cimawr

I'm sure it wasn't, in either case. The hider of the museum cache had the good intentions of making people aware of a little-known museum, he just didn't, IMO, sufficiently consider where GPS bounce (and his own unfortunate bad coordinates) might put people. In that location, coordinates 50 feet off make a BIG difference. The second one, being a micro, isn't so much of an issue if the actual location is where I think it is; my concern there is more stupid cachers blindly following the GPS into somebody's yard than anything else, although I still think a better choice would have been on the other side of the street where the area of public property is more clearly delineated.

The fence wasn't put up by the homeowners; it belongs to the private museum on the grounds of which the cache is placed (almost certainly without the permission of the museum). The area is the back corner of the parking lot, and there are trees planted to give the homeowners privacy. The coordinates take cache seekers *behind* the trees, on a slope overlooking the homes. If the homes bordered a public park, or the areas visible from the hide site were also visible from the street (they're not), I would agree with you. However, that's not the case - the area that cachers are taken to by the posted coordinates is NOT a public area, and not a place where anyone would normally go. In any case, the fence itself is immaterial to "reasonable expectation of privacy", which is a term used in privacy laws - most photographers are familiar with it - which may come into play if a geocacher is arrested for being there. "Prosser, in both his article and in the Restatement (Second) of Torts at §§ 652A-652I, classifies four basic kinds of privacy rights: 1. unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, for example, physical invasion of a person's home (e.g., unwanted entry, looking into windows with binoculars or camera" Looking into someone's back yard and potentially into their back and side upper story windows (the parking lot is above the ground level of the homes), from a vantage point on private property, can very well be construed as violating their right to a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in those areas IMO. And in the case of the other cache, if someone goes on to the homeowner's property, there's no question that they'll be trespassing. My reasons for considering those two cache placements somewhat inappropriate is threefold: 1, I'm concerned that a cacher may end up arrested or harassed by cops. 2, I'm concerned for the rights of the property owners. 3, I'm concerned for the image of the sport - ticking off local homeowners is NOT good P.R. for geocaching. IOW, to my mind, the problems with those two cache placements are similar to those with placing caches on or near schools. In the case of the first one, IMO the problems could be resolved for the most part if the cache hider would correct the coordinates, move the cache to another area of the parking lot that *doesn't* border private homes, and/or note on the web page that the cache is not on the fence line & please respect privacy. In the case of the second, noting on the page that there are private homes nearby, please be careful to remain on public property, would probably suffice... as would moving the cache to one of the public areas where the property lines ARE delineated by fences. Me, personally, I would have appreciated having the information that the caches are near private homes up front.

This isn't exactly a rant, but.... I really have to wonder what people are thinking when they place caches within 0-50 feet of private houses WITHOUT the residents of the homes having any knowlege of what's going on, and in circumstances where cache-seekers will either look extremely suspicious to the homeowners, or may end up in someone's back yard. One local cache is situated such that the posted coordinates put searchers literally on the property lines of private homes, and about 30-50 feet from two of the houses. Yes, there's a chainlink fence, but it doesn't negate the fact that what the homeowners see is people poking around in a place where there's no reason for anyone to be, and which allows people to overlook areas where the homeowners have a reasonable expectation of privacy. I found myself fairly quickly being scrutinized by what I believe was a cop in an unmarked car, even though I had already moved away from the area, feeling uncomfortable with the situation. And one I looked at yesterday is placed on a little pocket of land which is apparently the tail end of park property, but where there is NO dividing line between what's public property and the back yards of two homes. One place my GPSr pointed me was in a spot where it was not at all clear whether the potential hide spot was private or public, and another potential hide spot (a stump) IS, I believe, actually in the back yard; both places are 40 feet or less from the home's back deck. I didn't search either of them. I don't think there was anyone home - I wouldn't have searched even in what I was sure was the public area if I thought there was - but that spot seems like trouble waiting to happen, especially if someone goes there after dark. And to be clear, the homes in both cases are in quiet suburban areas, and the "public" areas aren't ones where you would or should normally see foot traffic. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think those sort of hides are appropriate.

