Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
CapnJackSparrow

Absolute Bulls***

Recommended Posts

As promised above, we drove the 200+ miles this weekend to pay an in-person visit to the lighthouse that is the subject of the OP's complaint.

I could have driven the 8 miles to get those shots for you! :-)

 

I had planned on submitting this lighthouse myself when I first saw the wm category. I didn't bother though, as I wasn't sure it first the description, and I hadn't been to the area for any other purpose. I thought it should though, and it's an interesting story behind the lighthouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Is it wrong that I snorfed soda out of my nose when I read this?

No I dont think so, although the little froggy guy almost choked on his popcorn.

 

Why does something as simple as a game create so much drama?

 

Returning you to your regularly scheduled; "As the Geocaching World Turns"

Share this post


Link to post
As promised above, we drove the 200+ miles this weekend to pay an in-person visit to the lighthouse that is the subject of the OP's complaint.

I could have driven the 8 miles to get those shots for you! :-)

 

I had planned on submitting this lighthouse myself when I first saw the wm category. I didn't bother though, as I wasn't sure it first the description, and I hadn't been to the area for any other purpose. I thought it should though, and it's an interesting story behind the lighthouse.

Hi ChileHead, I had a great geocaching time in Rochester as always. I was in the logbook right after you at "Chain Gang" in Durand Eastman Park. Tough cache! Like the Charlotte lighthouse, that cache is NEAR the lake. :lol:

 

PLEASE submit the lighthouse as a regular lighthouse once the existing locationless cache for lighthouses is converted over to Waymarking. I'll look forward to logging my visit! And if you don't submit it, then I will!!!! Woo hoo, vacation waymarks.

Share this post


Link to post
When I submitted one waymark, to one category, I followed every rule on it. It was denied. Sure I was not happy. I emailed the category manager and showed him that I did not violate any of his conditions, but suggested he update his requirements if he had additional conditions that had to be met. He updated his category description.

So, as I understand it, this means that category owners can change the rules for their categories whenever they want, in whatever way they want, and that is just "part of the game?"

 

I have a feeling we will find that people who are naturally drawn to positions where they can jerk other people around are going to find category ownership very attractive.

I see this after-the-fact imposing of unstated or unclear rules/conditions as a serious problem that's going to lead to a rancor and ill will. Apparently the OP acted in good faith and believed he was meeting the stated conditions of the waymark. To deny the find based on ambiguous or unstated rules doesn't seem right.

 

Waymarks are not like caches. The concept of finding a container is fairly simply and clearly defined. Waymarks are all defined by the elusive business of words. How high is up? How far is near? Even words that aren't innately subjective are open to multiple interpretations.

 

I think I'd be POed too, if I went to the time and trouble to claim a waymark and the category manager said, "I didn't intend you to do this or that. I didn't make the rules clear, so I'm disallowing your claim."

 

My suggestion is to allow (grandfather) any find that meets the letter of the stated rules and then modify the rules if necessary for future finders. But, don't deny a good faith find based on the owners failure to anticipate other interpretations than his.

 

Another way I have handled this kind of thing mechanicaly is to have a section in the catagory description titled Precidents & Interpretations, where the manager lists interpretations/rulings he has made. In this case I would have allowed the find then added an interpretation that "close means within xxx feet or visual range."

 

The TPTB have to decide how much latitude a category owner has in changing the definition/conditions of the category. Presumably there was some kind of criteria for approving it. What's to prevent a manager from changing it to something that no longer meets the criteria?

 

Edited to say:

 

This is not intended to be a criticism of the category manager (Leprechauns), but a comment on the conditions that led to this kind of situation. I came to this thread because of a comment I made about the unhappy potential for denying finds based on ex post facto conditions, rules or interpretations.

Edited by Thot

Share this post


Link to post

My conditions did not change. They did, and still do, say that the lighthouse cannot be near an ocean, lake or river. This lighthouse is 350 feet from the river, in a harbor area. Are you seriously suggesting that it qualifies for the category? Did you look at the photos I posted, with the river and the lake clearly visible?

 

If there's going to be that much ranting and nitpicking, I'll either write a 2000 word, unambiguous requirements document (I am a contract lawyer by profession) or I'll just archive the category. This is supposed to be a fun game.

