Too Tall John

You can rest assured that I won't just barge into Wally World and ask. I will do it right, ask for an appointment, get all dressed up and comb my hair. I will present a good case for allowing it to be put there. I will also ask for a written response so I can share it here. But first, I have some work to do as I need to cook up a good cache that starts at Wally World and ends up someplace spectacular. Mustang... Do you want to see the letter requesting a meeting before I send it? I'd be happy to share so I don't get accused of not giving it the best effort possible. I was thinking calling the cache something like -Worst to First- but I'm not sold on that. I would avoid "Worst to First." I'd say it'd be ok to let them know you want to have the cache start somewhere mundane where people go every day (their parking lot) and end somewhere with a really cool setting, the management won't be so blind as to think that their parking lot is paradise. IMHO, a letter to the manager will get you nowhere. It'll get shuffled off to the community relations person, or worse, put in the circular file. Call the store or pop in and ask to speak directly with the store manager. You will probably get an assistant manager at first, but this is something I don't see them fielding alone. If the manager isn't available, see about finding a time when they can sit down with you. Make sure when you talk with the manager that you let them know you are asking to be sure you comply with the store's policies. If they are basing their answer on policy, it is more likely to be a consistent answer at other stores, too. Asking for a response in writing may be overkill & be more likely to get a "no" if only because of the trouble to do so. Pay attention, write down anything important afterwards, but don't take notes during your conversation, they may feel like you're gathering info to use against them. If you pop into the store, mention that while you are there you need to pick up some swag. I imagine that a number of managers I've worked with would actually be interested in the idea of geocaching, but even more would be excited about the idea of geocachers stopping in to buy stuff, even cheap stuff. Heck, they keep track of items that tend to bring people into the store. As a photo lab mgr, I had the highest customer count item in the store: the disposable camera. Visit 1: buy camera. Visit 2: drop off camera for developing. Visit 3: pick up pictures. 3 visits, 2 rings on the register! The wonder item! How could a geocache be seen in that light? While it won't bring anyone into the store or to the registers directly, there's the well known "While I'm here I need..." syndrome. This, of course, all depends on if they can get past any rules restricting activities in the parking lot, but the more info you have the better, right?

... or just .loc files. Although I'm not exactly sure if I know what you are asking either...

I'm glad to see a forum opened for this project & have signed up. Where do we go from here?

This thread seems to have gotten much quieter since TGB said they were going to do this. Is everyone holding their breath like I am?

Is that a cop out? Maybe. Welcome back. Perhaps you can answer my question as to why that is a cop-out. No offense meant, sbell. It felt like a cop-out answer on my part. I mean, if we really want to know the answer to all this stuff we've been debating, the answer is right there at Wal-Mart, waiting to be asked. It just seems easier to say "I don't want to ask 'cuz I don't want to place a cache there" than it is to say "I don't want to ask because I'm afraid of the consequences." Does that make any sense?

First: I see no problem. I think that's been established pretty well. Doesn't mean you are correct. You know what they say happens when you assume.

Is that a cop out? Maybe. Not a cop-out, just irrelevant to your point. Sbell only said he isn't interested in hiding any CPC caches. Neither am I, for that matter. Whether he (or I) were to be interested in finding any such caches is what you're talking about. Nice try. Here's what I actually said: Is that a cop out? Maybe. You say I'm talking about your wanting to find CPCs. It seems that my words, highlighted in red, say that isn't what I'm saying at all. In fact, it seems like I'm saying exactly what you are.

...you can be found wandering lost in the woods even though you have a GPS.

