ArcherDragoon

Nice idea, but wouldn't a signal multiplier simply provide an increase in the number of signals in inverse proportion to a decrease in signal strength? You can't get something for nothing, my momma always said. Simple fix...build a signal amplifier into the multiplier!!!

SPOILER!!! Some people just will not let anyone have any fun...

I wish it was...again, serves me right for not paying attention... All knowing knower of chad...you mind if I borrow your glasses for a while...it might have helped in this situation...

I don't mean this to be contentious, but apparently you didn't read or at least didn't understand the reply I posted just prior to yours. This is my position: Lying is one thing and cheating another. While I would agree that falsely posting a find is a lie under any rational interpretation, it is only cheating within the context of the statistical game many geocashers appear to be playing; a numbers game. There is nothing wrong with this game inherently. But if anyone should decide to become engaged in such an activity with more than a trivial attachment to the outcome, then it should come as no surprise that without referees, "cheating" can and will inevitably occur. If absence of cheating is of supreme importantance to someone seeking competition with others, I would think that geocashing is probably not the best format to chose. I think that whether or not cheating exists in geocashing depends upon ones perspective and orientation, and if one is so inclined as to interpret events as cheating, then the degree of consternation that will cause within them depends again upon their perspective and orientation. So I think this question of ones own special viewpoint should be taken into account in the discussion. Luckily, this activity offers such a broad spectrum of avenues for participation that there is no right or wrong way to do it. And, again, luckily Carol and I have a viewpoint which completely divorces us from the competitive aspect of the activity, and that enables us to use it as a pleasant and rewarding diversion from other, more onerous activities in our lives. PS - Thanks, TeamSeekandWeShalFind, so very much for all the wonderful experiences your cashes have provided us, and for your helpful advice. Your enthusiasm has really hooked us on this activity !! By the way...what you quoted...is not mine...not sayin'...just sayin'... Did I read your post yes...did I feel the need to respond to your post...no...I responded to a prior post...my only problem was that I didn't see until after my post that you bumped an almost 1 year old thread...oh well...I thought the "conversation" looked familar...serves me right for not paying attention...

Also...some of those policies are local... Caches are not allowed in Minnesota WMA's...it is a state policy... ...will you find some in WMA's...yes, but those were grandfathered in before the policy in Minnesota was enacted...though...some are removed (depending on Ranger/Manager) when found...

I know!!! Poor Al Gore has to live with that everyday...them taking credit for something he did...poor guy...

Darn right it will...we start to lose the signals becuase of overuse...no more hamster caching...those poor things will end up all alone...no more visitors...

You mean to tell me many of you aren't already going green... When I cache with a group...we only use one gps in order to conserve signals...come on people...get with the times and enjoy...heck...embrace conservation of signals!!!

April 1st comes around and everyone is a comedian...I love this day!!! Edit: Seriously...I do...no joke...