Share this post


Link to post

Go Lep!

 

It appears that Waymarkers are going to piss off waymarkees just as cache owners piss off cachers. I had one cacher get mad at me one day because she posted the answer to a riddle that solved my mystery cache in her log and I deleted it and told her to re-log with different wording. It appears that we will have the same types of people (after all, it is the same group of people) here, too.

Share this post


Link to post

Same [male bovine poo-poo]... Different Site. You gotta love progress. :ph34r:

Edited by mini cacher

Share this post


Link to post
Same Bulls***... Different Site. You gotta love progress. :ph34r:

Please explain what you found to be "bull" about my enforcing the posting requirements for my waymark category. There's another thread open where people are whining about how category managers need to do a good job of policing their categories, the way that cache owners should delete bogus finds. Which way would you have it?

 

This is a new activity. It is only through the constructive observations of folks like yourself that we can learn how Waymarking will take shape.

Share this post


Link to post
My conditions did not change.  They did, and still do, say that the lighthouse cannot be near an ocean, lake or river.  This lighthouse is 350 feet from the river, in a harbor area.  Are you seriously suggesting that it qualifies for the category? Did you look at the photos I posted, with the river and the lake clearly visible?

 

If there's going to be that much ranting and nitpicking, I'll either write a 2000 word, unambiguous requirements document (I am a contract lawyer by profession) or I'll just archive the category.  This is supposed to be a fun game.

My opinion: regardless of the listings wording, the site IS IN BETA! If you are using the site, either as a cat. owner, waymark owner or waymark logger, EXPECT THINGS TO NOT WORK AS EXPECTED!

 

It ain't done yet - TPTB are still testing things out. If you come here to build stats (at this time) then you are here for the wrong reason (right now).

 

Yeah, having fun is important. Some of that fun is seeing something take off, partly with your own efforts helping it along. If you get your fun only from having logs/finds, then maybe it'd be best for you to wait a bit while those willing to take risks (like Lep here) try to get things sorted out for the full live release.

 

Meanwhile, thanks to eveyone working on the site for other people to enjoy. You guys rock!

Edited by New England n00b

Share this post


Link to post
Same [male bovine poo-poo]... Different Site.  You gotta love progress.  :D

Please explain what you found to be "bull" about my enforcing the posting requirements for my waymark category. There's another thread open where people are whining about how category managers need to do a good job of policing their categories, the way that cache owners should delete bogus finds. Which way would you have it?

 

This is a new activity. It is only through the constructive observations of folks like yourself that we can learn how Waymarking will take shape.

whoa there Tex... I mean Lep.... I was not refering to your post (or I would have quoted it :D) I was refering to the post directly before mine. You know the one talking about "we will have the same types of people (after all, it is the same group of people) here, too". This new site has in part been sold to us as a solution to a problem that had generated a bit of anger and hate mail in the past. In the infancy of this new solution it looks as though we will have very simliar issues. Hence, "Same [male bovine poo-poo]... Different Site."

 

It looks pretty clear to me from your photos that the average person should concider that light house to be "near" the water therefore not appropriate for the catagory. But as humans, we all differ in our way of thinking. Obviously the OP thought VERY strongly that his submittion was appropriate. Unfortunately he expressed his feelings with a socially unacceptable tantrum.

Edited by mini cacher

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for clarifying!

 

[Remainder of post edited in deference to Jeremy's post which follows... there is no need to repeat the language used by the banned OP]

Edited by The Leprechauns

Share this post


Link to post

Please refrain from foul language in the forums. It is unnecessary even with ** or # or whatever. There are other ways to put things that are far less offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
My conditions did not change. They did, and still do, say that the lighthouse cannot be near an ocean, lake or river. This lighthouse is 350 feet from the river, in a harbor area. Are you seriously suggesting that it qualifies for the category? Did you look at the photos I posted, with the river and the lake clearly visible?

