Permission

1.2k · October 16, 2006

... Seems to me, geocaching.com is MORE concerned about geocaching on NPS property than the NPS themselves. ...

IF I had a problem (which I am SURE I wouldn't have) I have a good attorney like I said......

...

My cache is gone and I refuse to jump through hoops to place a cache there.

In fact, I refuse to jump through hoops to do ANYTHING in this life whatsoever.

Too bad, you seem very passionate about this issue, perhaps if you focus your energy into the NPS, their land managers and their policies, maybe we could get some leniency into placing geocaches on NPS and NRA lands.

BTW, I'm still trying to figure out where your rights were violated and what the bias against you is?

1.8k · October 16, 2006

They do this FOR YOU... in part to protect YOU...

I can protect MYSELF just fine thank you.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin

Seems to me, geocaching.com is MORE concerned about geocaching on NPS property than the NPS themselves. Thus the 11 caches in this park, MOST without permission.

IF I had a problem (which I am SURE I wouldn't have) I have a good attorney like I said......

But whatever........

My cache is gone and I refuse to jump through hoops to place a cache there.

In fact, I refuse to jump through hoops to do ANYTHING in this life whatsoever.

(and a dozen other self-serving comments demonstrating that you have learned very little in life, and are in desperate need of some direction...... Oh, but then, that would be "hoops," and you don't jump. Gonna be a bumpy ride, and you won't get much sympathy around here.)

You'd pretty much argue with anybody about anything, wouldn't you? Play with semantics, and be the victim, too? You do owe the reviewers/approvers/players of this sport an apology. You have blamed others for making you a victim, and assumed that it is all about you. These are some pretty great people, and if you can't appreciate that they are serving you well, then know that most of us realize that and appreciate that.

October 16, 2006

You do owe the reviewers/approvers/players of this sport an apology. You have blamed others for making you a victim, and assumed that it is all about you.

Oh so now I owe an apology for being pissed that other caches in this park were approved WITHOUT PERMISSION and mine wasn't?

Ain't gonna happen :unsure:

For the record:

2 in PA

7 in NJ

last count 10/16/06........

There could be more

Edited October 16, 2006 by trackinthebox

38.2k · October 16, 2006

You do owe the reviewers/approvers/players of this sport an apology. You have blamed others for making you a victim, and assumed that it is all about you.

Oh so now I owe an apology for being pissed that other caches in this park were approved WITHOUT PERMISSION and mine wasn't?

Ain't gonna happen

For the record:

2 in PA

7 in NJ

last count 10/16/06........

There could be more

If they were approved there and there was no permission from the NPS, then they were done so inadvertantly. No reviewer knowingly publishes a cache in an area that is known to be off limits.

I'd still like to know of the 7 in NJ because I looked and didn't see any other than the one at Buttermilk Falls and that one did have NPS permission.

October 16, 2006

Too bad, you seem very passionate about this issue, perhaps if you focus your energy into the NPS, their land managers and their policies, maybe we could get some leniency into placing geocaches on NPS and NRA lands.

I was staying out of this, but can I suggest NOT doing that? Please?

Not to be rude/offensive, but the type of attitude you've displayed here is exactly what the geocaching community doesn't need in their dealings with the NPS.

As for your bias thing, for all I care geocaching.com can refuse service to anybody for any reason. It's their company and their site, and if they don't want to list something, they don't have to, regardless of whether you feel it's fair or not.

Edited October 16, 2006 by ThePropers

October 16, 2006

Not to be rude/offensive, but the type of attitude you've displayed here is exactly what the geocaching community doesn't need in their dealings with the NPS.

Yeah, maybe the founders should have felt that way about the British as well?

After all, it's rude to fight for freedom/equality for ALL men.

October 16, 2006

Yes, I can see how you not getting your listing approved is exactly the same as our fight for independence and equality :unsure:

Perhaps rather than lashing out at everyone and everything, you could put on your adult hat and try to be helpful. I know this might sound crazy, but rather than just throwing out the "2 in PA, 7 in NJ" numbers, you could tell us which caches they are. If they have been approved by NPS, or aren't actually on NPS land, then end-of-argument. If they were placed without permission and are indeed on NPS lands (as you vehemently have stated, despite TPTB saying otherwise), then they will be archived, as well they should be.

