Too Tall John

I think there might be a difference between searching for a geocache and hunting for one.If the OP is talking about hunting for a geocache, I agree with you, wholeheartedly. If the OP is talking about searching for a geocache, that is looking it up on the website, I completely disagree that it is a bad idea, and for the exact same reasons that you give. Edit to add: I just re-read this post, and while I said exactly what I meant, I realize the second part might be confusing. I disagree that searching on the website for archived caches is a bad idea. Being able to see that a previously placed cache in a spot was archived because "they were illegal, on private property, the neighbors were complaining about the traffic, etc" would be an extremely useful tool for those who might be considering placing a cache in a certain spot.

There used to be a gallery of pictures that were displayed in rotation on the front page of the website. In the redesign, those pics are no longer there. Does anyone know if the gallery is still around?

What? That's ridiculous. If I checked on every cache of mine that gets one DNF by some guy who has only a few hundred finds, I'd be checking on a whole lotta caches that were just fine! If the cacher had let his GPS settle in before climbing over the barrier between him and an 80 foot drop on a 1.5 terrain cache, then he would still be alive. Can't honestly say that I'd have restrained myself either, but I wouldn't be passing the blame off to the cache owner, who has, in fact, archived the cache out of respect of the situation.

Just sayin Huh?

No, it is Armistice Day. Thread Thread Feedback Feedback

We already have a network of volunteer cache maintainers. They are each assigned to a group of caches to maintain. It's a great program, and each volunteer is able to select exactly how many caches they wish to take care of. When maintenance needs arise, they are charged with maintaining the cache and they have the ability to change coordinates, cache descriptions, and remove Maintenance Needed flags. They can adopt out caches in their queue. They even have the power to archive a cache in their queue without having to go through the waiting period that a reviewer generally goes through if they are in the process of archiving a cache for maintenance issues. Only one downside: if one of these maintainers quits the game, their maintenance queue is locked to them and nobody else can preform the listing maintenance tasks that might arise. At this point, other maintainers in the area have to contact the local reviewer about problems with a cache that needs maintenance. This might lead to the archival of the cache. Yes, what I'm describing are cache owners. The biggest problem with the OP's suggestion, IMO, is that if Groundspeak were to develop a network of volunteers to maintain caches, they would be, in effect, taking ownership of those caches. This is a point the company has, for the most part, been quite adamant about: Geocaching.com is a listing service and they do not** own the caches listed on it. There are legal reasons why this is the case, reasons that I'll let the lawyers explain. The upshoot, however, is that a system like the OP suggests is impossible, especially the part about adopting out caches that belong to absentee cache owners. Groundspeak already won't do this for the above reasons, a network of GS volunteers maintaining those caches won't change the reasons behind it. ** There are a few exceptions. Groundspeak HQ comes to mind...

I'd imagine this is how it's done.

So a page or two back, I was struck by the term "Breeders" which was used to refer to heterosexual couples. I've seen it a couple times before, usually used by same sex couples, or at least in conversation about them. It got my attention for a moment, but then it slipped to a back burner to stew. I couldn't really put my finger on why it bugged me at the time, but I figured it out: First, it sorta feels like a comparison to livestock, which is somewhat degrading, IMHO. For a group who is all the time working against other such terms, it seems incongruous that they'd use such a term. Terms that objectify a person should be avoided, otherwise it's not much better than referring to someone as a bundle of sticks. Second, and really most importantly, I know half of a heterosexual couple who was moved almost to tears of anger when they were referred to in this way. Turns out, the couple would love to have children of their own, but they are infertile. So, when starting a gay geocaching group, please make sure it's members are aware that "breeders" can be offensive to some.

I've DNF'ed a number of caches in beautiful locations, but one DNF that had a location that I'll never forget was GCKH63: "Amongst the Catacombs of Nephren-Ka [Nile II]". Not a beautiful spot, by any means, but still very cool. This was a puzzle cache on the campus of Rochester Institute of Technology. It takes you down into a series of tunnels that connect all the dorms together. It's an amazing network, very maze-like! Along the way, there are murals on the walls; the cache page gives a series of hints that refer to some of them. You follow the hints until you find (or don't find, in my case) the cache. Here's the gallery.

Thanks. I read your post and said out loud, "I'm glad I'm not the only one who blurts things out at their computer".

...ant the path continues to take many twists and turns! As a recent post (yes, on page 4! or was it 3?) has suggested, perhaps you should start a group. My one thought of caution, which I had when I first read this, was don't be disappointed if you list an event (see the underlining I added to the post) and it gets denied by your reviewer if you invite only LGBT cachers. The way the guidelines are written, it should be open to all cachers. So, start a group, host an event, but invite all to join and you'll be fine! Other than that, all I have to say is that for me, the only time someone's significant other has ever come up in a geocaching conversation is when the topic of how crazy they think we are comes up. Really, I have no interest in the sexuality of who I'm caching with. Just don't need that image, either way. [fingers in ears][scrunched eyes]lalalalalalala......[/fingers in ears][/scrunched eyes]

"Hi, I'm John." The rest is pretty obvious.

