egami

You can not assure permission if you are assuming you have it. Period.Pssst. You forgot a word from the guidelines.It doesn't matter. Adequate, explicit, or whatever...you can't assure it.Surely, you agree that if it is a location that requires no permission, then no permission needs to be requested in order to meet the guidelines, correct? I believe you always need to assure them you have adequate permission.

You can not assure permission if you are assuming you have it. Period.Pssst. You forgot a word from the guidelines. It doesn't matter. Adequate, explicit, or whatever...you can't assure it.

You can not assure permission if you are assuming you have it. Period.

I agree with those two factors, but I'd say another big factor is WILLINGNESS. There are those who would love an FTF but say to themselves "Heck, I probably won't be first, so I won't bother making an attempt". Although having flexible hours, and technology helps, I don't buy the argument that you need those things to get FTFs. Most of my FTFs were done on weekends or after work, and I have never had instant notification to my phone/PDA. If you re-read my reply in it's entirety and in context of who I was replying to I think you'll see the point in emphasis on those two factors. People seem to be forgetting that without the right circumstances which enable you to get out quickly and without being in close proximity to where caches are published more frequently you can have all the willingness in the world and it won't do a bit of good. The point isn't to say willingness is not a factor. The point is that "will power", "interest", "willingness" and the like are all for naught if you don't have the right circumstance. Really, for all practical purposes proximity could be considered part of ones circumstance. Agreed that proximity is very important, and for my purposes it's assumed as I won't travel more than say 15 miles one-way for an FTF. Assuming that proximity and circumstances are right, I believe that some people who would love an FTF are just not willing to go for them. The reasons could be many (i.e. they won't cache at night, they just sat down to dinner, they assume that the local hound will beat them). I believe that many people who complain about local hounds getting all the FTFs, just aren't willing to do what it takes to go and get them. A few 2TFs shouldn't cause people to stop trying, and sit at home and complain instead. Look, I am not asserting that there are not people who fall into the category of "I believe that some people who would love an FTF are just not willing to go for them". I agree with that whole-heartedly. I was just making the point because people were asserting the "will power" and "interest" arguments and I am saying it's not quite that simple.

This is logically flawed, but using the example...if 'no permission needed' is the end of the "continuum" you are on you can not knowing have adequate permission until you've asked. The verbage states: By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. You can't assure them you have adequate permission by assuming you have permission. You're playing word games to skirt the issue of actually obtaining permission. No level of permission can be obtained on the continuum without asking for it or perhaps finding a published policy on it.

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.True. The guidelines state that adequate permission must be obtained.Which gets right back to my main point in reply #44: Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission. Which gets right back to my point in post #47. Which does not address the point. Again, explain how one obtains adequate permission without obtaining permission.

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.True. The guidelines state that adequate permission must be obtained. Which gets right back to my main point in reply #44: Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

I am not deliberately avoiding it. It's apples and oranges. The GC.com rules do not state anything about frisbees. They state things about placing geocaches on private property.

I never stated you should ask permission to throw a frisbee.

I don't keep score.

True. But I don't think a county park that is opened to the public can be considered not giving permission to the public to enjoy the park for recreational activities. There's a large difference between not having received any permission and having received adequate permission. I was more referring to the Wal-mart reference.Either way. Let's imagine that we're driving my RV across country because we want to find some of those awesome caches in Iowa. I pull into an empty area of WalMart's parking lot and drop anchor for the night. Would it be OK for us to toss a frisbee, or should I go in the store and ask permission? Apples, meet oranges.

I agree with those two factors, but I'd say another big factor is WILLINGNESS. There are those who would love an FTF but say to themselves "Heck, I probably won't be first, so I won't bother making an attempt". Although having flexible hours, and technology helps, I don't buy the argument that you need those things to get FTFs. Most of my FTFs were done on weekends or after work, and I have never had instant notification to my phone/PDA. If you re-read my reply in it's entirety and in context of who I was replying to I think you'll see the point in emphasis on those two factors. People seem to be forgetting that without the right circumstances which enable you to get out quickly and without being in close proximity to where caches are published more frequently you can have all the willingness in the world and it won't do a bit of good. The point isn't to say willingness is not a factor. The point is that "will power", "interest", "willingness" and the like are all for naught if you don't have the right circumstance. Really, for all practical purposes proximity could be considered part of ones circumstance.