I don't think it's a matter of your conditions not changing, it's a matter of someone else's interpertation of your conditions. "Not near an ocean, lake or river", in my opinion, means it could probably no longer be used as a navigation tool for the said ocean, lake or river. Since the lighthouse was originally for navigation of the lake, yet no longer is really all that "near" the lake (near as is in near enough for navigation of that lake), the location of the river is somewhat irrelevant. Just my opinion, and more than likely, was the opinion of the one angered by the denial of the waymark. And perhaps I'm even way off base on the original purpose of the lighthouse - maybe it was for navigation of the lake AND the river.

 

It is your waymark category - you make the rules and I don't think anyone denies that. However, the rules need to be stated in a way that there aren't ambiguities. Near to one person is far to another - it's all a matter of perspective, and not everyone is going to have the same perspective as you. I think that is all others are trying to point out to you. The whole waymark thing is new, and I believe part of it's purpose is to more clearly define the 'rules' for logs. I think others are just trying to suggest ways to ensure the 'rules' for Waymarking any particular category are well thought out - and with consideration of the thousands of other perspectives out there - before they are created, so as not to cause the sort of problems this one did.

 

Will other waymarks create problems? Probably. You just happened to hit a very raw nerve of someone when perhaps they were having a very bad day. Is that your fault - certainly not. Had he approached it differently, and more constructively, it would have been a learning event for you both. Instead, it turned into this ugly thing that never should have happened. Measuring distance and taking photos of a waymark you are denying does no good though if the posted 'rules' use vague terms such as "near" and don't describe YOUR interpretation of those terms. The rules need to be clear enough so that someone will be reasonably sure that whatever they are trying to post as a waymark will be accepted - it shouldn't be a game of "geez, will THIS one work?". Otherwise, it will be too much like a battle of wills between those trying to waymark and the waymark owner - "let's see him try to deny THIS one!", or "HA, I can deny THIS one because of THIS loophole!". Please understand I am in NO way implying this is what you (Lep) did, nor do I think that of Capt Sparrow. I believe both of you, in all honesty, firmly believed you were right and just in your opinion. However, as the waymark owner, you have the advantage because you 'make the rules' - just ensure the rules are clear and understandable to all, or handle the arguements with a little more understanding to the waymarker's interpretation of what you have written.

Share this post


Link to post

I think I'll be going the 5,000 word route. I'll post a link when the full set of definitions are finished. They'll make the standards for virtual caches look like something scribbled down on a napkin. :D

 

Seriously... MiHoMiPa, thank you for a constructive post.

Share this post


Link to post
This lighthouse is 350 feet from the river, in a harbor area.

Lighthouses aren't used on rivers, so it shouldn't make a difference. Would you disqualify it if it was 50 feet from a pond or a large swimming pool?

 

It was over 1/2 mile from a lake. Lighthouses are never placed that far from the bodies of water they are meant to serve ... thus it would seem to be "landlocked", since, even were it functional, it wouldn't be in a position to perform its function.

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate the lighthouse pictures, be they land locked or not they are interesting and worthy of a visit.

Thanks

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
This lighthouse is 350 feet from the river, in a harbor area.

Lighthouses aren't used on rivers, so it shouldn't make a difference. Would you disqualify it if it was 50 feet from a pond or a large swimming pool?

 

It was over 1/2 mile from a lake. Lighthouses are never placed that far from the bodies of water they are meant to serve ... thus it would seem to be "landlocked", since, even were it functional, it wouldn't be in a position to perform its function.

But this is what makes his catagory so unique - there ARE lighthouses placed in weird places. It makes THIS particular catagory more interesting than every other lighthouse. I;m sure if there is not a catagory right now for 'every lighthouse', there will be. Because this is more limited/defined, it provides a bit of extra interest & fun to try and find one, or visit one.

 

That's how the catagory owner set it up. Another catagory owner might only want 'currently in use' lighthouses. There are plenty of out-of-service ones out there. Maybe that's another catagory, with different requirements.

 

It adds challenge. Kinda like taking a parking lot micro and hiding it much harder than the typical light pole micro.

Share this post


Link to post

Try googling it and you'll see there are a ton of river lighthouses.

 

Lighthouses are never placed that far from the bodies of water they are meant to serve ... thus it would seem to be "landlocked", since, even were it functional, it wouldn't be in a position to perform its function.

 

Actually many lighthouses just need to have the light in view of the water to be effective. They're often used as a marker for boats in navigation. They don't all announce shallow water or sharp rocks.

