Byron & Anne

Pass the pop corn please.

I realize that...however, the 'change the requirements' option isn't really an option as it were, since not asking for a photo (ie. the least maintenance for me) isn't really a possibility (way too open to abuse). Asking them to answer a question about the site is a possibility and one I've used on all my other Earthcaches, but I need to visit the site again to conjure up a reasonable request....which I should be able to do shortly. I'm not unhappy about the maintenace as it stands now (not like it's a physical cache anyway!)...I just thought this suggestion could improve things for certain cache owners. As for a precedent, I actually didn't say that I"ve let any slide through. I've been contacting those that errored and asked them to fix it and if they don't respond, they are deleted. I'm already doing what is required to maintain the cache, but it's messy IMO and could be improved upon. Why not just "trust" the person that logs the cache. The biggest percentage of people will only log if they've been there. Attempting to put logging requirements on any cache is going after the very few that might log without being there. Hardly worth the effort for a simple let's have fun activity. edited to correct wrong tense.

I haven't been rereading this thread, because its just rehash so forgive me if I missed something. That being said, are you serious? Of course I'm serious. 1. More people engage in sexual activity than in religious activities. 2. The religious folks are attempting to push mythology as fact. 3. The religious folks main theme is fear. "if you don't do as I say the devil will get you" 4. The religious folks use that fear for extrotion. I won't go into all the benifits of sexual activity. If I did it would be probably be censored. As far as I'm concerned one is as objectionable as the other, maybe the religious a bit more.

Lest people think I'm some neo-athiest after all this, I just wanted to offer my two cents on this too, Terry. Sounds great to me! A religious-themed cache on Church property makes perfect sense, it'd be a fun cache for people to find, and most importantly of course, it sounds like a great exercise for the kids. Have fun with it! Joe Why should a "religious" themed cache be any more acceptable than an "adult" themed cache?

Lots of people disagree with you so I don't think it is as clear cut as that. Disagree if you like. But changing the name is very vogue and has been for a number of years. If you don't like how something sounds change the name. Still the same thing with a different name. So! what does a "reviewer" do? He/she either approves the listing of a cache or he/she disapproves the listing of a cache, right? I wonder how many other names we can come up with for the same activity.

One wonders what the reaction would be to a bunch of fliers advertising something other than religion. Would it be the same? How about a bunch of fliers advtising the local adult store? I think advertising, whether it be for a particular flavor of religion or the for the local burger shop probably doesn't belong in a cache. Just my $.02 worth.

I believe there's a quote that applies here.. "A rose by any other name is still a rose." Someone that "approves" the listing of a cache is still an approver, no matter what name you wish to call him/her.

This topic get hashed over about every 3 or 4 months.

Actually that would be "necessarily" hard to find. But not really since the third paragraph on the contact page explains exactly what to do once you try and lookup the answer yourself. I can tell you that there are thousands of people that have absolutely no problems locating a way to contact us. OK, I found the link. Nice job of hidding it. When I checked into it appears to be discouraging the kind of thing that I reported above. The assumption I guess I must make is that geocaching.com doesn't give a dadgum about their own guidelines. 234 feet between caches seems a bit close. Also somebody bitching about an older cache being close to thier newer cache. After looking at the profile of the first hidder it looks like that cache needs to be either adopted or archived. Oh well, I guess it don't matter much. Happy caching.

I looked for ways to contact geocaching.com. There used to be a mailto link but I could find it. Therefore I'm posting this here. Go to this cache. Read the logs. Then do a search on "on nearby caches". Not only is there problem with caches on top of each other, it appears to me there's an attitude problem here too.

Now that I've asked the question, I'll answer my own experience. I found out about GC.com from a news or magazine blurb. Went to the site and thought this sounds like fun. Picked a few caches and printed the cache pages. Off we went in search, we already owned a gps. First attempt, no find, made too many wrong turns driving. Second attempt, ran out of day light. Both of those were Dave Ulmer caches. Third times the charm, off we went searching for the Un-Orginal, found it. Wow, what a high. Came back home, created the account and gleefully entered the found log. I don't think I would have gone after any if had been required to get an account before hunting that first cache. Byron

The recent changes in gc.com prompted me to ask this question. The first cache you found did you create a free account at gc.com then go find that first cache? Did you create that "free account" then go find that first cache?

Ya Awsome changes. The not being able to see coords without logging in is a big FAT PAIN IN THE BUTT. If automatic log in worked it might not be so bad.

Who are you calling a newbie. From the looks of your account number you're a newbie, at least from my standpoint.

Foggy memory wants to say there at one time there was a square dock at Frog Lake. But it foggy. That was before the campground at the north end of the lake. I don't remember if you could come directly to the lake through what is now a camp ground. The road does continue to the right along the lake to what was the campground. Across from the road is a rocky area that comes down to the lake or close to the lake. Except in early spring the trees don't come to lakes edge, then because the lake is so high it gets up the trees. That's about the only one I can think of at this time.