Heh. I'd be more likely to do the opposite - "I'll delete your log if you DO trade golf balls". I'm a little tired of finding caches where someone has very obviously picked up a dirty lost golf ball from nearby, and dropped it into the cache as their trade item. I've actually taken the durn things OUT of the caches more than once - no point in leaving it cluttering up the cache when I've seen a dozen or more of them scattered around nearby while hunting the cache. More seriously, and getting back to the actual discussion, I agree with all of your points, especially #'s 1 and 3. Sometimes, people end up going to a cache on the spur of the moment, and may not remember what the web page said; IMO, their find is still legitimate even if they didn't have a requisite trade item with them.

Just curious - are "vacation caches" allowed if the hider stipulates that someone local will maintain the cache? Reason I ask is that there's a cache at a truck stop 3 miles from my S.O.s house in Maryland (he's also a cacher, goes by "Fandrel") which was placed by someone who lives in Kansas, according to the profile. The listing states that the hider's brother lives a mile away and agreed to maintain the cache. Things apparently went well for about 18 months, although there aren't any maintenance logs. However, the cache was destroyed by renovation of the landscaping on either June 30 or July 1 (based on the logs), and reported missing on July 4 by a trucker who had previously found it and had re-visited several times to drop of TBs. IOW, there's no question that the cache is in fact destroyed. But nothing was done about it..... It's been bugging me, primarly because I'm AT that truck stop several times a week , so about a week ago, I finally decided to mention the situation to the MD reviewer, who has disabled the cache; so far, still no action, looks like it'll probably get archived. Which it probably would have even if the cacher WAS local, since the place it was hidden in was destroyed.

Stupid Rule Cache to your "Caches that make me Grumpy" public bookmark list... [/color] Jamie - NFA Thanks for posting that; I needed a laugh this morning, and thoroughly enjoyed reading the creative ways people have complied with the Stupid Rule.

There's one near me where you're supposed to bring or trade interesting matchbooks or matchboxes. (Not the toy cars, but small boxes that held or hold matches. <G>) It's a very cool idea, but unfortunately, the hider used a non-waterproof cheapo disposable food container for a location on a wooded hillside - IOW, the contents get soaked everytime it rains.

Updating, just for the heck of it... Went back just before dark a couple of days ago, and found an older soccer league playing under lights. Ran some errands, came back in the dark after the game, and found it. Stopped to look for this one after finding #5 (both parks were on my way home); cache was in the underbrush way in the middle and I, being a dunderhead, had forgotten to stick my small flashlight in my pocket. Decided to come back another day, since I couldn't remember if it was a micro or a regular... but on getting home & reading the cache listing, found it had been disabled that afternoon because it had been mowed over. Happened to go out with only time for a short hike, and on a whim went and found it.

I suspect it's never occurred to stores to provide them... hmm, I wonder how I could get a campaign started? I'm only half-kidding, btw - me, I can climb shelves, but there are a lot of elderly and disabled who can't. Small world, innit? I've lived less than a mile from the university for the last 20-odd years.... which I continue to think of it as "Towson State"; the habit's too long engrained.