 

Even with that said if the category defines it a certain way, your definition of landlocked is irrelevant.

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post

I hesitate to bump this thread, since I'm still miffed by its title and the approach taken by the departed OP, but I wanted to follow-up with a useful lesson.

 

I almost archived this category. If there is going to be flaming in Waymarking the way that cache reviewers are flamed about geocaches, why add more grief? But instead I put the issue aside for a few weeks, evaluated the submissions as they came in, and carefully re-read the constructive suggestions in this thread.

 

As a result, I recently rewrote the category description for Landlocked Lighthouses. I think the new requirements are clearer, and I thank everyone for their input. Further constructive suggestions are welcome. It was especially helpful to be able to link to the recently established Coastal Lighthouses category.

 

I will not be the last Category Manager who faces the need to clarify a category description that some might find vague or try to exploit a loophole in, so let's discuss "category refinement" as a useful part of the beta testing exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
I will not be the last Category Manager who faces the need to clarify a category description that some might find vague or try to exploit a loophole in, so let's discuss "category refinement" as a useful part of the beta testing exercise.

Perhaps in a new thread?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad that you didn't archive it, Lep. There are a lot of people that will get a lot of enjoyment from it. They're the ones to keep the category for. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
I will not be the last Category Manager who faces the need to clarify a category description that some might find vague or try to exploit a loophole in, so let's discuss "category refinement" as a useful part of the beta testing exercise.

Perhaps in a new thread?

I thought about making a new thread. But I felt like people needed an introduction (for newcomers) or a reminder (for those who watched a sparrow catch on fire) about what had happened previously, and a link to a prior thread didn't seem to do it justice. Besides, in other parts of the Groundspeak forums there are these really anal retentive moderators who don't like it when people start multiple threads. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

I think maybe the owner should say how far the light house has to be from water before he rejects someone trying to log it. How was the guy suppost to know? Other than the guys attitude, I think it is the owner fault for not being descriptive enough about the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
I think maybe the owner should say how far the light house has to be from water before he rejects someone trying to log it. How was the guy suppost to know? Other than the guys attitude, I think it is the owner fault for not being descriptive enough about the rules.

I thought about including a minimum distance, but I would really like to steer clear of things like the 528 foot rule for geocache separation. It's common sense, in my opinion. I added guidance about what "near" a navigable body of water means.

 

In the case of the topic starter's lighthouse, did you look at the pictures I posted? The ones showing the harbor full of boats, 400 feet away, and showing the lake in the background?

Share this post


Link to post

I withdraw my comment, the pictures didnt load the first time. The lighthouse seems to be right on the water. But I still believe that you should list a measurement of how far away it has to be.

Share this post


Link to post
I withdraw my comment, the pictures didnt load the first time. The lighthouse seems to be right on the water. But I still believe that you should list a measurement of how far away it has to be.

Fine. What is the precise distance at which a lighthouse is officially "landlocked?" Your answer must be applicable worldwide and in any terrain, and regardless of the altitude of the lighthouse above the water level.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow thats a hard decision, no matter what you say "If it can be seen from a body of water" they can still say "Well thats not landlocked!" I would leave it up to you to set a distance rule.

 

*Maybe, If it can be seen from a body of water, then it is not landlocked!

 

Because technically, that would be its purpose, to be seen from the water. And if you find one that cannot be seen from water or you cannot see water from the top of it then I say "Hey you found yourself a landlocked lighthouse!"

 

Thats my opinion, I dont own the category so its your decision what to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Wow thats a hard decision, no matter what you say "If it can be seen from a body of water" they can still say "Well thats not landlocked!" I would leave it up to you to set a distance rule.

 

*Maybe, If it can be seen from a body of water, then it is not landlocked!

 

Because technically, that would be its purpose, to be seen from the water. And if you find one that cannot be seen from water or you cannot see water from the top of it then I say "Hey you found yourself a landlocked lighthouse!"

 

Thats my opinion, I dont own the category so its your decision what to do.

