egami

Active hiders who have a lot of hides can not possibly take the time to validate logs. It's enough to just keep up with damaged containers, MIA's, wet logs, construction, etc (just repaired a cache on the way back to work from lunch). Some of my caches are paddle-only or dozen mile hikes. When a log is enetered for them I don't think I'll be planning a day long paddle or hike to validate the person actually did find it. There has to be some level of trust here and then weed out the blatently obvious bogus stuff. Last thing geocaching needs to become is a system of checks and validations on every find. I have enough of that at work. First off, I don't see anything in your reply that contradicts what I stated. Secondly, I don't think anyone is suggesting you need to be out to check each log as it happens, that was a ridiculous assertion really.. I think more to the point is that IF you notice a bogus log that you delete it. Some people will be more proactive about it than others I am sure, but the underlying point is that it IS actually part of cache maintenance.

I don't think that means you have to validate that everyone who says they found the cache actually DID. I know how we are but that's not how others may be. We have hiked a mile into a preserve, found a cache, realized neither of us had a pen so I jogged back to the Jeepster to snag a pen so we could sign the log. It's an ethics thing.... but I don't expect everyone to be that way. I think this line may be more to the point from the guidelines: No, it doesn't seem to be a mandate, but it is clearly an advisable and responsible thing to do and pay attention to.

It's not easy to go out and check 110 log books, 55 of which are in caches you don't own. Sometimes maintaining integrity takes work. I see no problem there.

His posts weren't implying this...he specifically stated this started with an incident on HIS cache and his e-mail correspondence with them threw up red flags. So, from there he dug into it. It's pretty easy to quickly check area logs of multiple cachers manually online. Sure enough a couple logs were on caches of two very close caching friends...those owners checked their physical logs and at that point the red flags were justified. It wasn't like he was baby-sitting and looking for this to happen. Had it not been problematic on one of his caches...no one would of likely noticed.

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose. That's why it's important to remember that a 'find' is basically an agreement between cache 'finder' and cache owner. If the owner doesn't believe a find has been made, hwe can ask for the log to be changed and/or delete the 'bogus' log. I've never really contested this concept. Well, than how can a person pass judgement on someone else's finds on still another person's cache? Also, why is it acceptable for some cachers to elect themselves as the roving log checker of everyone's caches? The better question is why can't someone pass judgment on someone else's find on another's cache and why isn't acceptable for some cacher to elect themselves as the roving log checker of other's caches. No one is twisting any cache owner's arm to edit logs. They can elect to react to the information as they choose. Just because it's your opinion that this shouldn't be done doesn't make the action wrong. Especially considering the fact that ultimately, at the end of the day, it's still between the cache owner and the logger. Really? Neither the OP nor NVG are the cache owner or the logger. And they should both be able to exercise their right to voice their opinion.

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose. That's why it's important to remember that a 'find' is basically an agreement between cache 'finder' and cache owner. If the owner doesn't believe a find has been made, hwe can ask for the log to be changed and/or delete the 'bogus' log. I've never really contested this concept. Well, than how can a person pass judgement on someone else's finds on still another person's cache? Also, why is it acceptable for some cachers to elect themselves as the roving log checker of everyone's caches? The better question is why can't someone pass judgment on someone else's find on another's cache and why isn't acceptable for some cacher to elect themselves as the roving log checker of other's caches. No one is twisting any cache owner's arm to edit logs. They can elect to react to the information as they choose. Just because it's your opinion that this shouldn't be done doesn't make the action wrong. Especially considering the fact that ultimately, at the end of the day, it's still between the cache owner and the logger.

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose. That's why it's important to remember that a 'find' is basically an agreement between cache 'finder' and cache owner. If the owner doesn't believe a find has been made, hwe can ask for the log to be changed and/or delete the 'bogus' log. I've never really contested this concept.

If you just "drive" the loop...what time would it take? With no stops other than routine lights and whatnot. The route would be about 2 hours to drive. 110 miles +/- Kojones Ok, so if it were me being an out-of-towner...say I were to make this jaunt, I would at most want maybe 8 stops at decent points of interest with say the 2 hour drive time plus maybe say a couple hours in searching at most. Again, just my personal take...then again, for locals, not such a big deal as they can spread it out.

That's a good point too. I might, in a situation as described, make separate caches and give a bonus mystery cache find if they complete the series.

That's your perception, and a valid one, but I think a number of cache owners feel "cheated" if their cache was used in this manner. Personally, I wouldn't knowingly enable someone to use my cache for this purpose.

If you just "drive" the loop...what time would it take? With no stops other than routine lights and whatnot.

Personally, I'd probably avoid and assume it was a bit of a pain...not to be critical, but giving you honest feedback.

Yeah, I am looking into that aspect now...I work in IT, actually (not that that makes me a genius), but I thought if someone could save me the time from firsthand knowledge I'd save some effort. Thanks anyway!

lol, I was like "man, that doesn't seem like him", but I thought it would be fun to capture it! I originally threw it in there for you Iowans, but I thought better of it and made the change. We're down like that, word.

I agree with that...I just wasn't 100% sure, so I made the distinction being knowledgeable of the situation.

lol, I was like "man, that doesn't seem like him", but I thought it would be fun to capture it!

Isn't that part of a cache owner's responsibility of maintaining a cache? That's debatable, and for my part in the debate, I would say "no". The guidelines say you should delete logs that appear bogus. They do not say you must do everything in your power to illuminate and root out bogus logs. Are we to run out every time there's a new log posted and make sure there's a matching signature? If that were the case, we'd have nothing but LPCs. That's easy for you to say from the outside, but knowing these people I can tell you they were very glad The NVG had caught on to this and were also glad he took action to preserve integrity on their caches. Frankly, that being the case, you could argue that NOT doing it would have been the wrong thing to do.