Interesting topic... especially to a relative newbie (less than 3 months, 39 finds). So here are mine - these are the 20 nearest that I HAVEN'T found; my area is pretty saturated (nearest cache to me is 2 blocks from my front door!), and I've found plenty within the same areas as these 20: #1, .79 miles away - Webcam cache at a local university. I'm not interested in doing it. #2, .81 miles away - very difficult woodland camo micro in an overgrown area, with coordinates that the hider states on the page may not be accurate. I took a brief look about a month ago, but it was way too thorny; I'll go back in the winter, when the underbrush is less. #3, 1.11 miles - The cache has bad coordinates, which put searchers literally on the property lines of three private residences, overlooking one home's backyard pool, and overlooked BY the upper story windows of two of the three. Using coordinates gleaned from the logs puts you a bit further away, but still in plain sight of the windows. I went to look for it a couple of weeks ago (not realizing the circumstances) and within a short time found myself being stared at by a cop in an unmarked car, most likely called by one of the homeowners. The hider had a good idea in wanting to let cachers know about the nearby museum, but having people repeatedly invading the privacy of homeowners isn't on. IMO, he really needs to move the cache further away from the homes. #4, 1.14 miles - was archived before I got a chance to look for it, due to a nearby homeless camp. #5, 1.76 miles - had to abort recent search because elementary-age soccer practice (it's a public park, soccer is Rec&Parks league) started right there just as I began looking. Will go back during school hours when it's quieter. #6, 1.85 miles - on the trails of a local park, where I frequently hike, but in a back corner where I don't normally go because it isn't an enjoyable hike in warm weather (swampy, mosquitoes, etc.), and parking nearby to it is frowned on by "upper class" residents. Will get around to it one of these days, in cooler weather. #7, 1.87 miles - Puzzle cache which can only be done at night. Too much hassle, and I didn't feel safe in the area the one time I checked it out. #8, 1.91 miles - New cache in a suburban park I didn't know about. It's on my "To try sometime soon" list. #9, 2.01 miles - numerous logs saying it was probably muggled; only recently fixed by owner. Near a school, and no nearby parking. Other caches by this hider are ones I consider problematic (including #'s 3 and 11), so I'm hesitant to try for it. #10, 2.07 miles - In the same park as #6, on *another* trail I don't normally hike because it's too close to private residences, plus it's a woodland micro (not my cup 'o tea). Will probably get around to it one of these days, though. #11, 2.07 miles (different direction) - numerous DNFs, with logs saying searchers were scrutinized and yelled at by nearby residents. No thanks. #12, 2.19 miles. I found the hide spot, but the cache was destroyed - this has subsequently been verified by the cache's owner - either muggled or washed out by recent rains. Not particularly surprising that this was placed by the same guy who owns #'s 3, 9, and 11. (Seems like a nice guy, and some of his caches are cool, but I get the impression he doesn't consider locality as well as he should.) #13, 2.23 miles. Multiple DNF/think it's gone logs, going back several months, but the owner hasn't checked it yet. Not going to waste my time unless he verifies it's there. #14, 2.23 miles. Tricky urban micro in a high-traffic area in front of a business. Not really my cup of tea, so I may or may not look for it one of these days. #15, 2.25 miles. In a small neighborhood park in a direction I don't normally go. Will get around to it one of these days. #16, 2.28 miles. Requires hiking in a watershed area I don't normally frequent because it's hard to find parking, there's a lot of trash, and the tick population is high. That park has a dozen or more, which I may look for during the winter when ticks are down and usage is less. #17, 2.34 miles. Another out-in-the-open urban micro (it's in or on a roadside sign), with a very busy major road 10-15 feet away. I've looked for it briefly, but didn't feel comfortable. May or may not try again. #18, 2.34 miles. Multi-cache; not my cup of tea, so I most likely won't bother with it. #s 19 and 20, less than 3 miles - both in the same park as #s 6 and 10, both in areas I don't normally hike to because they're not particularly pleasant hikes. I'll probably get around to them some time this winter, when heat and mosquitoes aren't a factor. I have, incidentally, found all the caches in that park that *are* close to my normal hikes, as well as one that's not on my normal round but close to one of the two places I usually park.

