Help, We Are Being Killed By 9-11 Fraidy Cats

[+NoLemon]

my question is why should i get a new area when this one is fine????

Apparently you are the only person that believes the location in question is fine. More than one reviewer has said it isn't.

 

Personally, I wouldn't hunt a cache hidden there. Although I probably wouldn't be breaking the law if indeed this is unrestricted public property, but I don't care to be questioned by local law enforcement who justifiably are nervous about suspicious activities around airports.

[+Mopar]

my question is why should i get a new area when this one is fine????

Because you don't want to submit your fellow cachers to something like what happened to the guy at LAX?

 

Did you read that thread I linked to before?

 

That cache was a lot further from the runway then yours.

The guy was arrested, jailed, questioned by local police, held until he could be questioned by the FBI, and threatened with being billed for the cost for calling out the bomb squad. Poor guy just wanted to move a few TBs.

 

Right or wrong, this is the way things are now. 9-11 really happened, and things will never go back to the way it was before that.

[ifishaz]

I have been questioned about what I was doing when geocaching in areas on no high alert, so to get questioned is not a concern if you are not breaking the law.

[ifishaz]

Yes mopar I read it, it also was a really hightened alert time due to other conditions besides the airport.

[ifishaz]

Okay also out to the approvers watching, the supposed park is on airport property, what is your response to it being placed there????

[+wimseyguy]

the parking lot is used by locals to watch planes land and take off every day of the week any local would know that a cache in its placement would not cause any problem. also once again 9-11 has cost you your freedom, personally if you thow a golf ball at a plane I am on I will feel safe.

I lost family in the 9-11 attacks. I'm willing to give up a little bit of my freedom to keep the rest of them safe. I'm a self avowed number 'ho but I really do not need another smiley so bad that I'm willing to play your version of airport security hide and seek. From the sound of it there are already several others that have been archived, and I strongly suggest that the review team look into archiving the rest of these as well.

[+Stunod]

Okay also out to the approvers watching, the supposed park is on airport property, what is your response to it being placed there????

No, the maps show the park north of the airport property...look again.

Edited August 25, 2005 by Stunod

[Keystone]

Okay also out to the approvers watching, the supposed park is on airport property, what is your response to it being placed there????

Uhhh, I'm not seeing that at all. The maps show the airport boundary pretty clearly.

[+Mopar]

I'm a self avowed number 'ho but I really do not need another smiley so bad that I'm willing to play your version of airport security hide and seek. From the sound of it there are already several others that have been archived, and I strongly suggest that the review team look into archiving the rest of these as well.

Interesting! I've done most of the caches around his other pushing tin cache (At LAX), but like the cache from the thread I linked, I have skipped that one because of the location.

[+AZBuckeye04]

Pretend I am a US citizen, not breaking the law, not causing trouble, trying to go about a legal activity?..... o-wait thats not pretend, its real.....

Okay dude, I'm sorry but I've gotta say something because this whole thing is getting really ridiculous. We're cachers in this area and the only reason this cache hasn't been put on my ignore list (because there is NO way I would attempt it) is because I would like to visit the area to watch planes take off so it's working as a reminder for me to check out the area some day.

 

Now about your comment quoted above... C'mon man! Unless you have ESP (not to be confused with ESPN) with any security officer or watching citizen, they have NO WAY of knowing what your intentions are and regardless of pre or post 9/11 these types of things should still be watched carefully. As someone said earlier in this thread, you should always yield to safety, especially when it involves numerous government offices.

 

I can understand your frustration for not being able to bring people to a cool location, but here's an idea for you. www.Waymarking.com Why don't you be one of the first to recommend a category for "Airport Lookouts" or something (if it hasn't already been suggested). That way you can still share with the caching community a cool spot without putting them in harm of becoming part of the TSA's no-fly list.

 

You can continue to argue this all you want, but the local approver said NO, the geocaching approvers said NO, and your fellow cachers are saying NO.

