Search the Community

And that is the whole problem in a nutshell. Most people hear the word "gay" and start thinking about sex acts. Most don't stop to think about how much of their own lives is wrapped up in their own straight sexual orientation, how much they casually talk about their wives and husbands and families and such and don't give a second of hesitation in doing so. Gay people have to stop and ask themselves constantly...is it safe to talk about my partner? Is it safe to say their name? Will I be judged and shunned simply because of WHO I AM?? It isn't any wonder that they tend to feel more at ease with people who can truly understand what that experience is like. Hence the desire to find other gay people to cache with. I agree with mresoteric concerning those coming over to the darkside to discuss the matter in the OT style. If you have to suggest people google your response, you are definitely out of line. Details about your group should not be discussed here whether someone agrees with it or not. I don't talk about my local Iowa club and neither should you. Didn't say it has to be hidden, but this isn't the place. Ask me about the club and I'll give you a link.

I think it has a lot to do with intolerance, mis/disinformation and good, ol' fashioned history. Whoa there, NeverSummer. OregonCacher didn't say anything about a specific sexual orientation; he said that ANY sexual orientation is irrelevant to geocaching. Perhaps not in that post, but if you look at the others, it becomes pretty clear what the issue is. And I agree that it is irrelevant. Which is why I said what I said below the snipped quote. I just hope that the same limit on tolerance would be issued to anyone who decides to talk explicitly about who they love. Otherwise, it's just another person who has a different story, and shouldn't be disregarded as a needless interest group. (See religious groups, other clubs or affiliations, etc who form "groups" to go geocaching) Thank you "GeoGeeBee" I was about to say the same thing myself: "Whoa there, NeverSummer. OregonCacher didn't say anything about a specific sexual orientation; he said that ANY sexual orientation is irrelevant to geocaching." - GeoGeeBee Let me be very clear on what I meant; when I'm geocaching, I don't want to know what goes on in the bedroom of the cacher's I'm with; gay, straight, or anything in between. Several people made comments asserting the following: "There is no difference between a occupational or religious group, and a group based upon sexual orientation". To the above statement, I completely disagree, however many people feel differently about different things in this world, so I think the only thing I can say is agree to disagree. An occupation is what you do, not who you are. What if I made a blonde-hair only group, or an African American group? I could drag this analogy on forever, but my point with it is, is that in my opinion, there is a very significant difference between banding together for a common purpose based upon a group-commonality of "what people do, or what (not who) they like" and what their sexual-preference is. If I went geocaching with someone who turned out to be Gay, I would not have any issue with it, as long as it wasn't a part of our discussion as we were geocaching; just as I would not speak about my sexual preference/experiences with fellow-cachers unless they were close, personal friends, and I also knew it would be perceived well and appropriately by anyone and every person. It sounds really good to say that that your sexuality is not who you are, but I don't think a therapist would back that up. Being a straight married man is a huge aspect of my personality. To try to separate the concept of my sexuality from my concept of self is almost impossible. I can't imagine who I would be if I wasn't the sort of person who wanted to be with my wife. Sexuality is a HUGE part of being alive. It's part of nature. It's part of our personality on a DEEP level. Far deeper than a job or a hair color. Meanwhile, my job (most people's jobs?) are just something that they do to pay the bills right? I mean, someone has to PAY ME to do that stuff. Otherwise I'd just be out geocaching... and I LOVE my job I find it interesting people keep bringing up "what goes on in the bedroom" Whenever people talk about homosexuality they seem to go straight to sex and bedroom talk. Perhaps it's easier to characterize it only as sex and not as love? If I said, " I don't want to know the cacher's I'm with are in love with or know about their significant others" we'd probably all agree it is a completely weird ting to say. So instead we say what? "don't wanna know who you're humping"? Seems like a weird thing to ask of someone. No one offered to let us know what happens in their bedroom. It has nothing to do with gay caching. Please refer to the most recent reply on this page (up a bit).

