Jump to content

egami

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    1437
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by egami

  1. I am not sure what cache you are specifically speaking of, but here is my thought on swimming / boating caches on bodies of water that you describe as relatively still water. I would leave terrain low, probably 1.5 or 2. Then I would make difficulty probably a 4 on the basis of swimming or boating being a "specialized skill". This is kind of a good example of subjectivity...everyone will have varying answers on is those are specialized skills or not, but I would prefer to err on the side of caution and make notations in the cache description so that people don't get all the way out there and they can't swim or don't have access to use a boat. Whenever I do a cache with a difficulty of 3 or higher I always read the cache description to determine why because I cache with small children.
  2. They should just buy the www.geocashing.com domain now and migrate over. Ironically, they already did...
  3. I've learned you essentially don't need to get permission for placing a cache as long as you check the box that says you did and that people generally regard public land, and even some private land, as a free for all.
  4. The simple answer is yes, and according to the mods any other opinion is seemingly out of line... http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=183873
  5. I guess if being sensible and logical is being deliberately one-sided on issues and unwilling to learn the other side of a story....then I'll gladly let that ship sail.
  6. What's interesting is one of their official policy links was "updated" 01/02/08...wonder if they are altering policy...
  7. I accept your position. Now I will focus on having fun. Thanks.
  8. One of my opinions is based on a BLM policy paper about caching. Do you know which one? Didn't think so. Unfortunatly you lack the depth of experience to do more than thrash about like a fish out of water. That's fine, we can all learn. The trick is to be interested in learning. Have you noticed that TrailGators and I don't always agree? We still read each other's posts to learn and that gives a better perspective overall. In some areas I err on the side of freedom and he errs on the side of caution but there is a core of agreement that underlies much of our differences. If you are going to continue enjoying arguing all those things that "get you in trouble" you have to find that core. Otherwise you will just discredit yourself as being worth the effort of a debate with the few who you can learn from. Unless they just like playing with you. I don't care about your opinion on BLM policy...and, actually, yes I do know about BLM policy regarding geocaching because we've discussed it on the Iowa forums. In fact, I believe I might have been the one that link the BLM policy for reference. Regardless, keep flinging mud...it's what you do best...
  9. It isn't about being "up front"...it's about respecting someones request not to be named or quoted.
  10. What was question. What was the answer? You should have no problem providing this. It didn't really pertain directly to the discussion...it was more regarding whether there were "unlisted" geocaches similar to letterboxing. They thought letterboxes were automatically listed here also due to the hybrid type listing.
  11. Yeah, like I said properly rated or not is somewhat subjective anyway, it certainly looks like a fun one...frankly, I wish there were more of these. Looking at the logs it seems like a "don't miss" cache to me.
  12. Which is precisely what I said...it turns out I know someone that is a Ranger there and I trust their perception. As far as "working through you"...whatever that means, no one is working on anything I know someone who works there. They had a friend who had been monitoring this thread that had a question for me. Quite frankly it's comical to what lengths you, TrailGators, Miragee and others will go to in order to defend all of your "opinions" on it. Some of you making blind accusations on the part of management and now other cachers. You have no more factually based information on caches causing problems then that which you are demanding from the ABDSP people. Just like a few pages back when the three individuals flamed me to no end for simply being interested in hearing another perspective. I think the level of intensity is inversely proportional to the usefulness of the current state of this thread.
  13. I disagree. That's like saying it's no more wrong for someone to stand on the edge of a Putt Putt course telling all the little kids that they have to follow the rules or be ashamed of their lack of integrity, than it is for me to walk up to that person and suggest they lighten up and stop trying to make the kids feel bad. By the way, lighten up. I think you're representing my stance pretty unfairly if you go back and look at my first reply to your Putt Putt example...you're taking me out of context based on this last reply.
  14. As I said... I'm just waiting for the owner to contact me. I'm very open to discuss this case with him personally. Or is this now a democratic thing, and the people decide what has to happen to my log?! jk Don't worry, I saw the "jk"...but just to be clear...what happens between you and the cache owner is fine with me...just stating my opinion on my own caching style. Should something like this happen on a cache of mine...at least a thread has come to light to make me think and my first step would be to email the cacher that posted the find and clarify what happened. Now, keep in mind, I am not saying it was wrong for this thread to start...I think all treads have their value. Just like anything else...each story has more than one side and I am glad we have at least been able to hear that in this thread. If we are going the "democratic" route and have to vote...my vote would be for the two of you to work things out and forget about the rest of us!!! I'll contact the Florida people to do the count...