Edited October 16, 2006 by ThePropers

2k · October 16, 2006

Not to be rude/offensive, but the type of attitude you've displayed here is exactly what the geocaching community doesn't need in their dealings with the NPS.

Yeah, maybe the founders should have felt that way about the British as well?

After all, it's rude to fight for freedom/equality for ALL men.

Please do not walk into my place of business with this attitude. When you walk in my door you are on my property and subject to my rules. Your cries for freedom mean nothing if you should chose to try and limit my freedom in determining my business policies and practices.

Feel free to form your own business and set your own policies. I would be interested in seeing how you would handle a cutomer who tries to demand you change your policies and practices that are confining.

Please enjoy your freedom to walk and breathe all you want. If, while exercising your freedom you happen to stomp through my yard, please run quickly from the dog who may bite you wtihout compunction.

Please exercise your entitlements as a tax-payer to to enjoy yourself in the government forests in whatever manner you may choose. However, please do NOT interfere with my rights to do the same or to enjoy it without your presence. By your own arguments - Since I pay taxes, too, I should have just as much a right to enjoy the government facilities as you wish to enjoy them. If I wish to enjoy the facilities without the presence of your cache and the trail and traffic it creates then who are you to demand the right to place it there?

October 16, 2006

In reference to the OP (trackinthebox" ....

.....

You'd pretty much argue with anybody about anything, wouldn't you? Play with semantics, and be the victim, too? You do owe the reviewers/approvers/players of this sport an apology. You have blamed others for making you a victim, and assumed that it is all about you. These are some pretty great people, and if you can't appreciate that they are serving you well, then know that most of us realize that and appreciate that.

Ah let the OP rant on some more - its very entertaining - though it is not adding anything constructive to geocaching.

The way it looks to me, if the OP pushes a few more buttons, he too can join the ranks of "banned" member. Then he will no longer have to worry about his caches being fairly reviewed or not!

Serious comment - the reviewers are volunteers - fellow cachers. They do a fine job of deaing with the ever increasing work load generated by new cache placements. Rather than trash them in the forum and accuse them of all sorts of scurilous offenses, the OP should be grateful for the integral role they play in this sport and the OP should not only apologize but at this point beg for forgiveness.

As for me - this player is now on my ignore list - which is well within my rights and the rules, customs and practices of this site. Time for me to crawl back into my hobbit hole and contemplate some new legal cache placements off of NPS lands.

Edited October 16, 2006 by Frodo_Underhill

24.7k · October 16, 2006

...1) You were talking about a "ban". Show me the "ban" in the USC and NOT the NPS's twisting of it to suit their own needs. Geocaches are NOT litter or abandoned property. Geocachers know this.

2) a] Wow and b] Was a joke son, get it?

3) Once again, I don't have to ask for permission to walk, hike, swim or breathe. Is that REALLY that hard to understand?

4) http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ic=59382&hl

1) I'll try to make this simple. The end result is simple. How it works may not fit with your views, but I'm writing about how it is, not how it should be.

All government agencies have abandoned property laws. Caches are not abandoned property by intent. However caches do fit the legal definition of abandoned property by the letter of the law. The NPS has chosen to cope with geocaches by disposing of them per their abandoned property laws. The general directive came about in the memo referenced by Mopar. Individual park managers do have some discression. However most of them follow the directive. Geocaching is not banned directly. It's a de facto ban using exising laws.

2) Don't give up your day job. You are not funny. At least not in a forum.

3) What you don't understand is there is a time for everthing under the sun. Permission included. Not a single thing on your list of walk, run, swim, or breathe is free of the permission issue. Context is everthing.

4) Your link's broke. So was the original logic. You gotta love a sign when you see one.

Edited October 16, 2006 by Renegade Knight

24.7k · October 16, 2006

Not to be rude/offensive, but the type of attitude you've displayed here is exactly what the geocaching community doesn't need in their dealings with the NPS.

Yeah, maybe the founders should have felt that way about the British as well?

After all, it's rude to fight for freedom/equality for ALL men.

I like women. I like them a lot. You don't know why that's funny, but trust me. It is.