True. But I don't think a county park that is opened to the public can be considered not giving permission to the public to enjoy the park for recreational activities. There's a large difference between not having received any permission and having received adequate permission. I was more referring to the Wal-mart reference.

After I replied here I decided to post a thread in the Geocaching Topics forum. Someone pointed out there that Seamus O'Grey is an anagram for "your message". Also, I mention in that thread that there is a Waymarking group for these and there are some similar doors around, apparently. The theme seems to be, based on the anagram and the contents, that if you leave Seamus a note he'll write back. Here is the main forum thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=181528

ReadyOrNot summed up my thoughts exactly. That's not totally true...the people I've spoke with at events, or one on one, that express interest on FTF's, but rarely get them have all the will power and interest of any other person. I'll say it again...FTF hounds are enabled largely due to circumstance more than any kind of "will power" or "skill". There isn't any real "skill" to being FTF. It's largely about not being hampered by a job, school or family circumstance. The main reason I personally wouldn't do a cache like this is because I think by and large most people that aren't FTF-hounds are largely not bothered by not having massive FTF's. Certainly not as bothered by it as much as some of the FTF-hounds apparently are by the idea of holding back on one. FTF-hounding isn't really a "skill" though. The two major factors are 1) circumstance and 2) proximity. Outside of that...they've learned how to set up a basic e-mail alert to their phone that a simple forum search will guide you through.

No worries. I just briefly searched on it and didn't see any real answer to it in the forums, so wasn't sure if it had been addressed or if it's sporadic enough that it's considered a non-issue. It's not a major problem by any means, but I wouldn't expect it to be as common as it is from Google either.

Yeah, I work in IT, I knew what was causing it ...I just want to know if it's been raised as an issue and if anyone knows if there is a solution potentially or are we stuck with this long term? There is very little mention of it in the forums here and was curious if those in the know are aware (probably so) and if there is anything they can do working with Google on the issue.

It seems like I am often waiting on "pagead2.googlesyndication.com" to load. Anyone else noticing this? Doesn't matter which browser I am using and I notice at work and at home with different ISP's. In fact, if I notice it at home and remote into work I'll see the problem concurrently, so I am pretty sure it isn't ISP-related.

Kind of hard to have adequate permission without actually having received any permission.

I bought a 76 then sold it and got 60...the buttons on the 76 drove me insane. The 60 was a much better fit for me. As has been pointed out...the major advantage to the 76 is the floating aspect, that's it.

Everybody in the local area already has a chance. They just might not be willing to make the effort. Why reward them and punish those who work for it? Willing, or maybe able.

How much effort or work can really be involved in being a FTF hound? It seems to be a lot about individual situation and less about any real work or effort. If you have a job that permits you to get away and a wife/husband that won't divorce you for putting caching as a priority then there you have it. Outside of that what work is there? Setting up e-mail alerts? Anyway, carry on with the main topic...I just find it kind of funny every time I see on the forums people acting as if FTF is some real skill. Then again...maybe I am overlooking something? /shrug

It's a subjective rating...if you can do it 30, great. I am not sure the "average" cacher could, but I know the 's' stands for s(uper)bell111, so that's not really fair.

Very...

The only one I've found near a riding trail didn't have this icon originally. It was one of the first caches I found and I recommended it to the cache owner and he was like "you know, I knew that was a riding trail and it just plain never occurred to me to put that attribute on it". I try to get attributes right, but I bet a lot get out there with pretty bare bones attributes...I don't know though...not even sure what made me realize the one I did, I am not a horse person.