True, but then again, having a more broad audience here to hear your views doesn't hurt either. That only becomes an issue if 1) you find all 30%, 2) you choose not to expand your caching area, and 3) no other caches are hidden during the time that you find the 30%. If all of the caches in a person's area are caches that he doesn't like and he can't (or won't) convince anyone in his area to see it his way, perhaps the problem is not with the game, but the player. If the game does not provide the cacher with enjoyment and the local cachers do not enjoy the same kinds of caches as the individual, perhaps the game is not for him. It becomes an issue anytime the lack of perceived quality in the number of caches significantly goes to the other end of the spectrum over a course of time. I am not saying the "playa" may not be the issue...again, the point was merely to make the distinction that it's not JUST the "playa" and their attitude and that there are other factors to take into the equation.

You will still have choices that determine whether or not you have fun.I am not contesting that...I am just saying that every element involved in "having fun" isn't controlled by the individual.While I agree with you somewhat, I would argue that the primary element in determining that you are having fun is your attitude. A good attitude, combined with some simple sorting, can almost always guarantee a good time.I am not saying you are wrong. I agree attitude is very important...I was mainly making the distinction that outside factors do play a role. We probably disagree on what amount, but that probably varies by individual anyway.I agree. Of course, if a person could sort out many of those outside factors and chooses not to, he gets what he gets. True, however, let's take an extreme example...let's say that 85% of caches in a reasonable area around him aren't what he likes...versus, say in my area it's 30%. That's a significant swing in something you have little control over. I agree, getting motivated and doing educational work to offset this helps, but then...some people don't find that fun. So, at some point you get to a place where you either compromise what's "fun", which I think is an unreasonable expectation depending on the amount needed to compromise to fit into your vicinity, or you simple accept that it's just not as fun as it once was and you are forced to accept that fact. Not that his area is that bad, I don't know, but I get the sense from many individuals they feel like the percentage shift from when they started is fairly significant. You can only have as much fun as is provided around you...you can't just go put a bunch of caches out there for you to find, well technically you can...but they won't find that as fun.

That's another funny thing...I keep seeing posts saying the NPS has banned all geocaches, but I was looking at their policy letter from October 19,2007 and it seems that they can be approved on a case-by-case basis (they even mention www.geocaching.com). Yeah, I believe that used to be true and many people aren't aware that NPS had been working on formalizing a policy. I don't think they had a pro-geocaching policy prior to 2007. Here is the post we had in our Iowa forums from a state DNR source last October... Just got this from my cousin, so I thought I would pass it along: FYI I received some information today stating that the National Park Service (NPS) is softening their position on geocaches in the parks. They are now starting to allow individual park superintendents to make the decisions as to whether or not their park is suitable for geocaches. Iowa really has only two NPS sites; Herbert Hoover at West Branch and Effigy Mounds at Marquette . Herbert Hoover is very small and is more like a groomed city park. Effigy Mounds is a nice sized area that is timbered but I called the park superintendent to find out if they were considering allowing geocaching. She said the park would not be allowing it because of its concern for the natural and cultural resource. They don’t allow people to get off the trail and they don’t provide for typical park activities like camping, picnicking, etc. Effigy Mounds is considered burial grounds and is managed under very tight restrictions. The following, is an excerpt of what was sent to me. By linking to the website provided you can learn more about the NPS policy review that is going on. New NPS Geocaching Policy Provides Opportunities for Outdoor Adventure Geocaching, Virtual Caching and Letterboxing are GPS activities that offer significant recreational and educational value to visitors, including opportunities for a growing number of families to experience outdoor adventure in parks. The National Park Service recently released a policy review on GPS-based recreational activities in park areas addressing public outreach and education challenges, as well as monitoring and management policies. The recreation community can aid the National Park Service in promoting appropriate GPS activities. To read more on geocaching and for the full NPS Policy Review, go to www.funoutdoors.com Caroline Mica Director of Communications American Recreation Coalition 1225 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 450 Washington, D.C. 20005 202.682.9530 Fax: 202.682.9529 cmica@funoutdoors.com Anyway, just thought I’d share this bit of information about geocaching in the NPS system. Jerry Reisinger State Parks Bureau Northeast District Supervisor

As stated in the original post, I will ask permission. Well, you said "intend" to, so I was just clarifying...that can sometimes insinuate "I intend to, but if I can convince myself otherwise...".

You might try the state-level forums if you're that motivated, powwow. I know the Iowa forums seem to have a number of people that don't really venture to the GC.com forums...at least on a very frequent basis. Although, I don't know what their respective site administration's view is on soliciting "new" groups, so you might e-mail contact the respective admin at those forums prior to just posting and soliciting a new group there.

Having met most of these individuals, and knowing the general consensus of the DSM area cache owners regarding integrity, I feel pretty confident in my assumption that they really didn't consider it nosing. I think that is also evident in the fact that they were quite willing and happy to work with him on it. Chest-thumping? Sure, but then again...I don't see anything wrong with taking pride in actively maintaining integrity in geocaching...at least he is willing to do something about it versus just talk about it. Nothing wrong with doing the right thing.

You will still have choices that determine whether or not you have fun.I am not contesting that...I am just saying that every element involved in "having fun" isn't controlled by the individual.While I agree with you somewhat, I would argue that the primary element in determining that you are having fun is your attitude. A good attitude, combined with some simple sorting, can almost always guarantee a good time. I am not saying you are wrong. I agree attitude is very important...I was mainly making the distinction that outside factors do play a role. We probably disagree on what amount, but that probably varies by individual anyway.

You will still have choices that determine whether or not you have fun. I am not contesting that...I am just saying that every element involved in "having fun" isn't controlled by the individual.