Our founding fathers weren't fighting about equality. They were fighting against the heavy yoke of the British king. That yoke was getting in the way of running their local governments for the common good. They were fighting to establish another government. One that derived it's powers with the consent of the people, and organized in such a way that it would most likely effect the people safety, and happiness. They didn't set it in stone that the government would hold life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the highest law of the land. They set out to create the government most compatible with those individual goals.

This is right out of the Declaration that you keep quoting.

October 16, 2006

Look.

By all means, you have the "freedom" to allow the NPS to call your caches "litter" or "abandoned property", EVEN THOUGH, as geocachers, you know the exact opposite to be true.

And by submitting to their rediculous definition of geocaching, you concede that it is true and correct that geocache's are indeed what they claim it is.

Don't fight. You are perfectly within your rights not to do so.

But don't tell me I have to submit to the NPS's heavy handed BS definition as it is my right not to.

Edited October 16, 2006 by trackinthebox

2k · October 16, 2006

Look.

By all means you have the "freedom" to allow the NPS to call your caches "litter" or "abandoned property" EVEN THOUGH, as geocachers, you know the exact opposite to be true.

And by submitting to their rediculous definition of geocaching, you concede that it is true and correct that geocache's are indeed what they claim it is.

Don't fight. You are perfectly within your rights not to do so.

But don't tell me I have to submit to the NPS's heavy handed BS definition as it is my right not to.

Far be it from any of us to tell you what your rights are not.

Feel free to ignore the NPS and place your cache in their lands... Just do NOT interfere with the rights of gc.com and its owners by demanding you have the right to infringe on their personal property and demand it be listed on the gc.com site.

24.7k · October 16, 2006

Look.

By all means you have the "freedom" to allow the NPS to call your caches "litter" or "abandoned property" EVEN THOUGH, as geocachers, you know the exact opposite to be true.

And by submitting to their rediculous definition of geocaching, you concede that it is true and correct that geocache's are indeed what they claim it is.

Don't fight. You are perfectly within your rights to do so.

But don't tell me I have to submit to the NPS's heavy handed BS definition as it is my right not to.

Actually I already told you exactly how to go about fixing the NPS ban. You are also confusing my ability to recogize reality with what I think is ideal. Don't. If you know the truth about why things are the way they are, they are easier to change.

You have the right to submit or not submit to the NPS ban as you see fit. You do not have the right to expect the NPS to not pull your cache as abandoned property, nor do you have the right to force this site to list your cache. Your right as allowed by this site, was to appeal the cache in the forums. You have done so. You were told exactly how to get that cache listed on this site. You have the right to attempt to follow through on the request or not. You do not have the right to expect the NPS to comply. They will or won't as they see fit.

You don't have to like what I'm saying. That's your right. But you would be a fool to ignore it. I am not known in these forums as someone who champions this sites every rule and cause. Because of that when you have the forum wolves and the forum sheep dogs telling you the same things, you really should pay attention.

Of the two, fighing the NPS or getting your cache listed, We can only help you with the latter. I'd activly oppose the former as you would likely hurt our chances of getting the NPS to reverse it's ban.

38.2k · October 16, 2006

But don't tell me I have to submit to the NPS's heavy handed BS definition as it is my right not to.

You don't have to. You can place caches there until your heart's content. You'll just can't list them here.

October 16, 2006

Actually I already told you exactly how to go about fixing the NPS ban. You are also confusing my ability to recogize reality with what I think is ideal. Don't. If you know the truth about why things are the way they are, they are easier to change.

You have the right to submit or not submit to the NPS ban as you see fit. You do not have the right to expect the NPS to not pull your cache as abandoned property, nor do you have the right to force this site to list your cache. Your right as allowed by this site, was to appeal the cache in the forums. You have done so. You were told exactly how to get that cache listed on this site. You have the right to attempt to follow through on the request or not. You do not have the right to expect the NPS to comply. They will or won't as they see fit.

You don't have to like what I'm saying. That's your right. But you would be a fool to ignore it. I am not known in these forums as someone who champions this sites every rule and cause. Because of that when you have the forum wolves and the forum sheep dogs telling you the same things, you really should pay attention.

Of the two, fighing the NPS or getting your cache listed, We can only help you with the latter. I'd activly oppose the former as you would likely hurt our chances of getting the NPS to reverse it's ban.