I think you're spot-on with that, since I'm a newbie and that's exactly what just happened with a TB that I've got. Within the last month, I'd picked up two TBs - from two different caches - that had been properly logged in, and when I went in to log them, it was clear that the correct thing to do was say that I'd "retrieved" them. Yesterday, I stopped by a TB hotel off of I-95 to drop off the two, since one has a specific mission and I thought that would be a good place for it to continue in the correct direction. I looked through the other bugs there, & picked a cool one to move along. But when I went to the cache page to log that I'd retrieved it, lo and behold it wasn't in the cache's inventory... so to me, the obvious choice from the drop down menu, was that I'd "discovered" it. The bug's owner then e-mailed me - very happy that her bug had turned up, 'cos it had been AWOL for over a year - and explained that the correct choice would have been "grabbed it". Which I did, and then per her request virtually "dropped off" and then "retrieved" the bug from the cache, so that its milage would be correctly logged. It remains a mystery how the bug got from Georgia, where the owner lives, to Cecil County, Maryland. (Upper NE corner of the state, bordering DE and PA.) Getting back to the point, however, the terminology used for logging bugs *other* than "dropping off" and "retrieving" is not, IMO, very clear or intuitive.

Stop, you're making me thirsty. And she'd never heard of THAT sort of Black & Tan, either. Nor any of the several other legitimate definitions.... nor, apparently, of using Google.

I'm new to caching, but I have to agree - for me, part of the fun is figuring out where the cache is. Having said that, I DID invest $50 in the North American maps for my eTrex Legend; I don't like to waste TOO much gas driving around in circles, so I do sometimes use the map function to get an idea of where to head, and/or to refresh my memory as to whether the cache requires hiking. I've only been to one cache so far where entrance/parking coordinates were 100% necessary. For that one, the location is visible from the main roads, but following the GPSr will take you to a permanently blocked-off road or to a cul-de-sac in a new subdivision, where you could PARK quite close, but would have to cross private property to get to the site. The entrance has to be reached by going a good bit PAST where you can see the site, then down a small side street & up a not-very-obvious small lane. I do appreciate it, however, when parking coordinates are given for tucked-away suburban parks such as the OP was referring to. I can usually find the parking anyway, but I understand the OP's point, especially when following the GPSr leads you to cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets where the upscale residents don't appreciate any invasion by outsiders. Which is, I think, something of an East Coast/Mid-Atlantic phenomenon....

My S.O. is around 6', and also caches, so I DO plan to revisit a couple of the ones I couldn't reach with him. I intened to let him figure out the hide spots for himself, though. Heh. Me, I usually just climb the shelves. My take on it is that if they don't want me doing it, then they ought to provide grabby-sticks (I have NO idea what the correct name for the things is) along with the shopping cats.

Definitely not; in addition to (sometimes) getting to miss spider webs - my experience is that they're often right at the level of my head ** - I can fit through & under small spaces. **I LIKE spiders. I do not, however, care to have them stuck to my hair or falling down my shirt.

>>Really? I use that term all the time, as it was never considered a "bad" word. For example, "It's a >>bugger of a hide", or "This bugger's a tough one" -- I see nothing wrong, impolite, or crass with either. >>It's certainly more polite than that other "b" word. It's definitely NOT more polite than the other "B" word; buggery is anal intercourse, and a bugger is one who participates in said activity. So it's REALLY jarring to hear people using the word casually, especially when they refer to a child or dog as a "little bugger" when they'd never say "little f***er". >>As far as the OP, I've never heard the term "dead nuts" used so I would have interpreted it to be more >>crass than it was intended, but it's not something I'd have gotten all huffy about. Certainly not worth an >>email. I agree. To my reading, even though I'm not familiar with the term, the context makes it clear that it wasn't intended in the double-entendre sense of "nuts". Reminds me of someone who got all righteously indignant because she saw a bumper sticker that said "I hunt Black and Tans", and A. failed to see that the word Black wasn't plural B. wasn't aware that there's such a thing as a Black and Tan Coonhound C. didn't know that in the South "I hunt Beagles" or "I hunt Redbones" " I hunt Blueticks" or "I hunt Cur Dogs" means "I go hunting with Beagles/Redbone Coonhounds/Bluetick Coonhounds/Curs"... and therefore jumped to the conclusion that the bumper sticker was a horrible racist joke about people with dark skin. Which was silly enough in and of itself, but then she tried to enlist members of a dog group I was on to boycott the company that sold the bumper stickers (for a whole bunch of breeds) even AFTER we all told her she was way off base...