On the day that I found my 1300th geocache, which also happened to be the 13th cache I found for that day, I managed to DNF 8 caches, a personal best (or worst, depending on how you look at it...) Proof that #13 is bad luck! Guess it could have been worse, I could have DNFed 5 more.

You'd be surprised. I suspect it's /Dee-Gee-Double yew Fow-tows/ but someone might try the DGW phonetically... Locally, there's a couple cachers who I know people are saying wrong. One guy I just met recently is 121TechTeam. I always said (in my head) One-Tewnty-One Tech Team." After meeting him, I know it's "One to One Tech Team." Another local is mscrep. I've heard /em-skrep/, /em-ess-see-rep/ and /miz-crep/ among others. I'm pretty sure after meeting them a while back, that he told me he's a Rep for MSC, so the middle one is right, but I talked to a bunch of people that night and might be recalling incorrectly the story. All you have to know for mine is the "H" is silent, but that's a no-brainer for most. /too-tôl-Jon/

Asking the question of if I condone Don calling you stupid implies that you think I did. Care to show where I did so? I didn't call you a failure, I said you failed to read the thread properly. There's a difference. If you want me to stop calling you out for acting wounded, stop trying to use it for a debate tactic. It doesn't work. As to the rest, in your past posts you state several times how others use parks after hours. Why bring it up, if not to rationalize doing it yourself. You give examples of how you have done it and not gotten in trouble. More rationalization. Telling us that "People like you can't tell me what to do" despite the fact that what we are saying is that the actions you are rationalizing can, have, and will again put geocaching in a bad light with landowners. This can/has/will lead to landowners revoking permission/banning caches from their properties. At the point your actions can have an affect on others, you should check those actions. Actions which you were rationalizing. I'd almost believe that your story changing was just a matter of clarification due to omission, except you don't appear to have a problem being extremely verbose in your posts. You go on and on about everything except the details that were important to the point you were supposedly making? Seems to me we're looking at trolling tactics, not debate tactics. I see this going no further, I'm done wasting my time. We can agree to disagree, unless you're now sticking with your story that you were originally agreeing that a cache should can delete a log as described in the OP. We're done in that case, too.

Reading your past posts and this post, you seem to be saying that you've broken the law to find a couple caches. You say "people like you can't tell me what to do." Red the thread title: Do i have the right to delete a log if the finder did not come at appropriate hours. The answer, according to most in the thread is "Yes, the guidelines support deleting logs that describe finding a cache illegally." Yet, your argument seems to be "I can do it because I got away with it!" Frankly, who cares? Nobody's arguing your right to find the cache in any way you want. The question is about if someone can delete your log if you describe your illegal activity. This is why you have failed to grasp what is going on in the thread. Miserably. Without a citation to your log, all we have to go on is your description of it here. What you described sounded like gloating to me. Regardless of how the log came out, your description here in the forums sounded like a gloat, and land managers, even if they don't read here regularly, can find your post with quick google search for "geocaching after hours". ...But you did post how you didn't follow the posted hours. You do see the problem with that in the view of a landowner, right? That's not how you made it sound in your post that first described your log. Changing stories to benefit your argument, eh? I agree, to a point. The moment your actions are a problem for others, though, you need to rethink your decisions. Posting logs that would put caches in a poor light to the landowner affects the cache owner, potentially other (or future) cache owners on the same property. They have the right to tell you to stop, even by deleting your log. To claim you have the right to post what you want is (to repeat myself) narcissistic. You came into this thread combative and making claims that seemed to oppose what it is you are claiming to have said. Don't act like you're the wounded one, here.

What you fail miserably at is grasping the concept that we're discussing geocachers posting in their online logs for all to see that they found the cache when a park is closed. This log, if read by a concerned manager, could then mean the end of the cache, maybe a ban in the park. I find it funny that you're telling someone to read carefully when it appears that you haven't read the multiple posts explaining why it is that posting your illegal activities while caching in your geocache log could be bad for the geocache. Yes, cachers are responsible for their own actions. The actions of a single cacher have, in fact, "chang[ed] the whole of property permissions" on more than one occasion. To think that just becaue you don't get caught in the field doesn't mean you won't get caught when you detail what you did in your log is just plain ridiculous. I'll say it again: Just plain ridiculous. In your dog walking or speeding examples, the offending party, as far as I know, does not go onto dogwalker.com or speedabit.org and then post details about how they broke the law. If they did, the results might be different. Never bragged? That's a load! This was your post, right? So, the cop tells you to stop, the cache owner tells you to stop, and come to think of it, in part of the post I snipped, you say that you've been told the same thing since you were a little kid. Yet, you admit to continuing the behavior with seemingly no remorse. You may understand the concept of right and wrong, but you obviously don't think that they apply to you. Narcissistic much?