It's like talking to a wall, isn't it?

TheNPS battle has been fought (repeatedly). If you don't think so and think you're the first to raise a fuss about it, do some research in the forums. You will find that much effort was put into getting approval for geocaches on NPS land. For now the community/GC.com has decided to comply with the NPS wishes, in the hopes that in the future they will change their stance.

Attitudes such as the OP's will only re-inforce the objections they have, and will do nothing to further the cause.

Having caches that have not been approved by the NPS does nothing to help geocaching. If there are other unapproved caches on these lands (as insisted by the OP), he should let TPTB know which ones they are so they can be investigated and archived if the situation warrants it. Raising a red flag on these caches is encouraged, IMO.

However, despited repeated attempts to actually get the OP to name these caches so action can be taken, he has done nothing but continue to rant and rave.

Edited October 16, 2006 by ThePropers

October 16, 2006

However, despited repeated attempts to actually get the OP to name these caches so action can be taken, he has done nothing but continue to rant and rave.

Like I said WAY back in my first post, I spent days researching this park and found many caches contained therein BEFORE I decided to list one there.

IF I had known back then that it was going to cause THIS MUCH controversy, I would have NEVER even tried to put the cache on NPS lands.

And I tend to not want to get other cache placers mad at me for ratting their caches out.........

Edited October 16, 2006 by trackinthebox

October 16, 2006

However, despited repeated attempts to actually get the OP to name these caches so action can be taken, he has done nothing but continue to rant and rave.

Like I said WAY back in my first post, I spent days researching this park and found many caches contained therein BEFORE I decided to list one there.

IF I had known back then that it was going to cause THIS MUCH controversy, I would have NEVER even tried to put the cache on NPS lands.

Yes, you did say that. How about giving us just one (just one) of these caches?

EDIT: I went to this page then zoomed out until I could see the Delaware Water Gap NRA, and I don't see any caches there.

I must be missing something.

Edited October 16, 2006 by ThePropers

October 16, 2006

Yes, you did say that. How about giving us just one (just one) of these caches?

Not going there again as this is the result...

That cache was one I was searching for when it was archived.

I tend to not want to get other cache placers mad at me for ratting their caches out.........

They are there and can be found if one searches as I did.

Bottom line is my cache was retrieved, I archived it myself and I won't bother trying to list another cache on NPS lands till the end of time.

Good enough?

Edited October 16, 2006 by trackinthebox

October 16, 2006

EDIT: I went to this page then zoomed out until I could see the Delaware Water Gap NRA, and I don't see any caches there.

I must be missing something.

Yup, that map doesn't show the real boundry of Delaware Water Gap NRA.

1.7k · October 16, 2006

The man is correct on that score, you can not rely upon Google Maps to delineate boundaries. In other areas of NJ , both google maps and google earth have serious boundary miscalculations. Case in point Ringwood State Park.

Try the officially produced maps

http://www.nps.gov/dewa/planyourvisit/park-maps.htm

Edited October 16, 2006 by Packanack

1.2k · October 16, 2006

Like I said WAY back in my first post, I spent days researching this park and found many caches contained therein BEFORE I decided to list one there.

IF I had known back then that it was going to cause THIS MUCH controversy, I would have NEVER even tried to put the cache on NPS lands.

One other thing to note is that just because a type of cache exists on GC.com, doesn't mean that it's still a cache that will still be approved under the current GC.com guidelines. By the same token, just because the NPS or any park gave permission for a cache to be placed in their park doesn't mean they are obligated to give permission for additional caches. (See the NY Parks rule regarding this)

.... How about giving us just one (just one) of these caches?

...

Even better, don't listen to us, why don't you (trackinthebox) look at the cache(s) in question and figure out why they are acceptable. Please don't assume it because everyone is out to get you or the reviewers of this site have something against you. You should have enough information to figure this out.

I did this. I looked at the area around you and in the Del Water Gap Region and I understand why there appears to be some caches in the area and why they where approved. And, admittedly, I am not the brightest bulb in the tool shed.