  15. I have been in this thread from page one. Don't falsely accuse me of anything when you have no idea what my level of communication is...I have a personal high school, childhood friend that works in that park. I have every right to inquire their opinion on the situation. There is no need for you, or TG, to make any assumption on what my impact as been when you clearly don't have a clue.
  16. Integrity exists in every aspect of life. It's no more wrong for people to criticize how he chooses to play the game than it is for you to suggest people can't maintain a sense of integrity in the game.
  17. I would still delete the log in a heartbeat. My expectation is that anyone claiming a find on one of my three caches has actually found the cache and signed the log. That's the way I play the game, anyway. There are lots of other "virtual worlds" people can get involved with. --Larry Tough crowd, I hope you or I never get disabled or we will have to find a new hobby. I was thinking I could stay at home and solve puzzles and the wife could go do the find so we as a team could still keep caching if something ever happened but I guess not according to your rules. This is kind of a Straw Man argument...it's not really for you to assume that those that would disallow the find for integrity purposes would automatically equate the situations to someone who seemingly just wanted to do this out of mere convenience.
  18. Integrity. It matters to me because I care about the integrity of the game. At some point the more people that take more liberties in the game cause an effect on others. I know it's a popular mentality to have on forums now to be all hakuna matata, but it's ok for people to have a sense of pride and ownership in geocaching and for them to want things to remain relatively within the definition of the intent of the game. Take your Putt Putt example, it's a great example...most people don't have qualms with some of those rules being bent in the manner you described. Conversely, most of us don't want to play with outright cheaters. In this particular case we're talking about a grown adult cheating the game. So, it's a bit of both...on one hand, not a big deal, but on the other hand there is absolutely nothing wrong with people wanting to maintain integrity in the game either.
  19. By that logic I could mark any cache "found" personally because was "found" by somebody.... To each their own, if intellectual dishonesty is the way you play the game...more power to you. Just don't come crying when your logs get waxed.
  20. You really are looking to blame me aren't you... Jorgensen isn't a "ranger"...however, what I did find out after a little research is that I graduated from high school with one of the current rangers. I'd post their e-mail, but they've asked to remain anonymous, so its content and their name is going to remain as such. It's not just Jorgensen, however, that is claiming these things that was quoted in the Kit's OP or this "e-mail" that you've conveniently blamed me for without proof and you guys are going to any length to paint the rangers, and park manager, as liars without proof. I find the lack of integrity a pretty sad representation for the geocaching community as a whole. Blame whoever you want...it's obvious you're going to blame anyone but the individuals who are actually creating problems in the park.
  21. Be careful bring up that point...I did earlier and got flamed to high heaven. It's unethical to question the one-sided stance in this thread or to seek the other side of the story. We are to simply assume this is a gross infringement of rights and be mad about it and place blame on park management.
  22. Please provide the GC numbers of the ones that weren't... Maybe Superintendent Jorgensen would work with you on that...or also the ones where cachers were caught and fined for violating the rules in route to them. It was your opinion. Back it up..... Numerous geocaches have been placed within the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park without authorization. No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves. So your opinion is based on complete unconditional belief of a statement that to date has been unsupported by actual examples with GC numbers? We actually cache out there and none of us can think of any "geocaches" that this statement could describe (I can't speak for navicaches or other types). We have been scratching our heads ever since we read it. We know of only one geocache that was found 300 feet from an archealogical site but the guideline they gave us requires 200 feet. I'm sure we would have followed 500 feet if that had been what they asked for but they asked for 200 feet. That and two personal e-mail conversations with rangers at the park. So, yeah, I am taking the words of those people in official positions over a handful of GC.com skeptics.
  23. Please provide the GC numbers of the ones that weren't... Maybe Superintendent Jorgensen would work with you on that...or also the ones where cachers were caught and fined for violating the rules in route to them. It was your opinion. Back it up..... Numerous geocaches have been placed within the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park without authorization. No consideration was given to resource sensitivity in the placement of any of these geocaches, and many have been discovered in very sensitive locales. Caches have been removed from archeological sites, paleontological areas, bighorn sheep watering sites and in sensitive caves.
  24. Maybe Superintendent Jorgensen would work with you on that...or also the ones where cachers were caught and fined for violating the rules in route to them.
×
×
  • Create New...