If logger stated they broke the speed limit going to the cache, would you delete that log?If the land the cache was hidden on was managed by an entity where speeding would make a difference in their permission? Yes. If the cache were hidden with permission of a community association, and you talked about how you were speeding through that community, I'd delete your log. If you posted about how you sped through the parking lot at the local playground where the cache was hidden, yes, I'd delete your log. In general, land managers are concerned with what you are doing on their property. If you break the rules/law on that property, that is when they will become concerned. That is when I'd delete your log. With the option of relogging without bragging about/condoning such activities, of course. Fortunately, most cachers around here aren't foolish enough to brag about their illegal activities, so I haven't had to delete any such logs.

This kinda makes me laugh, reminds me of the Movie Indiana Jones when he gets into the city and this guy about 7 Ft tall pulls out these huge swords and demonstrates his talent with them, and Indiana, looking unimpressed just pulls out his gun and shoots the guy "GAME OVER" well unless she learned how to dodge bullets in her numerous Martial arts classes she may have wasted her money regarding guns. SS Uhh... My point is that there are people who will disarm you faster than you can unholster, aim, and fire your sidearm. It's funny in the movie, but it was the guy behind Indy that would have been the real danger in a non-Hollywood situation.

Hmm that's funny I just watched a special on Alaska where a jogger, and a MTN biker going down this popular trail were almost killed by bears, I think you are underestimating the situation. SS I find SS's suggestion that Cyndaria is "underestimating the situation" ironic. One of their earlier posts on the topic: Difference is I know how to use one, but obviously you don't. SS Considering the ironic post (that is, the first one I quoted) was made in reply to someone who made this post: Yes, I realize that SS was replying to two different people in those posts. Thing is, Cyndaria sounds like she'd be pretty capable at disarming whoever she needed to. This demonstrates that there are people out there who, no matter how well you might "know how to use one", will be able to disarm you pretty quickly. Cyndaria might be underestimating a situation with a wild animal, but SS is underestimating a situation with a human being. Statistically humans kill more people per year than bears do, I'll take my chances with the bears, frankly. Besides that, the "I know how to use one" post is completely off topic, IMO. The OP is asking what they should do. Unless SS is suggesting that the OP bring them along on midnight cache runs, their overinflated opinion on how well they can handle themselves in a situation is completely irrelevant.

No. They broke park rules because of a cache that you placed. They took a chance just to get a FTF.And this post right here is an example of what happens when someone doesn't read an entire post. MPH, you do realize now that it has been shown that the guidelines support such a deletion, right?

I'd delete such a log without batting an eye. Why? You might see including how you felt you were above the rules in your log as "relevant in my log" but I would see it as a threat to the cache's longevity. Cache Permanence is also in the guidelines. If you want to brag about how you were skating in a no-skating park, do it on a skateboarding forum, not my cache page.

Let's go back to the radiation example. If anyone is guilty of gross negligence, it would be the land manager who is in charge of a dangerous radioactive area and did not post adequate signage to warn people to stay out of the area or to only approach while wearing proper PPE. It would e the land manager who was grossly negligent for granting permission for the geocache in the first place. I suspect the land manager would indeed be held grossly negligent in the scenario I laid out. I also suspect the cache owner and Groundspeak reviewer also might be held grossly negligent as well. For gross negligence, more than one person can be responsible. How is it, again, that the reviewer and Groundspeak would be held responsible? If this hypothetically unposted radioactive suckhole of doom actually existed, how does the reviewer know of it's existence? I bet if I went around my state and found a dozen spots with serious hidden dangers, then asked the reviewers in the area what they thought of those spots (not mentioning the dangers) they would probably be unaware of those dangers. Asking them to know about potential dangers over their review area is ridiculous.

I'm sorry you found this exchange to be confusing.I fully understood what you were doing. You were pointing at an unsubstantiated claim, made earlier by you, as the fact to back up what you were saying. And now, you're trying to claim that I'm confused about it to cover the fact that I just pointed out a fallacy in your argument.

Common sense? Where do you draw the line? What if I didn't pick up after my dog while finding the cache? Or if I parked my hypothetical car more that 30 cms from the curb, or if I skated in a park that doesn't allow skateboarding? Are you gonna delete my log for that?If I thought the concerned land manager would read your log about how you disobeyed their rules while looking for my cache? You betcha!