is, recruits friends to steal even more caches, and uses his contacts in other organizations to turn those groups against geocaching making it harder to get permission and access. If he loses his job then he has more time to steal caches. He could see the hobby as the reason his life went into the toilet. Could make him even more motivated to steal. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

In a way, yes. Here's the thing with solder, and brazing for that matter, the materials are very similar. The solder is tin and lead. What you're soldering is copper, aluminum and similar metals. You can't, for instance, solder copper to plastic. Because the materials are similar the bond is very strong. Hot glue in a sense is similar to solder. There is not a chemical reaction like a lot of adhesives, but it still bonds things together. On the similar materials issue, millions of fish enthusiast rely on silicone sealant to seal their glass aquariums. Silicone sticks like mad! Why? The silicone in the sealant is chemically similar to the silicone in the glass.

Mechanical fasteners are superior to adhesives. Period. Mechanical bonds are superior to simply adhering things together. This would include solvents that melt things together as well. If I want to pretty much guarantee a bonding where I can't use a screw or other fastener, I'll use rough sandpaper for a rough surface or even drill tiny shallow holes for the adhesive to get into. A lot of glues etc. will hardened to very hard. If it can get a good mechanical grip that will make it harder to compromise the grip elsewhere. I'll augment glues with fibers for a stronger overall job. If I were to want to attach a penny to a golf ball and really want it to stay and not want the head of a screw poking out, here's what I'd do. Use a flat head screw or make one. Solder the head to the penny. Drill a hold in the golf ball. Fill the hole with glue. Insert screw in hole. Done. Magnets to almost anything? Buy the magnet cups here. The cups will increase the effectiveness of the magnets and provide a way to attach the magnet. Win-win. Oh, and also think about how the two things are going to be handled. How will the bond be pulled, flexed, twisted, etc. when deciding on how to attach things.

Groundspeak should build an API and let third parties develop the apps. A lot less work and the users will end up with a much better result.

What about Earthcaches? They don't have a size, as they don't have a physical container and are therefore "None of the above". Both Earthcaches and events should allow the "virtual" size. Removing it was shortsighted on GS's part.

That's why I cringe ever time I hear, "...the game, the sport, yes, the obsession..." when describing geocaching. It's a hobby. No winners or losers, only "hobbyists."

First, INAL, but I am a police officer and this comes from my understanding of trespass laws in SC and being a geocacher. If that said... There really isn't permission to go onto land, but there are limitations from going onto lands. The land being posted or being told to leave, or not come onto, any property is indication you can't be there. Otherwise the opposite is true. It's going to depend on why the LEO is there. If it's a call of a suspicious person, then you're probably going to get questioned a little bit more than if they simply come upon you. Also, if the cache is in an area where there have been certain criminal activity then you're going to get more intensely questioned than otherwise. For instance, urban caches in areas where there have been break ins, either home or auto, then you're more likely to get questioned why you're there. Considering most cops don't know what geocaching is then you'll have to get past the education part of the encounter. It also depends on how you look, too. Not that I'm aware of. The standard is "adequate permission." In many instances you're not going to get "explicit permission," because the land steward doesn't want to open himself up to possible lawsuits. They, essentially and officially, turn a blind eye. For this reason you can't put on the cache page you have explicit permission. Now, if every cache with explicit permission put that fact on the cache page that would leave those caches with implied permission lumped into the group with no permission. You won't be able to tell the two apart. Clearly not a good idea. No. Not unless you have good reason to believe the cache is placed against land steward permission. Examples would be in an area marked for no entry like behind No Trespassing signs. Most land stewards would balk at this, especially those on the fence of allowing it or not. It would simply be easier to say "no" and be done with it. Even folks that originally have a positive feel for it might balk at signing something. Think about it. You approach someone about placing a cache on their land. They get positive vibes on the idea and say, "Sure! Go right ahead!" You then whip out some form and say, "Here, sign this." "Um... Why?" "Permission," you respond. "I just gave you permission." "I need proof you gave me permission. A signature." "Why?" "Because some cachers have placed caches on land without getting permission. Some geocachers have gotten into trouble with the law and some property owners have had a hard time getting caches removed from their property. We now have to prove to other cachers that we have proof we get permission so no one gets in trouble." "Geocachers don't respect property owner wishes? Well, I'm not so sure I want that kind of people on my land. I'll pass, thankyouverymuch." You just turned what should be a fun, silly, harmless little hobby into a legalistic activity with property owner concerns. So, in conclusion: don't worry about whether there is permission to place a cache. Only worry about whether you should be there or not. Even if the cache is there concern yourself with whether you should be there. You see an obvious problem privately contact the reviewer and turn it over to them. (Believe me, that's the best way unless you want to start a feud.) If confronted with LEO, be honest--and use a brochure. Most cop encounters, in my experience, ends with a glazed look and a "they're calling me, I gotta go" and then they speed off. You can be a bit more evasive with other folks. I generally use, "A bunch of friends of mine and I are into these handheld GPSes. One of them hid a small box and gave the rest of us the coordinates to it. I'm here trying to find it." If I'm not getting a good vibe and become concerned with these folks coming back to find the cache after I leave, I might follow up with "Well, it looks like someone else got here first" and leave. These makes them believe there wasn't anything there to find. I like this because it is, oh, about 90% the truth. Easy to keep straight and provides the opportunity to leave without jeopardizing the integrity of the cache. Hope this helps.