Bwahahahahaha!!! Been there, done that - except it was computer connections. It's even funnier when the explainER - me - is a petite female, and the easily-embarrassed explainEE - the customer - is male. And then there was the bejeweled and beminked female customer who, when I assured her that I knew what I was talking about WRT installing hard drives, 'cos I'd just done it on my own computer, looked at me and said "But you're a girl!" (I was 37 at the time). That time, I couldn't help myself; I took three steps back into the shop and said, in a clear, carrying voice - "Would someone with a penis please come and speak with this customer?" Getting back to the subject at hand, though - one that irks me is the casual way Americans have taken to using the word "bugger", which to my half-Brit ears/eyes is the exact equivalent of using the word "f***er".

Erm - Lassie wasn't a Border Collie; he (the TV and movie Lassies were all male) was a Rough Collie. I cache with my dogs (one of whom is a half-Border lurcher) all the time, but neither is interested in hunting for plastic, unfortunately. Give 'em a squirrel or rabbit, now, and they're on it.

Yep. I'm four feet, eleven and three-quarters inches tall (so says the chart from my last physical, anyways ), and have been to a couple of caches that were impossible for me to reach because they were either too high or too deep. In one case, I e-mailed the owner and was told I could count it as a find. There's also a local one that involves lifting a sleeve off of a 5' tall post, which I'm not going to do because if I drop the dadgum thing & break it, I'll be destroying private property (it's on the parking lot of a convenience store), plus I'm not sure I can get it back on once it's off.

I thought that way at first, but after being to a couple of caches where I found serious concerns NOT mentioned in the logs, I've changed my mind on that. While I don't want to insult anybody, when I find myself being scrutinized by an unmarked cop car because the hider failed to take into account the fact that the coordinates put seekers 30 feet from a homeowner's backyard pool, I'm going to say something in the log about it.

Me, I don't even think of woods/leaf mold/mud, etc. as "dirty".... and it's also to be EXPECTED when one goes hiking, especially bushwhacking, or off the beaten path. However, I strongly dislike urban hides which are *filthy* - garbage, human excreta, broken glass, etc. For example, I've given cursory looks for, then walked away from, two local caches which are listed as being "near" stores, and are located right on or near dumpsters. One of them, behind a bowling alley, was surrounded by food trash and broken glass, and reeked of human urine; the other, which turned out to be behind a supermarket, had a big box of putrid, fly-covered chicken at GZ (e.g. sitting out, not in the dumpster). Sorry, but to me those are REALLY inappropriate hide places- as are wooded urban/suburban bits which are clearly used by the homeless and/or the addicted.

Heh. I know your post is tongue-in-cheek, but... as a point of note, the first syllable of "dachshund" is pronounced "docks", not "dash".

I'm fairly new to caching myself; 2.5 months, about 32 finds, of which I think about 2/3 have been micros. Most have been either 35mm film containers or magnetic key holders that were concealed in or on man-made items - billboards, walls, drainspouts, light fixtures, etc, etc - at rest stops, behind stores, on parking lots, and so forth. However, I've also seen things like a plastic tube buried in a hole with a rock on top, a golf ball-sized object with a small tube inserted into it (e.g the actual container was "nano" sized, then concealed in something "micro" sized), and the like. And only two have been somewhat "in plain sight" - one on the ground behind an A/C unit, looking like something that belonged there, and one in a magnetic key holder on the underside of a roadside fixture, but visible from a distance if you were looking for it.

Erm - given that A, the kids could see the searchers from the playground, and B, the moms were right behind them, and from their reaction were apparently WATCHING the activity the entire time, I don't see how you can say they "let their children wander off... alone". And given the ridiculous story the searchers chose to tell the kids, I don't think they were over-reacting in calling the cops. E.g. the initial story was so absurd that it would make anything else they said/did suspect, including the "story" about searching for something hidden.