I believe that is The Leprechauns point. You can't objectify what a landlocked lighthouse is, by miles from water, and have it fit 100% of landlocked lighthouses 100% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Wow thats a hard decision, no matter what you say "If it can be seen from a body of water" they can still say "Well thats not landlocked!" I would leave it up to you to set a distance rule.

 

*Maybe, If it can be seen from a body of water, then it is not landlocked!

 

Because technically, that would be its purpose, to be seen from the water. And if you find one that cannot be seen from water or you cannot see water from the top of it then I say "Hey you found yourself a landlocked lighthouse!"

 

Thats my opinion, I dont own the category so its your decision what to do.

I believe that is The Leprechauns point. You can't objectify what a landlocked lighthouse is, by miles from water, and have it fit 100% of landlocked lighthouses 100% of the time.

If you can't objectify it, then perhaps it's not a very good category. It'll just cause more frustration among users than good in the long run. A waymark creator can guess, but they'll never be sure they'll meet whatever requirements the category owner has locked up in their heads.

Share this post


Link to post

Or maybe he meant something like this

 

"A lighthouse that is now situated/located in such a way that no longer allows to it to be used for Navigation Purposes. Examples of such would be lighthouses that are too far from shore to be seen by nautical vessels. Additionally, this may be the result of an alteration of the shipping routes whereby the water itself has been redirected away or removed from the lighthouse area, and as such renders the lighthouse ineffectual."

 

I cannot image how or why a group would make it so that a waterway was drained or dammed so that water that once was navigatable was made to not be. But hey... stranger things...

 

:blink: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

I only posted my version to support Leprechaun.

 

He is the one that decides what is right or not, until such time that a Group is agreed upon by Leprechaun.

 

It is not for anyone else to say how he, or anyone in the future should word things, but when people are unsure they should be able to ask for clarification.

 

But to suggest that the whole idea is unworkable, is just not accurate.

 

Leprechaun, hold your head up high... people must be really interested in your topic to devote so much time to it.

 

I know what my motivation is, but it is up to you to decide how people are supporting your freedom of speech and expression.

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
I thought Lep resolved this issue?

Yep, but never closed the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
I think the new requirements are clearer, and I thank everyone for their input.  Further constructive suggestions are welcome.  It was especially helpful to be able to link to the recently established Coastal Lighthouses category.

With a little bit of fear I will enter this discussion, on the basis of the difficulties in clarifying a waymark description. Leprechaun, after reading your description I'm still not sure what it is precisely that you are looking for. The confusion for me comes in the requirement to not be near water. The page for Le Gabriel Restaurant in Cheticamp, Nova Scotia shows my confusion Le Gabriel Restaurant. This is a restaurant built like a lighthouse but never used as a lighthouse. It meets all of the criteria of your paragraph 3 except that it can be seen from the Gulf of St. Lawrence which would be a big body of water.

 

I really don't know exactly what you were looking for and why the need for distance from water. Is it inland lighthouses, lighthouses that are something else, or something else altogether? All I'm pointing out is that what really needs to be specified is whether you are looking for unusual uses of lighthouses or mock lighthouses (like someone else suggested) or something else.

 

This will be the problem for a lot of waymarks, being able to state precisely enough what is wanted and envisioned. Not an enviable task.

Share this post


Link to post
The page for Le Gabriel Restaurant in Cheticamp, Nova Scotia shows my confusion Le Gabriel Restaurant. This is a restaurant built like a lighthouse but never used as a lighthouse. It meets all of the criteria of your paragraph 3 except that it can be seen from the Gulf of St. Lawrence which would be a big body of water.

The Leprechauns can correct me if I'm wrong but the previous paragraph stated that the waymark category requires "A lighthouse that previously served as an aid to marine navigation." Since you indicate it is a restaurant "built like a lighthouse" I'm not sure why you're confused as to whether it fits in this category or not. As you stated it isn't a lighthouse but is themed as one.

 

I think you or anyone else reading this sentence has had a situation where the most clearly made statement has been misunderstood. I don't expect any description to be clear enough for everyone to understand so it will always be a learning process for both sides. All that is asked is that people remain calm when they get a waymark denied. Going overboard like the original poster did here isn't very productive - or at least becomes an agonizing process.

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post

The way I read the description, either:

1. a real lighthouse that has been moved from its former position of navigational use

2. a fake lighthouse that is at least 'building-sized'

would qualify.