+1 Devil's Courthouse Western NC has a lot of them!

Hmmm... It doesn't seem like the above and the below go together. ...or is it just me? Anyway, the reason for a magazine and not simply yet another blog is you open up an audience who likes to read away from the computer, like on the throne. Also, you can bring it to doctor's office for while you wait. You could, as a doctor or anyone with a waiting room, put it in your waiting room. A physical magazine is little different than a newspaper in this respect. Sissy and I have each our own computer in our own little hobby-room/offices complete with constant high speed connections. We can get on the internet on a whim. Yet, my desk is littered with magazines and catalogs. Sissy gets the daily paper. (...and continues to baffle me by doing most of the puzzles in her head and writes only the solutions, and generally finishes the Sunday NY crossword without any outside help.) Personally, I'm not too impressed with a Mensa title. They would have taken me. 'Nuff said.

County Comm is out of the OD green match cases for now. Their stock fluctuates a lot so check back ever so often.

I need an English lesson. For some reason I'm now reading the following with a different meaning: I made the important part bold and italicized an important word. Before I was reading that statement as it included all lands under the WMA program and all heritage preserve lands regardless of who owned it. Now, I'm picking up on the "other" as meaning only the WMA and heritage preserve land that is owned by the department. My question is by reading the statement with full consideration of the commas and included words mean that only the lands owned by the SCDNR is affected regardless of if it part of the WMA program or a heritage preserve program. The way I was reading it before caused a great deal of alarm as it meant the actual land owners permission was trumped by this regulation. Now, reading it in the proper light it now makes more sense as the majority of our legislators are very cognizant of land owner rights. The question means massive amounts of land is still open in the Francis Marion Nation Forest. Yea! ...and I archived some caches for no reason. Boo!

We have a few caches in towns. Not the first micro. Urban settings are no excuse for a micro.

All virtuals are ALRs. The guideline only affects physical caches.AH HA! ALRs are still around! I feel much better! Virtuals had Additional Logging Requirements? I thought they had Alternative Logging Requirements. You know, because virtuals didn't have a logbook. The only virtuals I did had either a variant of (generally) "email me X information about the location" or "post a picture of yourself" at the location. Not ever any mention of signing the logbook. It was only a verification scheme. I don't recall ever coming across a phooning-style* virtual. *Any virtual that made you do anything but verify your visit.

We bought some Real Tree® clothing from a second hand store and made some bags. Works pretty good. Going strong last time I looked. You don't really have to make a bag out of them. Just cut a piece big enough that it will wrap around the container. Then toss it over the container and use debris to cover the edges. I discovered this many years ago when I had a hard time finding a cache simply covered in standard everyday burlap. Remember that these are temporary covering. Personally, I still prefer paint, though.