Umm... No, that is untrue. From what I can read of the original question: ...the reasoning someone not in camp 2 would have for not going to Wal-Mart to ask permission is a lack of willingness to help. Personally, the reasons I'm not pursuing permission are twofold: 1. Like sbell111 said: Is that a cop out? Maybe. 2. If I were going to approach a BBS for permission from someone who had the authority to give it, I truly fear (as some in both camps have said) that the Home Office would suddenly ban all caches from their property. I don't want to be the guy who gets those caches banned. How would that happen? Well, first, my negotiating skills aren't the best. More importantly, this type of question will be better received by a company from someone higher up the ladder than a subscriber. I'd place odds on a BBS banning caches from their property even if Jeremy were to personally go and beg for permission. Regardless of any of this, trying to group people into "Camp 1" and "Camp 2" and telling us what those camps think, is ridiculous. You don't know what I'm thinking any further than what I've typed here in the forums. Read my posts. Both threads. Nowhere have I called for the banning of any kind of cache, unless you consider requiring permission to be a ban on caches without it. Why have I called for permission? Because I see it as a Potential Problem Cache. Try sticking to the topic rather than lumping the posters here into categories that are convenient for you.

That was my impression too. Or perhaps they've gotten enough complaints about "Server too busy" that they've given us a cute picture to look at instead. (Oh, it's back up, btw)

Ok, this has been bugging me. This statement was in response to something I said. I never said anything about the number of WM property caches being in the thousands, I said something about many caches being spread across the thousands of Wal-Marts. While we're all defining the third group, here's where I see my position: I'm not against any particular type of cache. I see that there is great diversity in the types of geocachers out there resulting in many types of caches. When I first read the thread on banning LPCs it got me thinking. If a company like Wal-Mart were to make blanket statement banning all LPCs from their property, that would be very disappointing for many people. Something needs to be done. Not to mention the black eye GC.com gets every time a cache is investigated by LEOs and it turns out they didn't have permission. The only reason I haven't contacted Wal-Mart is I see value in these CPCs & my negotiating skills (and complete lack of authority in relation to GC.com) would probably result in their banning! That's a title I can do without! So, that's my camp, call it camp 4 if you want.

There have been lots of good suggestions, but if anyone is interested in the "Krylon Fusion" in a flat finish, look for "Krylon Camouflage." It uses the "Fusion" formula. I think I got mine at the local Wal-Mart. The Lock'n'Lock I used it on hasn't been out long enough to really put it to a proper test yet, but it seems to be doing well.

I may be horribly mistaken, but I thought someone in the other thread mentioned one that had received permission. Truth be told, I had the flu during several pages of that thread, so it could have been a nyquil induced hallucination. Hope you are feeling better. Having not been sick it's hard to recall everything that was posted on the 20-some-odd pages of that thread. I believe what you are referring to is someone got permission at a Winn-Dixie from the store manager. I'm not familiar with the management structure in these stores, but if a Wal-Mart mgr were asked, they'd likely refer you "up the ladder" as they don't really have the authority.

Wouldn't the first two apply to most plastic containers also? I actually don't like gladware junk and other thin plastic containers, because when it gets cold out they have a tendency to become brittle and crack. Ammo cans generally come in one shape: Boxy. Even Lock'n'Locks come in a variety of shapes, like round. I agree on the gladware, it is junk**. It also doesn't take much to bend it & loose that waterproof (is it really even in ideal situations?) seal. Clear containers can help people identify the fact that the box is full of plastic toys, not plastique explosives. Not dissing the bomb squads here, if I got called in & had to gear up, drive to the scene, get all hyped up I'd want to blow something up even if it wasn't the proper thing to do (which it really is for safety's sake!) ** Speaking of "junk" containers, how about those film canisters? For all you who've been messaging me about the film canister gun, a much better use for those pesky objects, here's how it goes: First off, while this is a relatively safe contraption, like any gun, DO NOT POINT IT AT ANYONE! You need one clear film canister (the type that the cap nests inside the can) and a few (at least 4, you can experiment...) of the black type. With an awl, poke holes in the bottoms of all the film canisters but one of the black ones. Stack the cans with the hole-less can on bottom and the clear one on top (only the clear should have a lid). Press down on the stack, forcing each canister into the one below it. Again, this takes some experimentation to find how hard to press. You've now built up pressure! By pressing on the side of the top canister, the lid will be forced out and propelled by the air. It makes a loud popping noise and will fly across the room when you get the right balance of pressure. Adding a little water to the top black can makes for a water-jet propelled cap!

So did they just ask the guy to remove the sign, or did a team of lawyers from WalMart come down on the AutoTrader listing magazine that the car was in, bringing it to it's knees, and eliminating used car sales as we know it? They asked him to remove the sign. I suspect, however, that if AutoTrader decided that it was a good idea to endorse (which GC.com is basically doing with CPCs by ignoring what's going on) placing used cars in Wal-Mart parking lots the Home Office would have their lawyers all over it. Thank you for the AutoTrader analogy. It is a good one. Yes it is, and that's a huge stretch. I would suspect that many employees' cars with 'For Sale' signs in employers' parking lots are also listed in the Auto Trader. Even if every one of those Auto Trader ads listed the address to the respective parking lot to allow prospective buyers to view the car in person, I doubt the Home Office would send a team of lawyers after the Auto Trader magazine itself. At the MOST they would simply ask the car owner to delete the address from the listing in addition to having them remove the sign from the car, and even then it's probably a rare occurrence that they would ever bother to go that far. "For Sale" signs in cars in parking lots do not constitute a "serious threat" to the Auto Trader. Lamp Post Caches in parking lots do not constitute a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching. Read what I said: That's pretty reasonable, if you think about it. Auto Trader telling people to go park their cars in a BBS parking lot constitutes a "serious threat" to the Auto Trader. I agree with that statement, but if that's what you really meant to say then you weren't responding to Mushtang's analogy at all; you were merely being irrelevent and off-topic. Mushtang was pointing out that Home Office lawyers would not waste their time on the Auto Trader if an employee were to place a sign in his car window, a car that also happened to be listed in the magazine. Ok, I brought up the car for sale scenario to point out that Wal-Mart is very concerned about what happens in their parking lots. Mushtang pointed out that WM lawyers weren't going to go after anybody after an individual put a for sale sign on a car in their lot, which didn't really have anything to do with my point. I then drew the parallel between the hypothetical situation where Auto Trader tells people to go put cars in BBS parking lots and the current situation with GC.com & CPCs. I'd say that a scenario where a large organization endorses doing something on someone else's property is very relevant. We are talking about many caches spread around the thousands of Wal-Marts, not one car at one store. As to: Really? Which one has happened? and How many caches are there on Wal-Mart property? Hard to say. Lots. Find me one that has permission to be placed given by someone who has the authority to give that permission. (crickets) Hmm... and yet, they are approved. They sure aren't saying you can't! Maybe saying GC.com says people can place CPCWPs is incorrect, but I can say that they seem to be sanctioning it.

So did they just ask the guy to remove the sign, or did a team of lawyers from WalMart come down on the AutoTrader listing magazine that the car was in, bringing it to it's knees, and eliminating used car sales as we know it? They asked him to remove the sign. I suspect, however, that if AutoTrader decided that it was a good idea to endorse (which GC.com is basically doing with CPCs by ignoring what's going on) placing used cars in Wal-Mart parking lots the Home Office would have their lawyers all over it. Thank you for the AutoTrader analogy. It is a good one. Yes it is, and that's a huge stretch. I would suspect that many employees' cars with 'For Sale' signs in employers' parking lots are also listed in the Auto Trader. Even if every one of those Auto Trader ads listed the address to the respective parking lot to allow prospective buyers to view the car in person, I doubt the Home Office would send a team of lawyers after the Auto Trader magazine itself. At the MOST they would simply ask the car owner to delete the address from the listing in addition to having them remove the sign from the car, and even then it's probably a rare occurrence that they would ever bother to go that far. "For Sale" signs in cars in parking lots do not constitute a "serious threat" to the Auto Trader. Lamp Post Caches in parking lots do not constitute a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching. Read what I said: That's pretty reasonable, if you think about it. Auto Trader telling people to go park their cars in a BBS parking lot constitutes a "serious threat" to the Auto Trader. GC.com telling people that it is ok to place CPCs w/out permission constitutes a "serious threat" to the game of Geocaching. One has happened, the other hasn't.

I'm really confused. Please clarify what it means when someone doesn't say something specific about what is allowed. Does it mean it does not make it allowed, or does it mean it's endorsed? Just because GC.com is endorsing CPCs w/out permission (didn't someone have a clever acronym for that?) doesn't make it right. My two statements were in reference to the rights of a landowner, but from opposite ends. One stating that a landowner had the right to allow/disallow whatever it wants on the property, the other pointing to the fact that GC.com doesn't have that right.

While I agree that many cache owners could apply a bit more consideration for the finder, it is not the hider’s responsibility to protect the finder from the finder’s own poor judgment. Hence the disclaimer: "Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache." While I agree that cache seekers are ultimately responsible for their own actions, it is the hider’s responsibility to be sure the risk of a seeker and/or cache being perceived as a threat be kept at a minimum. Hence the guideline: "...think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public. For example, a cache hidden in full view of office or apartment building windows exposes a geocacher to being seen by someone who may think the cache search looks suspicious. ... Common sense in selecting hiding spots and containers can reduce the risk of your cache being perceived as a danger to those who are unaware of our sport."

So did they just ask the guy to remove the sign, or did a team of lawyers from WalMart come down on the AutoTrader listing magazine that the car was in, bringing it to it's knees, and eliminating used car sales as we know it? They asked him to remove the sign. I suspect, however, that if AutoTrader decided that it was a good idea to endorse (which GC.com is basically doing with CPCs by ignoring what's going on) placing used cars in Wal-Mart parking lots the Home Office would have their lawyers all over it. Thank you for the AutoTrader analogy. It is a good one.

I agree with the spirit of what you are saying here, but I'd like to add the qualifier "...in a park that already has 3 or 4 with permission..." The BBSs have pretty explicit policies about what can and can't be done in the parking lots. Your car parked w/ a For Sale sign is a perfect example. Another manager at a store I worked in noticed a car that was in the lot every day with such a sign. Apparently this is not allowed. It turns out an associate was selling their car, but was still driving it to work. They had to remove the sign! A parking lot at a BBS is private property, and thus they have a say in everything that happens there. Thus, permission is needed in order to place anything (no matter how benign) in it.

The only place I recall seeing "No Shoplifting" signs consistently in a BBS (Big Box Store) is in the bathrooms. Does that mean that because there are no signs in the rest of the store that it's ok? Just because something isn't specifically disallowed does not make it allowed.

Straight sides are easy to spot, thus hard to camouflage. If they get wet then freeze it can be tough to get them open. They aren't clear, so if a bomb squad wants to see what's inside they'll simply blow it up. You have to find more swag to put in it than a micro. I'd say it's one of the cheaper traditional sized cache containers. Despite the cons, I just picked up 3 today, $5 each at the local surplus store. A Lock'n'Lock half the size runs for almost that at Wally World & isn't nearly as durable. Of course, if you're talking about vs a film canister, you are correct. Personally, having worked in a photo lab & having access to many canisters, I've found it's more fun to use them to make an air gun.

Add the below fix and it becomes harder. Limit the number of queries not from a user but from an IP address and you'll cripple sock puppets (notice I said cripple, not kill), or limit the overall number of searches in an area (regardless of who asks) and you stop (or at least slow down) teams brute forcing a triangulation. It seems to me like energy better spent on actually solving a cache, anyways...

This statement makes me think that you probably think that this whole idea is unnecessary, yes? If so, cool, I like knowing the reviewers are happy to do this kind of stuff. I guess what I'm saying is: "Hey, Keystone, would you like to see such a tool if the kinks got worked out?"

I was picturing covering the whole thing in spray adhesive, then throwing it down a dune. Very free form... Whatever you do, a couple coats of a sealant would help make the camo more durable. Good Luck!