Funny thing, is I found this on a cache listing near the NPS park in question:

Park Rules:

1) Open Dawn to Dusk

2) Keep to Trail

3) Hiking and Walking Only

The following are prohibited:

Picnicking

Partying

Fires

Swimming

Hunting

Fishing

Don't you hate it when a park tells you what you can and can't do? It makes me wanna get out my motorized, pneumatic wheeled roller skates and zip around the trails there! :huh:

There are lots of rules and signs out there telling all us long haired, hippie freaks what we can and can't do. :unsure:

October 16, 2006

Funny thing, is I found this on a cache listing near the NPS park in question:

Park Rules:

1) Open Dawn to Dusk

2) Keep to Trail

3) Hiking and Walking Only

The following are prohibited:

Picnicking

Partying

Fires

Swimming

Hunting

Fishing

Don't you hate it when a park tells you what you can and can't do? It makes me wanna get out my motorized, pneumatic wheeled roller skates and zip around the trails there!

There are lots of rules and signs out there telling all us long haired, hippie freaks what we can and can't do.

Hey, that listing looks familiar

I know people who wade at that park just because it's not prohibited on the sign.

Hey, on a side note, you remember the Pennsylvania family from "Everybody Loves Raymond"? Very accurate depiction...

Fortunately, I grew up close enough to the border to not end up like that.

Edited October 16, 2006 by trackinthebox

21.9k · October 16, 2006

Perhaps rather than lashing out at everyone and everything, you could put on your adult hat and try to be helpful. I know this might sound crazy, but rather than just throwing out the "2 in PA, 7 in NJ" numbers, you could tell us which caches they are. If they have been approved by NPS, or aren't actually on NPS land, then end-of-argument. If they were placed without permission and are indeed on NPS lands (as you vehemently have stated, despite TPTB saying otherwise), then they will be archived, as well they should be.

The OP provided this list of "caches that prove reviewer bias" to me via private message. I have studied each of them closely. Two caches in Pennsylvania have been archived due to the NPS permission issue. If permission can be demonstrated, we would be delighted to re-list them. A third cache in Pennsylvania is so close to the border between the NRA and an adjoining town and public business that I am giving it the benefit of a doubt. It was hidden by an experienced geocacher who is well aware of the NPS policy regarding geocaching, and a private reviewer note confers the owner's good faith belief that the cache is on property that is open to geocaching.

As for the New Jersey caches, all but two are located in Worthington State Forest or Walpack State Wildlife Management Area. The other two caches are located in Delaware Water Gap NRA. Both have permission stated clearly on the cache page.

Given the above summary, there is absolutely no cause for the continued reference to "2 in PA, 7 in NJ" that somehow demonstrate that the volunteer cache reviewers are not doing their job. So, to the OP, no more about that, thank you. (That is a forum moderator regulation, in case I wasn't clear.)

You don't have to like what I'm saying. That's your right. But you would be a fool to ignore it. I am not known in these forums as someone who champions this sites every rule and cause. Because of that when you have the forum wolves and the forum sheep dogs telling you the same things, you really should pay attention.

Amen to that, Ralph. A good day's work in the forums. Time to punch out and enjoy a glass of our favorite beverages.

-- Sam

6.4k · October 16, 2006

So, to the OP, no more about that, thank you. (That is a forum moderator regulation, in case I wasn't clear.)

Gasp!

What about his rights?

I bet Tom Jefferson and the OP's lawyers will have something to say about this!

October 16, 2006

Worthington State Park is located WITHIN Delaware Water Gap NRA

http://www.njskylands.com/pkworthington.htm

"Situated along the river, within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Worthington State Forest comprises almost 6,000 acres..................."

So not only do the NPS rules apply but State Forest as well.

Edited October 16, 2006 by trackinthebox

21.9k · October 16, 2006

Worthington State Park is located WITHIN Delaware Water Gap NRA

http://www.njskylands.com/pkworthington.htm

"Situated along the river, within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Worthington State Forest comprises almost 6,000 acres..................."

So not only do the NPS rules apply but State Forest as well.

So? Lots of different agencies can manage National Recreation Area property. Other examples include the US Forest Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. We only apply the NPS geocaching policy in NRA lands that are managed by the NPS. That's covered in the second semester of Cache Reviewer College. I am glad I paid attention in class that day instead of staring out the window at the parking lot with the guardrail that had a keyholder in it....