I think it has a lot to do with intolerance, mis/disinformation and good, ol' fashioned history. Whoa there, NeverSummer. OregonCacher didn't say anything about a specific sexual orientation; he said that ANY sexual orientation is irrelevant to geocaching. Perhaps not in that post, but if you look at the others, it becomes pretty clear what the issue is. And I agree that it is irrelevant. Which is why I said what I said below the snipped quote. I just hope that the same limit on tolerance would be issued to anyone who decides to talk explicitly about who they love. Otherwise, it's just another person who has a different story, and shouldn't be disregarded as a needless interest group. (See religious groups, other clubs or affiliations, etc who form "groups" to go geocaching) Thank you "GeoGeeBee" I was about to say the same thing myself: "Whoa there, NeverSummer. OregonCacher didn't say anything about a specific sexual orientation; he said that ANY sexual orientation is irrelevant to geocaching." - GeoGeeBee Let me be very clear on what I meant; when I'm geocaching, I don't want to know what goes on in the bedroom of the cacher's I'm with; gay, straight, or anything in between. Several people made comments asserting the following: "There is no difference between a occupational or religious group, and a group based upon sexual orientation". To the above statement, I completely disagree, however many people feel differently about different things in this world, so I think the only thing I can say is agree to disagree. An occupation is what you do, not who you are. What if I made a blonde-hair only group, or an African American group? I could drag this analogy on forever, but my point with it is, is that in my opinion, there is a very significant difference between banding together for a common purpose based upon a group-commonality of "what people do, or what (not who) they like" and what their sexual-preference is. If I went geocaching with someone who turned out to be Gay, I would not have any issue with it, as long as it wasn't a part of our discussion as we were geocaching; just as I would not speak about my sexual preference/experiences with fellow-cachers unless they were close, personal friends, and I also knew it would be perceived well and appropriately by anyone and every person. It sounds really good to say that that your sexuality is not who you are, but I don't think a therapist would back that up. Being a straight married man is a huge aspect of my personality. To try to separate the concept of my sexuality from my concept of self is almost impossible. I can't imagine who I would be if I wasn't the sort of person who wanted to be with my wife. Sexuality is a HUGE part of being alive. It's part of nature. It's part of our personality on a DEEP level. Far deeper than a job or a hair color. Meanwhile, my job (most people's jobs?) are just something that they do to pay the bills right? I mean, someone has to PAY ME to do that stuff. Otherwise I'd just be out geocaching... and I LOVE my job I find it interesting people keep bringing up "what goes on in the bedroom" Whenever people talk about homosexuality they seem to go straight to sex and bedroom talk. Perhaps it's easier to characterize it only as sex and not as love? If I said, " I don't want to know the cacher's I'm with are in love with or know about their significant others" we'd probably all agree it is a completely weird ting to say. So instead we say what? "don't wanna know who you're humping"? Seems like a weird thing to ask of someone. No one offered to let us know what happens in their bedroom. It has nothing to do with gay caching.

Just because it is doesn't directly relate to geocaching doesn't make it an agendum. I've found and hidden caches near historic places that talk about the history of said place, of which geocaching had no mention. Caches are near natural springs that invite finders to try the water, also not geocaching-related. Such a request might be interpreted as more of an agenda as OP's example. Of course, as we all know, previous caches in no way set precedence for future cache publications. If OP feels strongly enough about the situation, I would definitely appeal this decision.

Hey, I can talk to this! This happened to me. My decision was to change the stage while keeping the rest of the multi the same. If you mean the "virtual/physical" attribute for the stage, I actually did not change the attribute, either. I'm not going to explain why, but I will mention that you should feel free to change the attribute if you can. Furthermore, I'll tell you that this approach did cause some confusion when a previous finder checked the stage on a whim and discovered the original sign based pointer was missing. She filed an NM pointing out it was broken. No big deal: I just filed an OM explaining that it had changed, and also sent that previous finder a note thanking her for the notice and explaining what had happened. It broke my heart when the original pointer disappeared, so I could only be thankful that someone else remembered how it used to be fondly enough to think I should know that it was broken.

Parents know their kid ain't cute they just don't talk about it.