I tend to agree with the idea of a little more proof than a simple "I said so." I wouldn't mind seeing an ALM (Alternative Logging Method) implemented and base solely on photographs. First, let me address codewords. On first blush codewords look like it might be a good idea. The problem comes from folks believing that providing a codeword becomes some sort of authority. It's far from it. If a codeword became a method for authentication then you'd have folks logging cache with full authorization who never visited any stage of the stage, much less attempted it. You'd be setting yourself up for a much bigger problem than the one you're trying to fix. How? It would be little different than folks sharing solutions, phone-a-friend networks, or cheat sites. One person attempts the cache and starts passing the codeword around. Folks then could log with authority that cache having never attempted it. Okay, so you need a name in the logbook. yeah, what's to stop you from checking the logbook with no other means of verification? If you require verification via the logbook and added codewords, then the only thing you've added is a layer of complication with no benefit. Photographs on the other hand are a bit different. Some issues: Photoshop. Sure, there's photoshop, but it takes real skill to create an undetectable 'shopped photo. Some folks don't like to have their pictures taken. True, I'm one. I'm just waiting for someone to snap my photo and hear that little *crink* when the camera breaks. Signature Familiars. Sure, it's going to be hard for those folks who refuse to have their photos taken to find some little fuzzy animal, action figure, or other object that is their photo representative, but that's the trade off for being camera shy. Not everyone has a camera. True. Not everyone carries around the cache's logbook either. It would be the responsibility of the cache owner to provide the camera. If they want alternative proof, then they're the ones that's gonna have to do the work. I don't know when I saw the last cache camera. I remember threads on tips for using a film cache camera in freezing conditions. Now, I don't even see the cameras. The cache gets stolen. …or the camera breaks. The in-cache photo proof goes missing for whatever reason is no different than with the logbook. The proof is gone. No different. If proof-in-finding-ALRs are to come back I would think the prudent way to handle them is use photographs. The rules for a photo ALR could be: The cache owner has to provide a camera in the cache. This would be for folks who don't bring their own camera. (Save the film for folks who don't bring a camera and save maintenance issue for the cache owner.) The cache owner has to provide some sort of cache familiar to make the cache unique in some way. It could be a unique container, a card with large text with cache name or waypoint, or a fuzzy stuffed animal. It would be good to have it large enough to be recognizable in the photo. Finders should have their face in the picture or some sort of familiar unique to them. (Personal TB, anyone?) Folks will just have to learn how to do the hand-held self portrait thing. Folks who use the in-cache camera can log a find pending verification of the cache camera. This is no different than checking the logbook. subject to reviewer approval. Only for caches requested and approved by management due to difficulty in checking the cache's logbook. Should be reasonable. 1/1's no. 5/5's yep. In between, depends. How hard is it for the owner to retrieve the cache? 10 mile hike, yep. Park-n-grab? Nope. (Not to say a request of the finders can't be made.) Mystery caches could be handled with a photo of the signed logbook and a small unique cache card. This way the surrounding area is not in the photo and thus no spoilers. This photo-ALR (ALM, whatever) puts the onus on the cache owner. Is the difficulty in checking the logbook more difficult than maintaining a cache camera? This type of find verification is a lot more work than ALR's of the past where it could be no work on the cache owner part and they'd simply slap one on just because. Also, cache owners will have to realize there would be a higher possibility of spoiler pictures posted unless the photos are sent privately. Also, this is different than the banned ALRs in that this is a method in which the find is verified, not a silly action that had nothing to do with finding the cache or verifying the logger was ever there. This type of ALR/ALM is something I could get behind. It could be implemented with just a policy change. EDIT: Fix'n dang tags.

The activity isn't only the seekers' log of activity, but also the hiders' cache's activity.

Conversly, should the guy who didn't solve the puzzle, but signed the log get the find. For a lot of puzzle caches, the puzzle is the hard part. Finding the cache is just the payoff. Exactly. The more I think about it then less I like the present scheme of keeping track of activity.

What if the trip required a boat trip and climb your pylon? The folks with the boat took the guys who climb the pylon to it. Now the climbers are the only ones to get a smilie? If it's a team effort, then every member of the team can say they did that cache. In my mind, the only gray area is how far away the left behind team members are. Okay, a boat trip, a SCUBA dive, then a hike, and then a rock climb. Do the guys left behind in the boat get to claim a find? Eh... I think hollering distance is about a good distance to say yea or hay. Here's another one. Does the guy who figures out the puzzle, but is also bedridden, get to claim a find when someone else goes and gets the cache? What about someone who recovers a cache in a busy park and returns to a group so every can sign? There's huge gray areas in claiming a find. Personally, I think the whole idea is a two edged sword. It makes the hobby popular, yet fosters several negatives like trache placements and argument over what is and isn't a find.