 

Artemis is a great reviewer and her/his track record should not be harmed by this. I guarantee Artemis has taken every step in assuring your cache a fair trial.

 

Good Luck,

AZBliss02

 

P.S. My apologies for any late breaking news on this topic that may nullify my comments. Seems like this thread is more of a chat room right now!

[CoyoteRed]

Some caches just shouldn't be.

[+Cow Spots]

It sounds to me like your major complaint is with the current security climate which we live in.

 

This is not Groundspeak's doing. This is not Groundspeak's problem.

 

Groundspeak has taken the approach that it is in their best interest, as a company, to not be involved in bringing cachers looking for hidden containers to areas of heightened risk. It can be an airport, a school, a set of railroad tracks, or the middle of the freeway. Doesn't matter.

 

If you don't like the current security climate that we live in, complain elsewhere.

 

If you still want to have this cache, go right ahead. But it apparently won't be on www.geocaching.com. There are a handful of alternate listing sites. You can even start your own website --- might I recommend www.hassled-by-security.com?

[+ADKcachers]

You can continue to argue this all you want, but the local approver said NO, the geocaching approvers said NO, and your fellow cachers are saying NO.

I agree. It's time to let it go.

[+mtn-man]

So let's see here. First, you yourself archived one of your caches because it was 530 feet from therunway, and the police asked you to remove it, as you wrote in this log which I'll quote here:

Well, it was inevitable to happen in this new era we have found our country in after 9-11. I was contacted by the Phoenix Police at the airport and told that they had the cache in custody ( lol ) and they request it not to be replaced. I will be retrieving the cache from them today and all items will be moved to a new cache. I hope to find a place that will give visitors a view of planes coming in and out of Skyharbor. I hope those of you who got to visit Pushing Tin enjoyed it while it was there. I love watching planes from there, but I guess the days of free movement around airports are over.

So then you move the cache around the corner to a spot that is only 230 feet from the runway, and then you complain when it isn't listed?

The solution here is very simple.

 

Go back to the police department. You have talked to them, so you know who to talk to. Tell them you need written permission from the police department to relocate the cache in this new location so the reviewer will know you have permission from the local controlling authority that has already told you not to place a cache within proximity of the airport. Have them give this permission directly to the reviewer with a phone number so the reviewer can call to confirm. Permission would require an aerial photo showing the exact location that is signed by the police so they will know exactly where the cache is. A very good map has been posted on this page (and I am talking about the reviewer's aerial photo, not the crayon map).

 

Once you have this written permission, post the information directly on the cache page and put a copy of the written permission from the police inside the cache with specific instructions that it is not to be removed.

 

Problem solved. Everybody is happy.

 

I doubt you can make this happen though.

[ifishaz]

Hey AZBliss02, first you speak wrongly as if you had watched this cache you would now it wasn't at the co-ords we are talking about now. So if you did put the original co-ords it on your no visit list why?

[ifishaz]

mtn-man, GREAT IDEA. I did that for Pushing tin goodyear as the approvers did not know the area there. Question on open boards to approvers, if I get the "OFFICIAL GOVT." approval will it be approved?????

[+StarBrand]

.....I doubt you can make this happen though.

 

Thanks for giving him a direction in which to head.

[+AZBuckeye04]

Hey AZBliss02, first you speak wrongly as if you had watched this cache you would now it wasn't at the co-ords we are talking about now. So if you did put the original co-ords it on your no visit list why?

Forgive me because I don't fully understand what you were trying to say. I believe you were talking about its previous location versus the new location. Neither of these locations interested us. I already feel like I'm being watched just while caching in a park, so I wasn't about to go somewhere that close to an international airport and search for a container. Keep in mind, it truly is the "container" aspect of this for me. As I said, I would like to visit the area because from reading the cache page and logs (and now with it being verified here) it seems like a cool spot to watch planes take-off. If you could still do Virtuals I think this would be a cool one. Since you can't do virtuals that is why I am recommending the Waymarking.com site. As I just realized though you are not a premium member so the new site may not be available to you yet. (I'm not sure of the release date for the site to the general public.)