I don't believe I said anything of the sort, although you are coming off a bit condescending in saying that. I'm not sure what to tell you. I quoted you saying that people are "hyperventilating" and that they should get over "the bad man saying mean things" This is both condescending and pretending that the people you are addressing are more upset than they seem to be. Unless you talk to other grown, reasonable adults with language typically reserved for children (bad man said a mean thing) I think my interpretation is fair. How is it condescending to read and interpret words the way they read on the page? I wouldn't tell anyone who I had an ounce of respect, "So what the bad man said something mean?" I'd never talk to my dad that way. Not my boss. Not a police officer. Not a co-worker. Not a bagger at a grocery store. Its loaded language, typically reserved for spoiled children. Especially if they don't give any evidence of being terribly upset. As opposed to what? The other 5 or 6 gripes this forum sees once a week? I'm not sure why you think a certain threshold of offense must have been reached for the OP to make a thread. It taks vey little effort. I suspect its just another excuse to talk about geocaching. I'm not sure I'd call the OP strange for asking a question with such varied and nuanced responses... Again, I feel like people are overstating how upset any of us are who dislike the practice, and THAT IS a little upsetting I'm in the same boat. I get a little confused when people get frustrated by micro caches and caches with bad swag, but I suppose some people cache with children... I never take anything. I do always leave a little kaleidoscope though. For me it's maybe 95% about locations. We agree on something!

Fully agree. Not few cache owners are the opposite here - quite easy to offend by an honest log. But I do not think it is too different in other places in the world... Aren't we all weak egomaniacs!? By the way: we usually talk about too LOW ratings. Did anyone of you ever complain about a rating that was too high? Finding the terrain 3 cache high in the tree or the terrain 4 cache which needs a ladder makes me usually complain about the rating. But what about the terrain 5 cache that can easily be climbed to so that terrain 4 would suit better? Or the difficulty 4 mystery cache that anyone solves in 3 minutes. Do you complain that the rating is too high? Perhaps I do not do this as often as other way round but I think it is important to do so, too. If you do in both directions it shows that you want the rating to suit the cache. If you only complain about low ratings it might show that you want to have a big statistics. Both may be true (for all of us)... Recently I solved a D3 mystery in one minute. Now the cache is rated 2.5 after my log - any maybe D2 may be even better as the riddle was really easy. The owner listened to me and no one else complained about the decreased rating as it was just too high... May be something different if the D5 cache would become a D3?! ;-)

What service does the iphone app use for geo cacheing... By that, I mean does the iphone get its GPS info from the 3G / 4G Data phone talk side? OR the WEB / data side? My cell plan has talk, text, and data... Which one should I expect should go up in usage as I go about this new hobby? I am not complaining, just want to see which service I may need to increase, for the hobby? Or does it simply get the info, then switch over to GPS for the guidance to the cache??? Never gave this much thought before!!! LOL!

I think we are still on topic, and I don't mean to offend Touchstone - if there really is an issue of COs (note plural) unreasonably deleting peoples logs, and continuing to do so, then let's talk about that as a reason for a change of some kind to deal with it... But I'm not seeing it...

To add to the above... Since I'm quite a fan of Earthcaches, and somewhat of a promoter and advocate for earthcaching, I often talk to people about earthcaching. Of those who aren't into earthcaching, here are the top 3 reasons why they don't do it: Number 1 - Too much work to do, too complex, hard to complete requirements, don't know what I'm looking at, don't have something to write down answers on, etc. (Some of this is being unprepared, some of it relates to overly complex ECs they have looked at, or even poorly written up ECs that don't give enough background info) Number 2 - It's virtually impossible to get an EC published, even when you jump through all the hoops, more hoops get created and there's so much inconsistency in the reviewing. (Well, no offence to the reviewers in this thread who have been very helpful in this discussion, but I tend to agree with this one - from my experience I have wasted many many many hours, probably 100s trying to get ECs published and then given up because of sometimes outrageously stretched and pedantic interpretations of guidelines, sometimes entirely made up ones) Number 3 - Oh, there isn't a number 3... Nope, I have never ever heard the reason, in the hundreds of people I have talked to about earthcaching, that they don't do ECs because of COs deleting their logs too quickly and upsetting them. Not once.

I'm not infuriated, but it does seem stupid. If ever there was a good example for posting an NM, this is it, yet they don't even mention that. Instead, we're supposed to quietly talk to the CO in order to to keep it a secret so no know else that might want to look for the cache knows it's a piece of junk. Sheesh. I'm not surprised by the "replace with fresh paper" suggestion even though it's unbelievably silly: ignoring the signatures, the log they show might have been added yesterday from the looks of it. By the time I get through all that, I'm only mildly amused by the idea that they are, it's true, telling seekers that they are supposed to perform maintenance if they can. Astonishingly counterproductive.