 

If that's true, then just listing 1 and 2 above would've obviated all this discussion, I think. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
The Leprechauns can correct me if I'm wrong but the previous paragraph stated that the waymark category requires "A lighthouse that previously served as an aid to marine navigation." Since you indicate it is a restaurant "built like a lighthouse" I'm not sure why you're confused as to whether it fits in this category or not. As you stated it isn't a lighthouse but is themed as one.

If you can't get the category straight, what hope is there for it? :laughing:

 

He allows mock lighthouses too.

Share this post


Link to post

If you can't get the category straight, what hope is there for it? :laughing:

 

He allows mock lighthouses too.

Meh. At least I don't cuss and quit.

 

But personally I would leave mock lighthouses out of the equation and create a Mock Lighthouses category, or rename the category to appropriately fit the "mock" portion of it.

 

^ here's an example of a constructive suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post

I think that if you review the waymarks that have been submitted and accepted into the category, you'll find this to be very interesting and a fun one to just surf through. It is working out the way I had intended. I've also rejected three that didn't quite fit -- one of these having been well-publicized. :laughing:

 

If, someday, we achieved a critical mass of 250 "mock" lighthouses that are landlocked, and 250 landlocked lighthouses that served purposes other than marine navigation or were moved to a landlocked location, we could split up the category at that time. But for now, there have been more "mock" ones than "real" ones and that's fine by me, so long as they look like a lighthouse.

Share this post


Link to post
If you can't get the category straight, what hope is there for it? :laughing:

As much hope as there is for coming up with a suitable description for a "virtual cache" that EVERYONE in the universe will understand. No matter what you come up with, some git will misunderstand it and fly off the handle about it. That's just the thorns you get with the rose. When you can't handle the thorns, you kill the rose and plant pansies.

Share this post


Link to post
All that is asked is that people remain calm when they get a waymark denied. Going overboard like the original poster did here isn't very productive - or at least becomes an agonizing process.

Couldn't agree more with that statement Jeremy. When a confusion occurs then I think the person who is confused should try to explain it calmly and try to work it through. Usually that way one can learn what is wanted. I only put that listing out there as an example to learn further what is really wanted in the category because it does meet some of the criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
The way I read the description, either:

1. a real lighthouse that has been moved from its former position of navigational use

2. a fake lighthouse that is at least 'building-sized'

would qualify.

 

If that's true, then just listing 1 and 2 above would've obviated all this discussion, I think. <_<

Ahhh, but you've excluded one of the more interesting landlocked lighthouses through that narrow description. I am trying to be open-ended. Had I used your definition and rejected a cool lighthouse that guides British travelers through the fog of an inland valley, there'd be more forum threads.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, this case is a good example for both future category managers and for people who want to establish a waymark.

 

This case, landlocked lighthouses, is difficult to define objectively. Opinions on a given body of water as to whether it is a "pond", "lake", "stream", "river", or "reasonable sight" are going to be subjective unless they are defined by numbers like "two miles" and "20 feet".

 

Within categories like these, part of the fun of creating waymarks is going to be to try to determine what the category manager means and to hope for success. It's sort of a 'let the waymark creation attempter beware' kind of situation - your submission is either going to be accepted or rejected, possibly based on a subjective decision, depending on how close to the 'line' your situation is. Sometimes it may not be so fun for either the category manager or the person who took the trouble to try to create a waymark or both.

 

Other category concepts will not be as difficult to define objectively. However, one can imagine that many cases, a category manager may want to consider adjusting a category's description as cases come up that challenge its completeness and explicitness. A case I just thought of is the Bar-B-Que Joints category. There's lots of Korean Barbecue places around here in Virginia. Do they qualify or not? Probably not, but I can't exactly tell. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect that this problem already existed with locationless caches. Locationless cache owners were responsible for deleting logs that claimed a find that didn't meet the locationless requirements. It might have been interesting to see a DNF log for an item that almost met the requirements.

 

icon_sad.gif September 29 by tozainamboku (1547 found)

N 34 42.000 W 118 09.000

Couldn't find a yellow jeep but saw this neat white one [<_<]

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...