[robertlipe]

Can we pre-markwell the next "can I be an approver? it sounds like a lot of fun" thread to point to this one?

[Keystone]

AZBliss02, you make an excellent suggestion. There is already a Waymarking category for airports (generally) -- this is a conversion of an existing locationless cache. Additionally, it's been proposed that there be a separate category just for places where one can watch planes taking off and landing. Link to Waymarking Forum (sorry, for Premium Members only at the moment)

 

EDIT -- To provide an excerpt from that proposal:

 

I (and many others I'm sure) enjoy watching takeoffs and landings at airports, both small and large. At one point, I wanted to place a cache at such a place, but can't do it because of the prohibition against placing caches near airports (rightfully so).

 

The area could be an "official" observation area, or it could be a nearby park, restaurant, etc that has a good view.

Edited August 25, 2005 by Keystone

[Cape Cod Cacher]

I swore off posting to General Topica long ago, but I have to agree this isn't really the best place to drop a cache. Near work, big planes, cool. Near major airport, not too cool. Why don't you put one where you go fishing, hiking, camping, or baseballing instead?

[+Harry Dolphin]

The point seem to me to be that we play this game called geocaching. We want to continue playing this game. Whether we approve or disapprove of current national security agenda, the best way to continue playing this game is to avoid confrontation with security forces. TPTB have arrived at guidelines that they think are appropriate, and we have all agreed to live within those guidelines.

The cache site might be the greatest cache site in the world! However, it does not meet the guidelines. Those guidelines being whatever TPTB think are in the best interest of Geocaching, and geocachers. I thank them for continuing to make Geocaching available to me.

Seems simple to me. A short discussion with the approver. Yes or no answer. Oh, well. I can find another place to hide a cache! Thanks for your interest, and the interest in keeping Geocaching available.

I have been questioned by the police, for looking for a benchmark on a bridge between Atlantic City, and a small island called Brigantine. I thought the policeman's interest inane, expecially since he was a beach patrolman from Brigantine. Gee willikers, surveyors set up surveying tripods over these things all the time! Oh, well. (Wanna see my benchmarking pictures under the George Washington Bridge?!?)

In the matter of self-interest, avoiding confrontation for yourself and for geocachers, accepting the reviewer's opinion seems the best approach.

[+Planet]

Well nice pic, wanna post the one I sent to reviewers to so all can have both sides?

Sure, it's the same spot but with pretty crayon coloring. I happen to like the one with the cute little airplanes in the photo, but here's yours, just to be fair:

 

is that a PARK I see in the upper left corner?

BINGO!

[+dpo]

Wow- what a hotbed of opinions this has raised, eh? From what I can tell, what we have here is that the approvers and moderators only want to deal with this from in front of their computers...and they cant even decide what map they want to use to do it. You cant even see the fence on your airview shots, but it is south of the road, while the cache is north of the road.

 

Maybe this is one of those occasions where they need to send their "local" reviewer to actually go look at the location in question. I am local to the phoenix area and have actually been to the spot in question...This is a very popular airplane watching site, where Ive seen many people young and old enjoy these planes. I see no problem with this location for a cache.

 

Some of you suggested to put it at the Greyhound park...guess what? Its not a park, but a parking lot, and private proprty at that, so thats out.

 

Ive heard of problems like this before...and more often than not, its a problem of moderators et al having the opinion of Im right and youre wrong and thats that. This "local" approver isnt even in the area, right? I personally challenge him to go to the site and make note of exactly where the signs are marking actual airport property is and do it with a open mind.

[Keystone]

I would love to visit each and every one of the cache locations submitted for my review each week. Lately I've been averaging 250 to 400 caches reviewed per month. That'd do wonders for my find count!

 

I would, however, have to revise my standard form letters:

 

"Hello, and thank you for your new cache submission. Since I have questions about your cache, I'll need to drive there and see the [dam / airport / railroad track / courthouse / military base / elementary school] in person. As I have 15 other site visits in front of yours, please expect a delay of approximately three weeks before I'm able to get to yours. I do appreciate your patience."

 

In other words, volunteer cache reviewers rely on the helpfulness of the information submitted by cache owners to assist us, as well as publicly available online resources, such as maps and property ownership databases. That is the only way to review 20 caches per day and still work at a paying job.

[+Artemis]

Wow- what a hotbed of opinions this has raised, eh? From what I can tell, what we have here is that the approvers and moderators only want to deal with this from in front of their computers...and they cant even decide what map they want to use to do it. You cant even see the fence on your airview shots, but it is south of the road, while the cache is north of the road.

 

Maybe this is one of those occasions where they need to send their "local" reviewer to actually go look at the location in question. I am local to the phoenix area and have actually been to the spot in question...This is a very popular airplane watching site, where Ive seen many people young and old enjoy these planes. I see no problem with this location for a cache.

 

Some of you suggested to put it at the Greyhound park...guess what? Its not a park, but a parking lot, and private proprty at that, so thats out.

 

Ive heard of problems like this before...and more often than not, its a problem of moderators et al having the opinion of Im right and youre wrong and thats that. This "local" approver isnt even in the area, right? I personally challenge him to go to the site and make note of exactly where the signs are marking actual airport property is and do it with a open mind.

Thanks for the information and the opinion.

 

I ask that when you post a response saying that a reviewer does not know what they are talking about you please read all the statements first.

 

To cover your questions, as was explained earlier... The maps are the exact same. The OP did not know how to read the maps and that is why he defended his argument that the reviewers were using different sources.

 

As for it being a local approver.. It is a local approver

 

As for the area.. The POLICE said do not place caches here. This is closer then the last one that they removed.

 

As for you going there and seeing no problem with it.. That is fine, you are welcome to sit and watch planes all day every day but the guidelines say "Off-limit (Physical) Caches

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location. However, if we see a cache description that mentions ignoring "No Trespassing" signs (or any other obvious issues), your listing may be immediately archived.

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive):

 

Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

Since you go there, will you please let me know if you consider 214 feet to be 'Close' or not? If it is not close to the airport then it is not a problem, but 214' is normally considered close.

 

Since you go there and watch the planes, you have also noticed that people go to the west to places not on airport property and watch them from other locations. Yes?

 

I could swear we sat down to the south on Watkins street and had a perfectly good view of the area once or twice.

 

As a local you know the parking lot there is full of people on occations and they are well off of airport property and have the Salt River keeping them from wandering too close.

 

You might also know that even over a mile south from the coordinates in question on pushing tin, this area on Watkins street still has security patrol around after dark to make sure people are not trying to get close to the airport.

 

Enjoy

[+dkwolf]

On top of all of this, when the local police confiscated this cache--and were nice enough to give it back to you--they asked you NOT TO REPLACE IT. They didn't ask you to please move it a couple hundred feet in the same area, they asked you NOT TO REPLACE IT. Absolutely no good can come from the replacement of this cache in your 'new, improved, and CLOSER TO THE RUNWAY' location. In fact, tremendous amounts of damage to geocaching can come from this. All it takes is a few bigshots in the police department to get pissed off at you (which will happen if you put that thing back) and all of a sudden, geocaching becomes illegal in your city and/or state. Just ask the crew in South Carolina. I don't know what your cache container is/was, nor do I really care. But stop and think about what a typical cache looks like to the uninformed; a cleverly hidden, camoflauged container stashed next to a major airport?? Seriously man, THINK ABOUT IT.

 

Yes, you cache LOCATION sounds neat, but the approvers are 100% right, this should not be listed. A good spot for a waymark? You betcha, and one I'd check out if I was in the area. But a cache? No.

 

Edit......does anyone else smell a sock?

Edited August 25, 2005 by dkwolf

[ifishaz]

Go to the following (sorry unlike the approvers I can't load the pics so easy) and see that the maps they use shoe the supposed park (racetarck and parking lot) is also on airport property. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33.44268+-111.9937

 

Also why won't they answer the question of if I get OFFICIAL GOVT permission to place it if they would allow it. Maybe because they are afraid the govt is more understanding than they are???

[ifishaz]

dkwolf, NO THEY ASKED ME NOT TO REPLACE MY CACHE IN THE SPOT IT WAS! I did not. Also I have said I would seek Govt permission for its placement, but knowing I probably would get it no approvers are commenting on that....

[+StarBrand]

Go to the following (sorry unlike the approvers I can't load the pics so easy) and see that the maps they use shoe the supposed park (racetarck and parking lot) is also on airport property. http://maps.google.com/maps?q=33.44268+-111.9937

 

Also why won't they answer the question of if I get OFFICIAL GOVT permission to place it if they would allow it. Maybe because they are afraid the govt is more understanding than they are???

Thank for a more definitive map...

 

I believe the outlined gray area is - indeed - airport property.

[+Artemis]

I have a question, when I stated that the original cache was removed by the police and you were asked to not replace it, you went and deleted that log then told me I had no idea what I was talking about and that it never happened.

 

Now you say you will get the permission and we are avoiding your question.

 

You never did answer my inquiry about why you deleted the log and told me the police were never involved. Can you let me know the reason you gave me bad information?

[Keystone]

mtn-man, GREAT IDEA. I did that for Pushing tin goodyear as the approvers did not know the area there. Question on open boards to approvers, if I get the "OFFICIAL GOVT." approval will it be approved?????

I'm a "fraidy cat" who apparently can't read a map, and I "do not know the area." So, by your own reasoning, I quit reading right there and decided not to post anything further to your thread. Did you ask a question?

 

Normally when working with cache owners, I'm far more receptive to exploring acceptable solutions when I'm not being insulted. There are any number of cache owners in three states who can confirm this.

[+Dagg]

[ifishaz]

Artemis,

You quote;

I have a question, when I stated that the original cache was removed by the police and you were asked to not replace it, you went and deleted that log then told me I had no idea what I was talking about and that it never happened.

 

Now you say you will get the permission and we are avoiding your question.

 

You never did answer my inquiry about why you deleted the log and told me the police were never involved. Can you let me know the reason you gave me bad information? ------

 

I did not remove anything you posted??? I will admit as it is in post for all to see that the original pushing tin was asked to be removed/relocated (that was 2 caches ago). Pushing tins replacement was working fine except for bums/muggles/what ever, in the area taking the cache alot of the time, so to fix this a asked to have it moved to the location I now want it at.

 

Also in a reply to DPO you left, you stated watching planes from;

"I could swear we sat down to the south on Watkins street and had a perfectly good view of the area once or twice."

WOW and you suggest I use that area to send cachers???? You are really showing your knowledge "lack of" of the area there.

[+Artemis]

Also in a reply to DPO you left, you stated watching planes from;

"I could swear we sat down to the south on Watkins street and had a perfectly good view of the area once or twice."

WOW and you suggest I use that area to send cachers???? You are really showing your knowledge "lack of" of the area there.

I do not know where you got your info on me being contacted by the police for the cache being further away??????? you are totaslly wrong there please remove that comment.

 

This is what I got after you deleted your log today.

 

Ah I assume by this your also telling me that in the last few days Watkins street disappeared?

 

Please let me know how watching the planes from an area shows I am unfamiliar with the area.

 

Thanks

[ifishaz]

No watkins street is very much there, just it is a very drug infested unsafe area to be hanging out in. Most cab drivers I work with will not answer calls in that area. Guess I would rather someone deals with police if something happens at a cache then get mugged or worse.

[ifishaz]

Artemis,

Your post is also still on the page??? I didn't remove anyting. I guess I just figured you as an approver knew how to view all postings on one page, but so you know when you go look at the bottom of a cache page is a note;

 

There are more logs. View them all on one page

 

try clicking on that, you will see your post.

[+Artemis]

Since it once more was a failed attempt to point the AT NIGHT SECURITY is all over even that far away, I see this is doing nothing to help you in your defense of the cache.

 

I have sent you the appeals process and you have begun that by posting this forum after you were contacted about the reviewers opinion.

 

It appears most of the people responding to this list are in agreement that this is not the place to put a cache, so you still have another step in the process and I wish you luck in this goal.

 

I see no reason to continue to state my opions and defend myself as I have already been accused of things, insulted and offended by all of this.

 

I am stepping out of the middle as I feel there is enough relevant information to make the case of this cache and I do not think I will need to continue to defend myself to your statements.

 

I would suggest you send the email to Groundspeak with the information as well as any suggestions you have such as getting written permission from the police department in charge of the area.

 

The log you deleted was on YOUR CACHE THAT WAS PICKED UP BY THE POLICE. You deleted that log today. Enjoy

 

Good luck

 

Artemis

Volunteer cache reviewer, Arizona.

Edited August 25, 2005 by Artemis

[Keystone]

1. I don't see where Artemis ever suggested placing a cache in the area of Watkins Street. To the contrary, she noted that security patrols extended even at that far of a distance from the airport. Rather, the Goddess of the Hunt was merely demonstrating familiarity with the area, through describing other nearby specific locations where she visited.

 

2. Not only is Artemis able to review all the logs on one page (reviewers see cache pages displayed differently than everyone else), but the Goddess of the Hunt also has the power to view logs that have been deleted by the cache owner or the log owner.

 

EDIT: 3. I concur with Artemis' recommendation. I don't believe you'll sway the unanimous "no" vote that your cache received when posted for discussion in our reviewer forum. While not unanimous, the posts to this thread were also predominantly opposed to this cache location. Therefore, I'd advise appealing this matter to Groundspeak. As volunteers, we agree to follow the Guidelines as given to us by Groundspeak. If we wrongfully interpret those guidelines, or if Groundspeak determines that an exception is justified, then Groundspeak can (and does) reverse decisions or grant exceptions. A good recent example is the REI event cache discussed in the forums a few days ago, which violated at least one and probably two guidelines, but was listed after receiving special permission from Groundspeak.

Edited August 25, 2005 by Keystone

[ifishaz]

Artemis,

You post what you want, security is not in that area for airport concerns (WATKINS ST.), that is a very high drug and crime area. Don't try to mix national security concerns with that, it makes me LMAO... By the way please admit to everyone on the boards where the local Arizona approver is=====California...

[+Team Perks]

Maybe this is one of those occasions where they need to send their "local" reviewer to actually go look at the location in question. I am local to the phoenix area and have actually been to the spot in question...This is a very popular airplane watching site, where Ive seen many people young and old enjoy these planes. I see no problem with this location for a cache.

Then if it takes someone who has been to the cache area in question, perhaps I could offer some commentary.

 

I have found the Pushing Tin - Sky Harbor cache last year, apparently when it was a multi-cache and located on the other edge of the airport. That one was in fact outside the airport fence. But barely.

 

Honestly, I felt VERY uncomfortable searching this close to the entrance and the runways. I'm also aware of the new location of the cache. While a little less "public" (i.e., not at a major intersection) than the original spot, it's still in a location where a person holding a strange electronic gizmo would draw just as much suspicious attention. Sitting in your car watching planes is one thing. Digging around in the bushes/under rocks while trying NOT to be observed is another.

 

While I do think much of the post-9/11 security hype is reactionary and unnecessary (and I say this as someone who lost several friends in the tragedy), my own personal feelings about that should not dictate whether it is OK to place other cachers in the dangerous position of drawing unwanted attention toward themselves.

 

Anyone who feels like caches should be placed that close to runways at major airports should ask the gentleman who was detained by police for several hours attempting to find a cache near LAX if he thinks it's a good idea. I'm sure he will beg to differ.

 

Ironically, the closest active cache to the most recent placement of Sky Harbor cache was hidden by yours truly...and that cache is a mere two blocks north of where Mapquest demarcates the edge of the airport property. In light of the current concerns about Ifishaz's cache, I may very well archive my own hide...even though it's in what I consider to be a much less "sensitive" area.

[ifishaz]

Keystone, and I was pointing out how she the Goddess of the Hunt was merely demonstrating a true lack of familiarity with the area.

[+4leafclover]

Artemis,

You post what you want, security is not in that area for airport concerns (WATKINS ST.), that is a very high drug and crime area. Don't try to mix national security concerns with that, it makes me LMAO... By the way please admit to everyone on the boards where the local Arizona approver is=====California...

wow...you really know how to ingratiate yourself with the people you need most, don't you?

[ifishaz]

Team Perks,

Please tell me what exactly caused you the concern at 24th st accross from the greyhound station or driving the turn around at point 2?

 

This was your post when you found it;

We found the first stage with no trouble. Finding the second stage wasn't quite as easy. We initially took the wrong road and wound up going all the way through the airport terminals and then wound up at the wrong place. We reached the second coordinates after another several miles of driving in circles. Email on its way. Thanks for the interesting challenge! -Andy & Jen

 

You showed no fear in your post???

[Keystone]

Oh my goodness, the very first log in geocaching history that did not disclose 100% of the finder's opinions about the cache! I'm astonished that this would happen.

[+TotemLake]

personally if you thow a golf ball at a plane I am on I will feel safe.

I wouldn't. I've seen the damage something as soft as a tennis ball can do to a jet engine. It's enough to shut the motor down and make for an emergency landing.

[+Team Perks]

Team Perks,

Please tell me what exactly caused you the concern at 24th st accross from the greyhound station or driving the turn around at point 2?

 

This was your post when you found it;

We found the first stage with no trouble. Finding the second stage wasn't quite as easy. We initially took the wrong road and wound up going all the way through the airport terminals and then wound up at the wrong place. We reached the second coordinates after another several miles of driving in circles. Email on its way. Thanks for the interesting challenge! -Andy & Jen

 

You showed no fear in your post???

What was concerning about the first stage? Um...it was at a major intersection, right next to the airport, in plain sight of who knows how many hundreds of people (not to mention there was no "legal" place to park except in the private parking lot across the street). Point two was fine, because it was a "virtual" stage and I got to stay in the car.

 

Why did I show no fear in the online log? That's easy. I (Andy) wasn't the one who logged those finds. Jen was in charge of logging that weekend, and she stayed in the car for stage 1.

[+CYBret]

Is this done yet?

 

I'm seeing insults flying from all direction and no new information.

 

You appealed the forums, the forums have spoken. Are we ready to shut this down and get on with life?

 

Bret (Your new moderator who's just plain lovin' this job)

[ifishaz]

4leafclover,

No I do really know how to ingratiate myself with the people I need most. I really do believe in my case and will fight it, I really do not care if it alienates some high ups in geocaching. I do not need geocaching people most, I need my family, this is a game, a game I like, but deffinately do not need.... I used to be a premium member, but saw no need as it was being ran in a way I wasn't happy with, just like now. Guess what, we don't need geocaching, they need us as members otherwise they get no ad $$$, no membership $$$, etc...

[ifishaz]

CYBret,

You shut it down if you want, but the forums have not spoken... How can you say a thread that has run only a few hours has been spoke on by members, in a few days when more can read and respond yes. but not in a few hours, but then again im not a geo big wig so do what you want, its about what i expect.