14 in 24h?!? That is so Amazing Race. Every so often I talk up the idea of doing the 8 countries from Panama City to Cancun, and - because things aren't that efficient down there - I keep wondering if 3 weeks might be rushing it. Interestingly, it looks like last-minute one-way flights home from Cancun cost next to nothing. I'd never have guessed. So it leaves the door open to an open-ended trip. Find a paradise beach along the way? Stay a while.

I know you're (probably) not serious, but #2 and #3 sound like good ways to (1) get your cache archived when the foreign reviewer finds out, (2) lose all trust with your local reviewer(s) when the the foreign reviewer lets your local reviewer(s) know you are not to be trusted (reviewers talk all the time, you know), and (3) potentially have Groundspeak suspend your account or take other sanctions. I would recommend instead: 1. Plan a non-physical cache, such as an earthcache or (if you have one) virtual reward, and plan it so that maintenance will not be necessary. 2. Plan a meaningful event that will give local geocachers and other travelers a chance to meet and greet. 3. Find a local maintainer who will actually maintain your cache BEFORE hiding the container and submitting the cache for review. 4. Failing #1, #2, and #3, don't hide a cache.

Well, of course you do. Let's look at this user friendly block of BOLD ALL CAPS RED TEXT that appears on your earthcaches. So friendly! Reminds me of the signs I see on the way to work, except those have less bold, red, and upper case text, despite the fact that they talk about the use of deadly force, not log deletion. In light of the moderator note below, let me clarify my intent. I don't mean this as a personal affront, but as an illustration on how subjective reasonableness is at play here. You have similar approaches to warning of deletion, so you view this as reasonable. I do not, so from my perspective, it is not as reasonable. But unless either of us work for appeals, then ultimately these are just our personal opinions and approaches.

While it is true that "protocols are handled by software", there is often a base layer that is embedded in the hardware and cannot be modified. For example, there are distinctly different bit timing schemes used for IrDA, HPSIR and ASKIR, and processors that integrate one or more of those functions, and standalone IR chips will control that timing directly. Only if you started from scratch with your own IrDA diode assembly and wrote the whole modulation thing from scratch would you be able to talk to one of these devices without having another of its kind to use. A different example would be Bluetooth. The basic frequency hopping scheme (and a host of other stuff) isn't typically determined by external firmware. These sorts of functions are determined by the chip/module. Sometimes, that function can be halted or forced to one setting by an external signal for RF testing, but the frequency hopping algorithm, for an example, is not controlled by external firmware. You buy the BT chip, and you get that RF functionality. Only rarely are such sorts of chips capable of having their base functionality reflashed in the field. In the case of Bluetooth chips, it's to keep everyone honest when it comes to the FCC and EC rules for these parts. Often, the BT chips will even contain one or more of the Bluetooth profiles (what they use to refer to various higher level 'stacks'), and you may send commands to choose from one or another, but you do not get access to the raw un-decoded signal to create your own low level profile. Sometimes, the profiles are external, and you could write your own profile or emulate others for which standards already exist (for example, one of the several audio profiles or the Bluetooth Printer Profile) -- but you don't get to mess with the baseband operation (except perhaps for power) or the basic underlying Bluetooth protocol stack. The idea is that these chips come with the lowest level stacks already in place, and if they're not compatible between devices, they're not going to talk nice to each other. Just because a device might have an onboard transceiver that operates at the same frequency as some other device doesn't mean that it is possible to write firmware for either device that would allow them to talk to one another. As for Garmin upgrading SiRF chipsets - do you mean, as an example, between SiRF and Mediatek? They're not drop in replacements for one another. The Garmin side firmware must change. Or do you mean the fact that sometimes a Garmin release will include new firmware for the GPS chip in addition to the firmware for the Garmin product itself?

