egami

That's not positive though... I wonder if we could spin it to sound positive... "You are such a good finder, perhaps you should focus your energy on finding caches from now on" I failed my college PC class...

How does your reviewer know what your cache container is. Placed: Microcache at Nxx xx.xxx Wxxx xx.xxx Nothing on the submission form asks what the container is. Obviously in that case he doesn't, but it'll be pulled when it's reported...

Let me direct your attention to this thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=62421 Very long, but worth the read...good examples all the way through.

There purpose of DNF's are clearly to denote a point of failure, so they should be left at all costs.

How about a "Don't Hide More" option...

I would tend to agree...although, it may be possible to PAF and discuss it in a way that isn't, I would tend to think any kind of information outside of what is posted that assists in the find is essentially a spoiler, technically. Then again, if people want a little nudge and can be given one without blatent give aways I don't have a problem with PAF. I can see both sides. There is a PAF network in our area, but I have never used it and don't know how it gets used...I'll have to ask at the next gathering to get a feel for it. Might alter my opinion...

I don't see logging a smiley as hypocritical. Hypocritical would be them placing a cache in a similar place.

I don't see the difference. If I intentionally create a challenging cache it's irrelevant to me whether the searchers obtained their spoiler info from a log, or by calling a previous finder. The only difference I see is that PAF is at least discrete and doesn't require the owner to edit/maintain logs.

This happened to a local cache. The log was hidden inside of a used and empty fire extinguisher. Here is the great log! Haha, thanks for the link...good read.

Uh . . . at the self-service station I go to, there are six pumps. Inside the building, there is one employee. At times, all six pumps are being used and I have to wait in line to pull forward. If they hired attendants to pump gas, they would need several people. Otherwise it would take an hour for that one person to pump gas for six waiting vehicles, and also take the money for coffee and donuts at the register inside the little building. Depends on the numbers...every store would be different. Go ask that store how many gallons they push through in a year and do the math. Seems like a fair chunk. Hard to say...

If you want to dumb it down that much, then everything is a "matter of opinion" and "subjective". I don't take that road, personally. If someone sees this game that way from the outside, then I can respect that difference. I, however, am not contesting his ability to get to the cache and what real life implications are causing an issue. I am contesting his deliberate intent to allow a cache to become litter when he has no right to force ownership on to the reviewer. Again, if he's since corrected the situation...good decision, imo.

If you came here to cache, you would be posting quite a few SBA Notes . . . I can't say I like caches placed on those, but they are used a lot in this area. I don't place SBA notes on them. I just won't do them...I just wouldn't mind seeing them go away. In Iowa it's not a problem...our reviewer, and our cacher base, it pretty much against them.

All I know is if getting rid of that law would, in theory, free up $.06/gal then there is already some hefty milking going. It wouldn't cost that much to employ people to pump gas.

I would be all for immediate archival of any cache placed on, or simulating, electrical equipment.

I don't have to live someones life to know that deliberately creating geo-litter is the wrong thing to do. If he's fixed the issue as it seems maybe he has, great. Haven't been following the thread closely lately.

I don't let gas prices get to me. We've always been rather conservative despite owning one gas guzzler. I just can't give up having a 4WD truck...I use it too much for work-related things. If the cost of living goes up...I just go make more money.

You'll find varying degrees of answers from people on this board. Many people here have a cavalier attitude toward "public" property and will do anything, and make any excuse, not to obtain actual permission due to the nature of the property being public. Then, there are people like me, who would argue that if there is known controlling entity then that person or persons should be contacted. The only exceptions would be obvious "public" property created for recreational purposes. These includes parks, state forests and ROW's whose purpose is recreational among others and even then only in areas designated for such activity...people will use these as an excuse to place a cache in an endagered species nest or other sensitive areas of such places it seems. This, of course, is my opinion...someone will surely come in right behind and assert that "public" property is a free-for-all. To which person I would challenge them to place and publish a cache on the perimeter of a nearby prison yard or on the front lawn of their local law enforcement office without obtaining permission.

My own observations. I have seen some highly suspicious readings and wierd accuracy problems on 4 different Garmin units when the battery life was very close to being out. I mean within 15 minutes or so of being out. I finally concluded that the unit just gets a bit wacky as the voltage drops off at the end. Ok, I can see that...however, the statement as I read would imply that it would drop with battery life. I would expect that close to battery death you'd see some issues.

Yeah, it amazes me how often I see the cloud cover myth mentioned...

Do you have source for that claim? I would think the processing power of the GPS is relatively steady until it just plain didn't have the juice to power them. My friend and I have been standing next to each other with identical units and differing power and have almost the exact same readings, but we've only done that a time or two.

Should there be? Probably not because you can probably never automate it well enough to do it justice. If I were going to I would think that you'd want to include: - CITO work - Approver's should get some love - Hidden cache quality / uniqueness - Events coordinated or helped with that taught about geocaching - Finds, just because of the fact that getting out should be given credit Probably things I am forgetting. I just thought the way you described it, or rather the way I interpreted it, seemed lacking...it'd be tough to truly gauge something like that. Maybe the input would largely have to be external from other cachers to get true karma number. In other words, you couldn't artificially boost it easily.

Yeah, interesting thread... Imo, caches are maintained and I don't care what the cache looks like, trash is a good decoy and if they are willing to run the risk so be it. Conversely, if a cache goes MIA due to CITO efforts be them deliberate geocaching CITO, or run of the mill good citizen effort, then I have no qualms. Would be funny, ironic if the DNF logger inadvertantly trashed the cache.

Hm, interesting if it's as simple as you describe it, I could have multiple caches like this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...fc-9cd11c4a411f And, have say 2000 finds, but I'd have low karma...conversely, I could have a bunch of urban skirt-lifters and have high karma? Am I understanding how that works correctly?

No one is twisting your arm to use the site and agree to the conditions that the majority of people here have no problem with and see as extremely reasonable.

And the fundamental problem with people abusing protected areas is to be ignored?