We can answer our own question... 2 weeks ago we went out to one of our series, it's 18 caches, to check on all the containers because the park had just done a burn and a MAJOR tree trimming. While at the park we not only checked to make sure all of our containers were still around but decided to check for wet logs that might need replacement. We live in an area that doesn't get lots and lots of visitors so we noticed something odd about the signatures almost immediately, starting with cache #1 in the series. We only noticed this particular person's signature because we've never seen it before. In the end, one particular cacher logged all 18 as finds on-line but only actually signed 3 of the logs. Scary thing about that is they also logged our new 20 cache series that we haven't even revisited yet ! What do you think the chances are that they're signature IS NOT on the logs ?? I think the chances are EXCELLENT ! They also logged a single cache at another park where we have the single cache and a 17 cache series. We visited the single cache log and guess what ? That's right ! NO SIGNATURE FROM THE SAME CACHER ! So, just for the fun of it, when we went for our Saturday walk last weekend we said, "Let's visit each cache log again only this time, let's write down all the signatures that are on the logs and compare them to the on-line found logs." There was NO WAY ON EARTH we thought we'd find anything but we did. 2 more cachers logged the entire series but did not sign all the logs. In the past when we brought up this same subject we got bombarded with replies like, "It's just a game," or ,"So what, who cares," or our particular favorite, "How can there be cheating when there aren't any rules?" There are lots of ways to, "cheat," in Geocaching but when a cacher(s) logs finds on-line and doesn't sign the log(s) I would say THAT IS DEFINATELY CHEATING ! For one, it doesn't do, "the cheater," any good except to rack up numbers and complete the smileys in a given location. Two, it's not fair to those cachers who actually take the time, do the hike, hunt the cache and sign the log. Three, it's not fair to cache owners, wether it's a single cache or a series of 18, who take the time, sometimes over days, to place caches. A lot of you will say what I stated above, "How can there be cheating when there are not rules ?" You're right, Geocaching doesn't have many rules but it does have ONE and that is YOU HAVE TO SIGN THE LOG TO CLAIM THE FIND ! When a cacher(s) violates that one rule, thereby cheating, they ARE NOT Geocachers because they cheat themselves, you and me ! It's so sad that someone would do this but it's the truth and it makes me wonder how many of you out there have NUMEROUS found logs posted on your hides where the person never even found your cache ! It happens more than you think because cachers are obsessed with racking up numbers more than they are about the challenge, the experience or the journey. If you don't care then you don't care about being part of a game/sport that's fair ! Edit: I wanted to add this... In one of the on-line logs from one of the other 2 cachers we discovered, "cheating," he talks about how it took him longer to find the cache than it should have blah-blah-blah and then he goes, "left a nice GC behind." Two days later another cacher comes along to the same cache FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SWAPPING GEOCOINS and guess what ? That's right ! NO GEOCOIN in the cache ! Gee, what a surprise isn't it ? She goes on and on about how the coin is missing and she hopes it wasn't stolen etc... He left the part about the geocoin because he knew his log was a lie and in his consciousness of guilt wanted to make his log look really legit. After all, what cache owner, who might question his post, would think he was "cheating," if he left a geocoin ? It's all so sad isn't it ? See how "cheating," affects others ?? On the geocoin... Why so quick to jump to the conclusion that the person the said they left the coin...didn't??? I have had it happen to me where I left a coin...but the very next person that "logged" the cache said it wasn't there. It happens...let it go... As for the caches and signatures...not everyone signs the caches with the same name all of the time...I have signed caches with my caching name...a group name...a name my brother and I used when we first started caching...so on and so forth...don't be so quick to jump a cacher... To the multi thing...ever think that maybe their multiple logs were just a mistake...take some time and send them a polite email explaining that on your multi-caches, you only allow one log (though...I only allow one as well...and I would beleive the majority of the caching community is the same...there are some that allow more than one...). Maybe their first multi was one of those... My parting shot... People make mistakes...we can either take those mistakes and turn them into teaching moments...or we can ridicule someone for being human...either way...step back, take a breath and decide which path you want to take...

...and, to add...it will stay visable on the cache pages...just think of it as a friendly reminder...

Nevermind...I see the TB thing is already being addressed... . . . Move along...nothing to see in the above post...

Those guidelines do not now nor have they ever applied to swag. Untrue. See Keystone's comments in the "Naughty Swag" thread for clarification. No - I think you misunderstood. The above quoted guidelines for promotion of commercial and charity caches - DOES NOT apply to swag --- or I'm going to have to start pulling everything with a logo on it out of caches. Keystone's post had nothing to do with those guidelines - just the prohibited items guidelines. Religous tracts are not on the list - although I suppose somebody might report the existence of those items to a reviewer and claim they were "questionable" . It's the "or other questionable items" that is key. Using a cache to promote a religious agenda is expressly prohibited by the guidelines. Putting religious items in a cache *is* using a cache to promote a religious agenda. In that case...I better quit placing my sig cards in the cache...I may be promoting myself So...I guess that would also go with Baseball Cards...McToys...so on and so forth... Besides...what about commercial-like TB's...last I knew the powers that be have a "live and let live" mentality towards those things (with common sense in mind)...are you going to throw away those if you find a religious tb???

Yes, perhaps naive to hope that caches can stay family-friendly for everyone, but I can hope. There are enough competing and confusing messages all around us that there's no lack of opportunity to bring up sex, politics, and religion. But still, I'd prefer that my son's first introduction to sex NOT be a nasty close-up in a cache. So I will continue to remove inappropriate materials from caches as a courtesy to other parents. Your implying that religious items are somehow not "Family Friendly" ? Oh dear mommy! God loves me, i'm frightened! God bless you! (Hope that didn't offend you) Ok...a little behind in my reading of this thread...but I seriously just spit all over my computer screen!!!

So, will it go away if we don't want it to, then? Ok - lets all concentrate real hard and see what happens....... I have been concentrating all morning...and I still don't have any orange juice... (I know...I know...I can already hear the groans on that one...)

Where did he post that? It's not on the INATN site. (The "maintenance mode" comment there is old and indicates he will maintain the current functions but not enhance them...at the moment.) I am able to get to the site. My statistics show correctly from my upload last night and are currently shown correctly in my profile here. It is a hit or miss thing for many people uploading to the INATN site... As for the comment...sorry, the best I can say is that it was in a recent thread...which one...I could not say...sorry...

Basically...trust your gut instinct and go the way of StarBrand and Briansnat... I "come clean" if it seems like they are geniune. I have found it handy to have a few Geo-U folded brouchers on hand (usually in my backpack/back-pocket).

As a reviewer, Keystone has access to more information directly from the Lillypad than us...trust what is said and go with it....

Correct...it is that site...Cheeseheads posted something only a couple days back saying he is working on the site...it is basically in maint. mode right now...

Maybe a conflict with this portion of the Guidelines: Maybe a conflict with this portion of the Guidelines: Depending on the campus, it's possible that you're Reviewer for the area may require permission from the University Administration for placement of the caches (i.e. private property) as well. Sounds fun nonetheless. Good luck! Well, it looks like I'll send my $30 to the United Way instead of renewing my premium membership. Geocaching.com basically has a monopoly on the Geocaching world. If they want to be that way about it, I'll find another way to promote the caches. Thanks I think you misunderstood the posts... You can list caches and advertise those caches at the United Way event...but you can't use the caches to advertise the event.

I am pretty much on the same thinking as StarBrand...I log them each time and usually try to "explain" to the extent why I didn't find it...

May I add...run now while you still can and don't look back!!!

Really listen to/read the comments left by the reviewer on the cache page...only reviewers have access to a cache page (besides the owner) before it is published. We can guess and suggest what may or may not be wrong, but we will not know anything specific. Multi-caches and Puzzle caches can/do cause issues when stages are unknown...you really ahve to be carefull and patient with them. As has been suggested, you will need to move the placement of your cache...

I think it's pretty funny how so often these forums are a place where people hide behind their keyboards and make comments like this. Stick to the issue please. There's nothing "questionable" about using Roundup to find a cache. With over 100 posts and around since December of '04...I really don't think it is someone hidding behind a keyboard... To the topic...unless you have "proof" that geocachers are responsible, it just seems to be an assumption on your part...grass does die...maybe your PVC pipe poisoned the area ground and the grass just can't grow there anymore... As for the "buried" issue...remember, you started out the thread with "skirt the issue"...so, at some level, you have your own doubts about your own cache...otherwise, why mention it as a cache that may "skirt the issue"

Because it's an unreasonable request. The cache owner does not own the travelers and has no right to place restrictions on their movement. Agreed... Imagine a "real" hotel that only allowed you to leave if and only if someone else checked in...