I think it's more of a simplification for purposes of discussion than a presumption. Certainly replacing a damaged container with an identical container on a historically well maintained cache is less of an issue, but it's just a difference in degree. Like most things in geocaching, nothing's black and white even though we love to talk as if they were. Replacing a damaged container is more likely useful, but it can also be a problem if the cache is habitually damaged and the CO never does maintenance. In that case, although replacing the container seems like a nice thing to do, it results in keeping a cache going that really should be scrapped. I do think it's a good example for the people that claim all non-CO maintenance is done by number grubbers. You can sign the log in a damaged container and already claim the find, so the complaint that seeker maintenance is only done for selfish reasons can't be applied when a failing container is replaced with a good one.

Friendlyness? Sometimes a cacher simply forgets to sent the answers. Or we had the situation that one of the team (let's say me) said he sent the answers and forget to do so and others logged reffering to the answers sent in by frostengel - oups! So why always state the guidelines and make anything a threat? "I will delete your log..." Try to be kind a find a good formulation - than you are on the safe side and others will be happy, too. I have an unknown cache where regularly cachers log though they only have found the empty nano cache which is a red herring at stage one. The puzzle comes afterwards and in the end a tree awaits. So they find a kind of 1.5/1.5 traditional which should be 4.5/4.5 unknown cache - and the rating is correct. I have never deleted the log at once, I always send a message and give them some time to respond. And if nothing happens I still can delete the log - up to now I never had to quote any rules of the guidelines. Some of the cachers respond and apologize (and are interested in the cache and we have a nice talk), others don't react, not before and not after the deletion. Too complicated? Not for me, it does not take soooo much time....

1) just wait for a week (or so) 2) then remind the cacher via PN or message center that he has to provide the answers; say that it is okay if they'll need time but then they can write one sentence to you about it ("I am on vacation, will do this in three weeks.") so you know what is up; add and excuse in advance that you have to delete the log if you here nothing for the next three days 3) if nothing comes: delete the log I don't think anyone can blame you for doing so and as you already have excused you don't have to take any further action. Sounds laborious but you just use the same E-Mail anytime. If nothing happens after 3) it is okay (for you!) If the cachers answer your message afterwards it is okay - you can talk to each other. If they simply repeat the cache log without telling you anything restart with point 2) once (perhaps using slightly different mail) and if necessary delete it again. Contact Groundspeak if they don't stop found logging without sending any answers. You have sent them three or more messages (perhaps you can use different systems) so I think you are on the right side and no one can blame you haven't tried anything to make the log a regular one. After all what happened the guidelines force you to log the find. I don't think somethink like that will happen very often!? Then it should be no problem. :-)

You seem to think Bundyrumandcoke is complaining, but I see this as just a conversation about some behavior by a reviewer that seems inconsistent or confusing. I'm not sure what your reviewer is doing, but people rarely post DNFs or NMs on powertrails, so there's no reason to expect a reviewer to have any reason to step in. From what I can tell, the reviewer that's changing things in your area is reacting to things in the log, so that's a different kettle of fish. There has been a general tightening up of standards including quicker unilateral action by reviewers, and this might be even more disconcerting when a reviewer with tighter standards steps in and starts acting in an area that has a tradition of looser standards. The best way to find out what's going on and provide feedback is to talk to the reviewer. Maybe he needs some lessons in local standards, or maybe he can give you an update on the newer GS policies. One of the trends I'm seeing is towards more universal standards and ignoring local preferences, and, from what you're saying, that would hit your area particularly hard. Talking it over is the best way to approach issues like that. I'm no expert or anything, but I think in years past, reviewers were more personally involved with the caches, so in many case they weren't just passively ignoring certain problem caches, they were actively protecting them. I think that's fine. What's important is whether people are enjoying a cache, and I consider the rules just something to help us do that. Recently, I think reviewers are becoming more detached from the community for various reasons, although I think shear volume of caches is the main one. I understand that, too. That makes them more likely to react to a cache that's having a little trouble than they might have back when there were fewer caches, many of which were planted by the reviewers' friends. One mantra the guidelines have always stressed is that there's no such thing as precedent in geocaching. Just because you've seen something somewhere else doesn't mean it will be allowed for you.

The rule is there for the benefit of the cache owner. It allows them to delete finds, they believe to be bogus, in which the log was not signed. Other than that it's completely up to the cache owner to decide what's an acceptable find. Talk about geo-litter. I'm probably responsible for a box or two of pens I've lost in the woods over the years.