There's several lakes around that area. Lost Lake is back in the mountains behind Hood River. Badger Lake is remote and down a steep road to get there, don't remember a dock there, but could be one. Trillium Lake is just past Government Camp on Hyw 26, trying to picture a dock there. Clear Lake is a bit farther, I believe there was a dock there. Frog Lake has a road around the right side, to the old camp grounds. I don't remember about a dock. I'm assuming that you're talking about a memory from a few years ago. There's been some changes in many of these places. There's just too many lakes I guess. I've been to most of them but can't quite picture one as described. Hmmmm.... I'll give it more thought. Byron

Wonder why it is that all you newbies keep whining about the newbies.

I head back from the attorney. This is a paraphrase. I did not want to quote exactly for reasons that other attorneys probably understand. To quote laws he would need to know the juristiction. They vary. (However I am unwilling to ask them to spend more time than they already have over a forum debate.) In general: Private property interests exist in items regardless of where the property is located. It’s what lets you drive your car off your own property or hang your jacket on a rack at a social function. The interest allows for private property rights. It also does not matter that others are allowed to access the personal property. Abandoned property is the exception to the rule. Most communities have laws that govern what constitutes abandoned property. Those same laws also typically detail exactly how abandoned property is dealt with. Abandoned property is not free for the taking. Using the car analogy a car breaks down and is left on the side of the road. It’s not abandoned. If a certain amount of time passes it may become abandoned as defined by the law. Joe Blow can not come along and claim the car after it’s been declared legally abandoned. If Joe at any time claimed it for himself he could and would be charged with grand theft. This is my interpretation. A cache is personal property until and unless it’s be abandoned under the law. Once abandoned a government agency will take ownership. At no time during the process is a cache ever not personal property under the protection of the law. The enforcement of the law is another matter. OK, Let's take a look at the car thing. Park your car in a parking lot, a designated parking space, a traditional parking space, no problem for short periods of time. Leave it parked in front of your local 7-11 or simular place for a couple weeks. Just one example. There are many places that if you left your car parked for the same amount of time you've left a cache sitting without you going to it, the car would be gone. Nope sorry after a couple days your caches are abondoned property. Byron

What makes you think it's abandoned? I sure didn't abandon it. There is more to abandoned property than having it ouside my physical control. If by law it's abandoned then it's a moot point. However I have no reason to distrust the Attorney that I spoke with. I’ll pop them an email and see if they can point me at some relevant case law or laws that can be linked to. At the time we had our original discussion the problem we were trying to tackle was getting the police to help. Having actually spoken with someone who does have expereince I'd like to point out that it's more than either you or Hank seem to have done on the topic. You are able to do your own legwork to support your own viewpoint. While I email my contact why don't both of you find your own case law and code and point at it? It's only fair. Ah Ha, just as I thought you can't quote code...

This has got the be the biggest piece of BS I've read on the internet in a long time. Thanks for the laugh. Felony. Riiiiight.. for a $20 box of junk in the woods. Talk about "misguided on reality.". Let's see some actual case law instead of completely unprovable hot air. Sorry there bucko, your third grade tactics still leave you short of the truth. 1) The laws are there. 2) You can be prosecuted. 3) You just can't get the police involved for reasons that come down to priority. A murder investigation trumps virtually everthing else. Everthing else trumps a single cache container. It would be cold day in hell before you could get the police to spend the manpower to obtain the evidence that could be used to get them prosecuted. Either that or we would be living in paradise on earth if that's all they had to worry about. You could fund it yourself though and force the system but most people can't afford that angle, let alone the time it takes. 4) I said as much, if you actually read it. 5) That leaves busting the SOB upside the head with a shovel, which is one of those priorites the police have that trumps a cache container. Unlike you, I've had to slog through this crap by talking to people like the US District Attorney, and the Police. As for you, I'm sure you are just making it up as you go without actually knowing jack. Now I'm sure you do know a bit about marking money with "Log me on WG.com" and how the law treats that. But that's not what you were spouting off about. Interesting. I figure abandoned stuff is abandoned stuff. Since you've done so much research, please provide the code section and paragraph numbers to support your claim. Thanks

I'm one of the don't carry people. Been hiking and backpacking in the Oregon and Washington Cascades for well over 30 years. I don't own, and never owned a handgun. Owned a rifle and shotgun for a few years. One I stopped hunting animals, I sold them. I'm not anti gun. Note anti hunting. In fact I believe that large preditors need to be hunted to maintain the fear of man. I just don't see the need to carry the extra weight when I'm hiking, backpack, or geocaching. A hand gun will not stop a bear. If I pull a gun on a person, my opinion is that I've greatly increased the probability of my own early demise. My opinion has nothing to do with the right to carry or animal rights, or .... Just an opinion on the need to carry.

Oh Oh, Do I see some rules in this?? Or attempt at rules? Oh well

I've said it before and I'll probably say it a few more times. When in the woods always carry a map of the area and compass. Ya, and learn how to use them. About the time you someplace and really need to find your way back, the gps will die. Urban caches and travel are a different thing. I guess that answers the question about whether I carry maps or not. Byron

Wonder if he can count all the ones I found but didn't log.