Sorry, I digress. The Worthington State Forest caches are under the jurisdiction of ... Worthington State Forest! Go ahead, you can ask the National Park Service. Just like at least one of the cache hiders did, and then explained to the careful New Jersey cache reviewer who quizzed the owner to make sure the cache wasn't on NPS property.

6.4k · October 16, 2006

Worthington State Park is located WITHIN Delaware Water Gap NRA

http://www.njskylands.com/pkworthington.htm

"Situated along the river, within the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, Worthington State Forest comprises almost 6,000 acres..................."

So not only do the NPS rules apply but State Forest as well.

Show me where it says both rules apply?

That's like saying the town of Metuchen, NJ is located within the town of Edison, NJ....so you have to pay property taxes to both towns. Just because a state park is surrounded by a national park, doesn't make it all a national park. I'm sure the state rangers in Worthington know where their paycheck comes from. (hint: it's not the NPS)

October 16, 2006

October 16, 2006

.......

Edited October 16, 2006 by trackinthebox

October 16, 2006

Call it what you will. :unsure:

All it started out as and all it STILL is was asking for the same treatment as everybody else was getting.

Nothing more, nothing less.

21.9k · October 16, 2006

Call it what you will.

All it started out as and all it STILL is was asking for the same treatment as everybody else was getting.

Nothing more, nothing less.

You've received the same treatment, so you're finished with that line of argument. Each cache on Delaware Water Gap NRA property that is managed by the National Park Service either is there with permission or has been archived as a result of inadvertent errors being brought to the reviewers' attention. Your cache was archived too. If the owners of any of the archived caches provide proof of permission from the NPS, including you, the cache can be unarchived.

October 16, 2006

You've received the same treatment, so you're finished with that line of argument. Each cache on Delaware Water Gap NRA property that is managed by the National Park Service either is there with permission or has been archived as a result of inadvertent errors being brought to the reviewers' attention. Your cache was archived too. If the owners of any of the archived caches provide proof of permission from the NPS, including you, the cache can be unarchived.

As I've found, attempting to place a cache on NPS is far too much work in something that is supposed to be a "game".

I'll pass....

October 17, 2006

And with that statement...

October 17, 2006

And with that statement...

By all means ignore this thread if it bothers you that much.

You have contributed a total of 2 posts to this thread, both times to critisize it with no constructive input offered.

Once to claim it was trolling which it most certainly wasn't and now to demand that it be locked.

Please stop.

October 17, 2006

By all means ignore this thread if it bothers you that much.

You have contributed a total of 2 posts to this thread, both times to critisize it with no constructive input offered.

Once to claim it was trolling which it most certainly wasn't and now to demand that it be locked.

Please stop.

Yeah, well you've been caching for a total of 2 weeks and you sure do a lot of bitching and moaning. You can't join a group of people and start off whining about what you don't like about things. It's bad form ol' boy. The answers you've received here have been very diplomatic and patient but your attitude stays the same - confrontational. We as a community accept the rules we follow.

If you don't like these rules, you don't have to participate. Plain and simple. Take it or leave it. No skin off our back. Yada, yada, yada.

October 17, 2006

Yeah, well you've been caching for a total of 2 weeks and you sure do a lot of bitching and moaning. You can't join a group of people and start off whining about what you don't like about things. It's bad form ol' boy. The answers you've received here have been very diplomatic and patient but your attitude stays the same - confrontational. We as a community accept the rules we follow.

If you don't like these rules, you don't have to participate. Plain and simple. Take it or leave it. No skin off our back. Yada, yada, yada.

Like them or not, I still complied. Still doesn't mean I have to like the rules.

You won't find me even trying to place a cache on NPS as long as I live.

And regardless of my forum posts, I have still had fun geocaching in the field, both hiding and finding.

Edited October 17, 2006 by trackinthebox

38.2k · October 17, 2006

Yeah, well you've been caching for a total of 2 weeks and you sure do a lot of bitching and moaning. You can't join a group of people and start off whining about what you don't like about things. It's bad form ol' boy. The answers you've received here have been very diplomatic and patient but your attitude stays the same - confrontational. We as a community accept the rules we follow.

If you don't like these rules, you don't have to participate. Plain and simple. Take it or leave it. No skin off our back. Yada, yada, yada.