Yes, ALL those things! Arrgghhh! If you don't know why I said that, look up "International Talk Like a Pirate Day", matey!

Another 'not while caching' experience.... I was out hiking in the redwoods of northern California when I ran into Big Foot, or Sasquatch, as he likes to be called. (Turns out he has a complex about his huge feet. But that's another story.) He was just sitting along the riverbank sipping his morning dew while leaning back on a rock with his enormous legs propped up on a log. You can imagine my shock! And as startled as I was, I continued to approach him and called out, "Good morning!" Of course, this startled him in turn and he just about jumped out of his skin! Regaining his composure, he looked over, knodded his head and said, "Wassup?" We spent the morning chatting about global warming and the negative effects of carbon emissions on the Northwest ecosystems. Ugh! Who knew Big Foot was such a talker?! Anyway, we split company and went our separate ways. We exchanged numbers but I never return his calls (he can talk for hours....talk...talk...talk).

Please take in account the following: 1. A box, left at or near the place of an existing cache, can have at least following meanings: •• intended replacement of the cache (the real "Throwdown"), that's what we talk about here! •• a thing the assumed thrower-down doesn't want to belong to anyone else, this could be a new geocache maybe for another listing service. That qualifies not for "Throwdown" and that's NOT what we talk about here. Please don't mix that. The difference can be hard to tell and may require further investigation (a hint would be to ask the land-owner about additional permissions given). Bad if the new box is in close proximity to an existing cache (we have that in my near homezone: two small L'n'L boxes, just meters away, listed on different platforms - that constant misleads cachers, you can tell by the logs). 2. The question in the topic was about law (ownership), to find a legal reason to hold the thrower-down responsible, if I understood correctly. So the discussion doesn't cover other aspects much (and - technically - shouldn't to stay on-topic). But: There may be (or are) other regulations and contracts between the listing platform and the original cache owner or between him and the land owner. Plus there sure are such things as moral obligations or simple curtesy. And common sense. Such things exist... somewhere... I think... I hope... Please dont mix law and moral obligation/curtesy up, either. Friendliness is optional in law. 3. Other laws may exist for special cases, that could be: dangerous goods, weapons, drugs, animals etc. Please don't make the matter more complicated by comparing a simple film canister throw-down with a bag of kittens left at your front porch. Thank you very much! BTW: Don't do throwdowns.

Even if the person leaving the throwdown intends it as a gift, it's not a gift if the cache owner doesn't accept the gift (and the responsibilities of such a gift). And while some who leave throwdowns certainly intend for them to be gifts, it's not at all clear that everyone has such intents. One could leave an ammo can as a throwdown with the intention of reclaiming it at some future date. They might even list that ammo can on an alternative geocaching site. You ungrateful bastard! If your grandma sends you a sweater you didn't want do you simply ignore it? Maybe you re-gift it. Maybe you put in the donation box. Maybe you even throw it away. But you don't say "Grandma, I don't want this sweater, take it back". ... You don't need to be grateful for the "gift", but you sure as heck own it. If anyone has any unwanted kittens or puppies, then feel free to leave them on Toz's front porch. Fact 1: Any "gift" belongs to the person who is giving the "gift" until acceptance of the gift by a second person. Fact 2: The acceptance of the "gift" must be declared in any way. Like saying "thank you" or any other form. Fact 3: If you refuse the "gift" the person who tried to give you the "gift" is fully responsible for it. No need to talk about cats and dogs, talk about garbage... Garbage belongs to the owner until it is placed in the garbage can outside your home/property (street, curb,...). From that moment on, the garbage belongs to either the municipality or the company that manages garbage because you are saying: "I don´t want this anymore" and the answer is automatic: "Ok, we want it and will take care of it". The company can forbid and sue a person from picking garbage from their garbage can. If you look closely almost all garbage cans say: "Property of...." there is a reason for that! So, if I place my garbage in your house is it yours immediately? Or you have to accept it? Good analogy. A homeowner is responsible for the removal of garbage from his property regardless of how it arrived. Similarly, a cache owner is responsible for any and all garbage that his cache attracted. Wrong!!!! If someone else places the garbage there it is not your responsibility... Imagine that you have cameras recording that clearly show that person throwing the garbage you can sue that person! Let´s install webcams in all the caches!!!!