Like them or not, I still complied. Still doesn't mean I have to like the rules.

You won't find me even trying to place a cache on NPS as long as I live.

And regardless of my forum posts, I have still had fun geocaching in the field, both hiding and finding.

Great, now that we have this all straightened out...see ya on the trail!

2k · October 17, 2006

I'll bring the snickerdoodles and iced tea.

October 17, 2006

I'll bring the snickerdoodles and iced tea.

:laughing:

3.8k · October 17, 2006

I have an idea.

There needs to be a "Discovered" option for forum threads. You didn't really participate but you want the icon for it. Kind of like for a TB or coin. You want the icon, but you didn't really move the TB or coin.

Anyone know who we can talk to about this?

October 18, 2006

Oh but they do, and they have.

As of this date, there are still 2 non-virtual caches in this park on NPS land in PA. Thus the secondary title of the original post.

One of these PA caches is "hidden" by a premium membership but easily spotted as it is a short distance from a public one.

I made the mistake of pointing one out and it was archived so I wont do that again. However they are still there.

In NJ, in this park, once again on NPS land, there are about a half dozen.

Selective approval of caches is bound to irritate.

I jumped off the bridge because 11 others did but since I mentioned this, 9 got caught but the other 2 still jumped.......

So because they did, then you should???

October 18, 2006

I jumped off the bridge because 11 others did but since I mentioned this, 9 got caught but the other 2 still jumped.......

So because they did, then you should???

Hostilities here have ceased or hadn't you noticed?

At least I hope they have................

October 18, 2006

October 18, 2006

I jumped off the bridge because 11 others did but since I mentioned this, 9 got caught but the other 2 still jumped.......

So because they did, then you should???

Hostilities here have ceased or hadn't you noticed?

At least I hope they have................

To Jump is the willingness of the person which is a free will action.

To be Pushed is a unwilling action caused by another which is therefore hostile.

I was making a point, not being hostile.

October 18, 2006

October 18, 2006

I thought this was over......

Edited October 18, 2006 by trackinthebox

October 18, 2006

The OP provided this list of "caches that prove reviewer bias" to me via private message. I have studied each of them closely. Two caches in Pennsylvania have been archived due to the NPS permission issue. If permission can be demonstrated, we would be delighted to re-list them. A third cache in Pennsylvania is so close to the border between the NRA and an adjoining town and public business that I am giving it the benefit of a doubt. It was hidden by an experienced geocacher who is well aware of the NPS policy regarding geocaching, and a private reviewer note confers the owner's good faith belief that the cache is on property that is open to geocaching.

Given the above summary, there is absolutely no cause for the continued reference to "2 in PA, 7 in NJ" that somehow demonstrate that the volunteer cache reviewers are not doing their job.

Is this that third cache you speak of? If so, you sir, are in error.

Not to do your job for you but.........

........ah what the heck, I'll do your job for you :laughing:

Pocono Cold Air Cave (GC9173) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...09-6bbbe22fc54b is also on NPS property in PA.

http://www.nps.gov/archive/dewa/InDepth/Sp...g/dlwEXLOG.html

"Milepost 75.52 Point of Gap overlook, the destination for the excursion, is one of the most point in Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. The parking area lies at the foot on 1413-foot Mt. Minis in Pennsylvania, and across the Delaware River from 1527-foot Mount Tammany in New Jersey. "Indian Head", the eastward projection of Mt Tammany seen from this point has long been thought to resemble the Indian chieftain's profile. A few hundred yards south on Route 611, Cold Air Cave was a popular local attraction with a stand right on the roadway."

http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...EWS21/609020344

"• In 1967, the tract of land on which the cave sits was purchased by the Army Corps of Engineers. The land and cave eventually became part of the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area."

October 18, 2006

Can some one lock this thread down? There is enough negative energy here to keep us busy for weeks to come.

Thanks!

October 18, 2006

Can some one lock this thread down? There is enough negative energy here to keep us busy for weeks to come.

Thanks!

You put me on your ignore list, please continue to feel free to ignore this thread.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...09-6bbbe22fc54b

is STILL on NPS land in PA.

Edited October 18, 2006 by trackinthebox

Permission

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment