Jump to content

GeoHypocrisy


Recommended Posts

Wow, this thread went south mighty quick. Time to put on the tough guy act here.

Call your "people". You are apparently important enough to bring down the civilized world, you make $70+/hour, and carry on like a 12 year old. We are all tired of it. Shut your yap, or have geocaching banned in america. If I hear one more damned word about who owns what tree in PA, my dad is gonna go kick your dads butt. Then, you can call your friends cousins wx-wifes dogwalkers domestic partners kid to bring ths site, and all the walmart micros, down.

Until then, go to bed, and stop trying to impress us. you lost us with your bragging. Now, you're just getting flamed.

If I get banned, so be it. I get bored REAL fast of people who threaten with alleged power. You have nothing. Deal with it. The world is filled with wannabes...your just one more of the millions. No one cares.

Edited by oldsoldier
Link to comment

Not only is he too busy to call, and is on top of the forums, he was also able to retreive his recently archived caches.

 

Anyone in the area want to go see if they are still there? Since they are archived, anything you find there is surely trash. You may get a good container out of the deal.

 

Only retreived 2 of my archived caches.

 

If someone gets to the last one, a 7.62 mm Ammo Box, you are welcome to it.

 

Small price to pay for wasting 2 weeks.............

 

BTW, if you would care to check my find AND place logs, you would find me to be quite different than you perceive me to be here in the forums.............

Link to comment
Nonetheless, I was forced into an aggressive posture from the word go here.

No one can force you into an aggressive posture in a forum. You can always just walk away.

 

You don't live in PA and you don't know the kind of self righteous tripe they spew in this part of the country. It's sickening......... and infuriating!

So move, if it's so intolerable. :P

Link to comment
And I make $70 + an hour...............

 

Hmmmmm, let's see now.

 

He has slender connections to minor local celebrities, and he's reasonably well-paid at whatever work he does. (I think it's safe to assume it's not in the State Department, though.)

 

That entitles him to be a gurk.

 

Yep. I think that adds up right. :P

Link to comment

Sheesh, he's been around for only two weeks and already his post count is waaaay higher than his find count. That speaks volumes about him. :P

 

Heeey!!

 

Don't worry about, I am sure he is talking about people with a find to post ration much higher than your 1: 38.96!!!

Link to comment

Y'know, I think this topic deserves recognition.

 

Who's up for voting that the term "Pulling a trackinthebox" be used for someone making threats if a cache isn't posted?

 

I'm for it, but can we just make a new acronym and declare a TITB everytime this happens? Not unlike declaring Godwin's Law.

 

For example, Joe-BobCacher compalins his cache is THE PERFECT cache but those hideous people won't approve it! Of course we all find out fairly quickly he's full of it, didn't read the guidelines, doesn't want to take the reviewer's suggestions, and he won't take anyone's advice to resolve his problem. So the first to notice this just enters a post of...

 

TITB

 

and we let the thing die. Here, I'll go first.

 

TITB!!!

Link to comment

Fairness requires me to remind everyone that the forum guidelines apply to all posters. Just because the OP is saying all sorts of bad things about the volunteer cache reviewers does not give everyone else free license to say things about him as a person. Everyone needs to confine their comments and criticism to the geocache, the listing guidelines, the permission philosophies, etc., which are the subject of this thread.

 

To try and steer us back on course, I'll introduce a new fact. Below is a graphic from the Grey Towers website, illustrating the site and how it will be affected by a construction project for a new visitors center. It was the most detailed site drawing that I could easily locate. The red dot along the road on the left side of the graphic is the approximate location of the cache. It's a micro hidden in a knothole of a tree along a trail where visitors learn about the various trees on the property. It has a log sheet and a marble inside.

 

You can tell a lot from maps. :P

 

66d1aaeb-d59f-495d-ae6d-beabab31f0fd.jpg

Link to comment

Fairness requires me to remind everyone that the forum guidelines apply to all posters. Just because the OP is saying all sorts of bad things about the volunteer cache reviewers does not give everyone else free license to say things about him as a person. Everyone needs to confine their comments and criticism to the geocache, the listing guidelines, the permission philosophies, etc., which are the subject of this thread.

 

To try and steer us back on course, I'll introduce a new fact. Below is a graphic from the Grey Towers website, illustrating the site and how it will be affected by a construction project for a new visitors center. It was the most detailed site drawing that I could easily locate. The red dot along the road on the left side of the graphic is the approximate location of the cache. It's a micro hidden in a knothole of a tree along a trail where visitors learn about the various trees on the property. It has a log sheet and a marble inside.

 

You can tell a lot from maps. :P

 

1) Let em rant Keystone, I can take it. Please hold NOTHING against them whatsoever.

 

2) That "Visitors Center" was done last year. (But then again, if you lived here, you would know that)

 

3) That "trail where visitors learn about the various trees on the property" is an asphalt driveway. (But then again, if you lived here, you would know that as well)

 

The cache WAS in a tree next to this PAVED driveway till about 4:00 PM this afternoon.

Edited by trackinthebox
Link to comment

A little over 12 hrs since this thread began and it's up to 5 pages. Is that some kind of record?

 

Not eeeeeeven close.

 

Do a forum search for a thread titled "I know who the Pirates are...." by Jeremy.

 

That one went about 20 pages in 5 minutes (yes, I'm stretching that.... a little) and then went underground into the old, invitation only, private threads.

Link to comment

Fairness requires me to remind everyone that the forum guidelines apply to all posters. Just because the OP is saying all sorts of bad things about the volunteer cache reviewers does not give everyone else free license to say things about him as a person. Everyone needs to confine their comments and criticism to the geocache, the listing guidelines, the permission philosophies, etc., which are the subject of this thread.

 

To try and steer us back on course, I'll introduce a new fact. Below is a graphic from the Grey Towers website, illustrating the site and how it will be affected by a construction project for a new visitors center. It was the most detailed site drawing that I could easily locate. The red dot along the road on the left side of the graphic is the approximate location of the cache. It's a micro hidden in a knothole of a tree along a trail where visitors learn about the various trees on the property. It has a log sheet and a marble inside.

 

You can tell a lot from maps. :P

 

1) Let em rant Keystone, I can take it. Please hold NOTHING against them whatsoever.

 

2) That "Visitors Center" was done last year. (But then again, if you lived here, you would know that)

 

3) That "trail where visitors learn about the various trees on the property" is an asphalt driveway. (But then again, if you lived here, you would know that as well)

 

The cache WAS in a tree next to this PAVED driveway till about 4:00 PM this afternoon.

 

And it's very obvious that it WAS in the Historic landmark property and as such permission IS required unless you can produce PROOF acceptable by the reviewers to the contrary.

THey were right, you were wrong, you lose. Time to pull that big win out of your hat.

Link to comment

I PROMISE that at the rate you are going, you won't have to worry about geocaching or these forums much longer because they people that run the PRIVATELY OWNED website you are using are gonna exercise their rights by showing you the door. And SINCE it's a private site, they can make up any rule they feel like before listing your cache on their PRIVATELY OWNED website. Just like you have the right to make people with green shirts on recite a Thomas Jefferson quote before they can come in your house; the people behind this website can make you jump through any hoop they feel like before listing (or not) your cache.

Now be a good little boy and go BackInYourBox, mmmkay?

Mopar raises a good point that is probably overlooked by users of geocaching.com. Geocaching.com is a private listing service where people can list the locations of containers hidden on public and private land. Geocaching.com has the right, as a private entity, to require whatever it wishes (within legal bounds) as a listing requirement. This means geocaching.com can have requirements stricter than those established by a governmental body or land owner, if deemed necessary. There are other cache listing services. If the OP doesn't like how the game is played here, there are other places to play. I have to ask the OP, is having this cache listed so important to your quality of life 6 months to a year from now that it was worth ticking off dozens of people and ruining your reputation in the geocaching community?
Link to comment

And it's very obvious that it WAS in the Historic landmark property and as such permission IS required unless you can produce PROOF acceptable by the reviewers to the contrary.

THey were right, you were wrong, you lose. Time to pull that big win out of your hat.

 

Please show me a Forest Service Rule, a CFR, ANYTHING from the GOVERNMENT that demads I ask for permission to place a cache there.

 

All I see is the reviewer asking for permission where none is requested by the government.......

Link to comment

Trackinthebox, thank you for confirming that you removed your cache. I only wish that everyone who archived their cache would do the same.

 

Whoops, it looks like the official website is a bit out of date concerning their facility improvements. Probably a funding shortage. In any event, the completion of the visitor center/parking lot only strengthens the concern originally identified about your cache.

 

The trail with the tree identification theme is not the asphalt driveway, but rather a path which runs parallel to it. I am just going off the description of the trail system, per the facility's website. If in fact the cache is hidden just off the asphalt driveway, this confirms the concerns originally identified about your cache.

 

FYI, even though I've found about 1,000 geocaches in 35 counties within Pennsylvania, I still have never been to most of the locations where I publish caches. It's impossible to visit everywhere. That's what's cool about this game. I know the area around my home very well, and I hide caches there for visitors to find. Those visitors hide caches where they live, and I have fun going there to find these new places. It's a marvelous thing. :P Reviewers are quite capable of doing their job from a distance. It is an established system that works very well for most. If we have questions about the site, we ask and the cache owner answers, since they've been there.

Link to comment

So, are the walmart LPCs banned yet? I am waiting for the shoe to drop...

 

In all honesty though, I undertsand your anger. But, decisions made in anger are quite often regretted later. No offense, but, if you gotta throw names around, you are dealing with inadequacy issues. I dont care one way or another who you're related to, who walks you dog, etc; you come off throwing names and threats, people are gonna react. A mature conversation begins with an open mind, not an open mouth.

 

I'm still holding back that finger....

 

Nonetheless, I was forced into an aggressive posture from the word go here.

 

You don't live in PA and you don't know the kind of self righteous tripe they spew in this part of the country. It's sickening......... and infuriating!

 

Just watch some old "Everybody Loves Raymond" episodes with the PA family. VERY accurate depiction.

I have spent time with and cached with all of the reviewers for PA. I've found them to be some of the nicest people I know. I'm sorry that you think otherwise, you're missing out.

Link to comment

And it's very obvious that it WAS in the Historic landmark property and as such permission IS required unless you can produce PROOF acceptable by the reviewers to the contrary.

THey were right, you were wrong, you lose. Time to pull that big win out of your hat.

 

Please show me a Forest Service Rule, a CFR, ANYTHING from the GOVERNMENT that demads I ask for permission to place a cache there.

 

All I see is the reviewer asking for permission where none is requested by the government.......

 

 

To this, the best responce I have read concerns the 15 item checkout line. there is no government rule stating you are not allowed through the express line with 50 items, but Kroger/Publix/Safeway/Albertson/etc can still require it since it is their operation.

 

If you are so certain the government will not have a problem \with it, then permission should be a cinch to obtain. [edit: remove smart alec comments about the OP's claimed connections and power]

Link to comment

THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T RUN THIS SITE - GEOCACHING.COM DOES! IT'S THEIR RULE! They can make any rules they want. That's only been stated about 10 times now! GET IT ALREADY! You don't have to like their rules. Apparently you don't. The vast majority of us do! GET OVER IT. Nobody is making you play this game. In fact, it seems most of us don't want you to play anyway!

 

You called Hypocrisy. You had your rant. Everyone else disagrees. You've been PROVEN wrong. ACCEPT IT. Find another game to play if you don't like this one. Sorry you'll be missing out on all the fun the rest of us have playing the game.

Link to comment

And it's very obvious that it WAS in the Historic landmark property and as such permission IS required unless you can produce PROOF acceptable by the reviewers to the contrary.

THey were right, you were wrong, you lose. Time to pull that big win out of your hat.

 

Please show me a Forest Service Rule, a CFR, ANYTHING from the GOVERNMENT that demads I ask for permission to place a cache there.

 

All I see is the reviewer asking for permission where none is requested by the government.......

And it's their RIGHT to be able to do it. They can ask permission where none is requested from the gubbment if they want to, because IT'S THEIR WEBSITE. Since you don't like it, your only option is to go away.

For a someone that claims to be a smart guy, why is this concept so hard to grasp?

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

The trail with the tree identification theme is not the asphalt driveway, but rather a path which runs parallel to it. I am just going off the description of the trail system, per the facility's website. If in fact the cache is hidden just off the asphalt driveway, this confirms the concerns originally identified about your cache.

 

Everbody Loves Keystone.........

 

There is no "path which runs parallel to it" (the asphalt driveway), it is on the opposite side of the field. (But once AGAIN, if you lived here, you would know this to be the case)

 

And BTW.......the tree in question (where the cache WAS) is DEAD!

Link to comment

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 on land maintained by the U.S. National Park Service or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Refuges)

Caches that are buried. If a shovel, trowel or other “pointy” object is used to dig, whether in order to hide or to find the cache, then it is not appropriate.

Caches that deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a clue or a logging method.

Caches placed on archaeological or historical sites. In most cases these areas are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans.

Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

Caches near or on military installations.

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

 

It may not be the government that requires permission, Geocaching requires it.

Link to comment

The trail with the tree identification theme is not the asphalt driveway, but rather a path which runs parallel to it. I am just going off the description of the trail system, per the facility's website. If in fact the cache is hidden just off the asphalt driveway, this confirms the concerns originally identified about your cache.

 

Everbody Loves Keystone.........

 

There is no "path which runs parallel to it" (the asphalt driveway), it is on the opposite side of the field. (But once AGAIN, if you lived here, you would know this to be the case)

 

And BTW.......the tree in question (where the cache WAS) is DEAD!

A micro in a dead tree, sounds like a quality hide. :P

Link to comment

Wonder if the he-man-micro-haters club (PA chapter) still supports CrackInTheBox's right to get that cache listed?

 

Yep, cause it sounds like an interesting place. Unlike the most of these caches which I just sought an offical position on by writing to WalMart.

 

I'll let you know what they say, so we can put this arguement to bed too OK?

 

My fingers aren't itchy.

Edited by D@nim@l
Link to comment

And Mopar,

 

If anyone has their finger on speed dial, it's you son.......

But still no admission.......

 

Surely a freedom-loving guy like you wants freedom for everyone? Freedom for someone to make the rules in their own home without the govt telling them what to do?

But then, you cant admit that Groundspeak has a right to ask any question they want before listing a cache on their website, can ya?

Because that would be admitting you're wrong.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

Notice he keeps ignoring the fact that this is a privately owned website that has the RIGHT to ask him for permission if they want to? Cause if he acknowledges that, all 3 of his ranting threads are moot.

 

This is what he doesn't seem to grasp. Geocaching.com can make us stand on one leg and sing a tune about jolly ol' Ireland before they'll approve caches, and it doesn't matter one bit if the government has a rule about it or not.

 

Grasping concepts and TITB do not go hand-in-hand.

Link to comment

Notice he keeps ignoring the fact that this is a privately owned website that has the RIGHT to ask him for permission if they want to? Cause if he acknowledges that, all 3 of his ranting threads are moot.

 

Why then is it ok to ignore that WalMart is privately owned property and that they may want to exercise the right to give permission to have something placed there?

Link to comment

There is no "path which runs parallel to it" (the asphalt driveway), it is on the opposite side of the field. (But once AGAIN, if you lived here, you would know this to be the case)

 

And BTW.......the tree in question (where the cache WAS) is DEAD!

From the Grey Towers website:

 

Tree Trail - You can wander, walk, saunter, run, skip or hop through the field along the estate driveway and learn about some of the trees of Grey Towers. Tree ID signs reveal the names and most popular uses of these trees.

 

"Look, Daddy! It's a rare specimen of Canisterus Kodakus! It is popular for people to use these trees when they've lost their marbles!"

Link to comment

 

Why then is it ok to ignore that WalMart is privately owned property and that they may want to exercise the right to give permission to have something placed there?

 

As several of us have pointed out, TITB does have a valid point here, but this thread really isnt about approval of WalMart caches (there are plenty of threads about that), this mostly has to do with his rejection of approval because the reviewer wanted him to have explicit permission.

 

I can see how he thinks the ideas are linked, but in the end, both have to be dealt with separetly.

Link to comment

"Look, Daddy! It's a rare specimen of Canisterus Kodakus! It is popular for people to use these trees when they've lost their marbles!"

Keystone, I now view you in a new light. You are always the voice of reason. I am glad to read you have a bit of inner smart a** in you as well.

Link to comment

Tomorrow morning BRIGHT and early.

 

Thanks for the inspiration Mopar........and Keystone

 

Them: Hello, how can I help you?

 

Me: Hi, I just wanted to bring to your attention to a group of people that THINK they have a right to conduct a public sport on your property without your knowledge. They mess around your light poles which is kind of dangerous as might get someone injured by an electrical shock. I'm just looking out for you and wouldn't want to see you sued by these people if they get hurt on your land.

 

Them: Thank you for bringing this to our attention, etc, etc, etc...................

 

Next........EVERY cemetery in the yellow pages...............

 

Have fun :P

Edited by trackinthebox
Link to comment

Notice he keeps ignoring the fact that this is a privately owned website that has the RIGHT to ask him for permission if they want to? Cause if he acknowledges that, all 3 of his ranting threads are moot.

 

Why then is it ok to ignore that WalMart is privately owned property and that they may want to exercise the right to give permission to have something placed there?

You keep bringing this up, though Wal-Mart's architecture and parking lot are about as far removed from Grey Towers as any two examples could ever be.

 

I think it's time to break out the "permission post." Originally written in response to a question from someone who's been active in this thread, the "permission post" is now part of the reviewer's reference guide. Here it is:

 

We start with the proposition that the hider of the cache is responsible for obtaining "adequate permission." Note that it says "adequate permission" in the guidelines -- NOT just "permission." We rely upon cache owners to think about this issue and make a determination about what permission is necessary. In submitting a cache report, the geocacher assures the listing service that adequate permission has been obtained, and the listing service assumes that this is the case. Geocaching.com is a listing service, not a guarantor of the proposition that every cache is placed with permission. But sometimes there are reasons why this assumption ought to be questioned. Here are some of them:

 

1. When a landowner / land manager such as a park system or a private land conservancy trust has a published geocaching policy that Groundspeak is aware of, then the volunteer cache reviewer will ask the cache owner about compliance with that policy. Knowing of the policy's existence, it is not appropriate to blindly assume compliance with the policy if no mention is made of this on the cache page. So we will ask whether a required permit has been obtained. We will point out that XYZ park system has banned geocaches, and ask whether the hider obtained permission despite that policy. Sometimes they do.

 

2. When a cache is hidden on land that is obviously private, like someone's back yard, it is unwise to blindly assume permission. Usually permission is stated or implied on the cache page ("this cache is hidden in our front yard -- please, no night caching"). If it isn't, the reviewer may ask about it. The guidelines require permission for caches hidden on private property. There's even a specific sentence about never ignoring a "no trespassing" sign.

 

3. Some locations are so sensitive in nature that it is unwise to assume that permission has been obtained, so specific listing guidelines have been adopted to guard against placements in those areas. Examples include airports, government buildings, school yards, dams and highway bridges. If the reviewer sees a cache in one of these locations, they will challenge the assumption of adequate permission by reference to these specific guidelines.

 

In most other cases -- ranging from suburban parks to shopping centers -- it is up to the cache owner to determine what constitutes "adequate permission." One cache owner might conclude that no formal permission at all is needed for a particular spot, while another will obtain written or oral permission for a different cache location because their instinct tells them that permission is a good idea. If the cache owner arrives at an unwarranted conclusion, the listing service will react to questions about permission. First, if a land owner / land manager requests removal of a cache placed without permission, Groundspeak's policy is to archive the cache unless and until the hider is able to straighten things out and provide an explanation of clear permission. Second, if another geocacher sees a cache location which causes them to have doubts about permission, they are welcome to raise their concern with the cache owner. If that is not productive, the geocacher may contact the website, contact a volunteer reviewer, or place a "needs archived" log on the cache page. The system is thus largely self-policing in this majority of circumstances.

Link to comment

Notice he keeps ignoring the fact that this is a privately owned website that has the RIGHT to ask him for permission if they want to? Cause if he acknowledges that, all 3 of his ranting threads are moot.

 

Why then is it ok to ignore that WalMart is privately owned property and that they may want to exercise the right to give permission to have something placed there?

 

It follows the old principal that sometimes it's easier to ask forgiveness instead of asking permission. :P

 

I'm sure if your efforts produce results, then there will be a new rule in the guidelines forbidding the placement of caches in WalMart parking lots. Then, when the next TITB comes along and has a rant because he can't place a Wally skirtlifter, we can all point him/her to the guidelines...

Link to comment
Tomorrow morning BRIGHT and early.

 

Thanks for the inspiration Mopar........

 

Them: Hello, how can I help you?

 

Me: Hi, I just wanted to bring to your attention to a group of people that THINK they have a right to conduct a public sport on your property without your knowledge. They mess around your light poles which is kind of dangerous as might get someone injured by an electrical shock. I'm just looking out for you and wouldn't want to see you sued by these people if they get hurt on your land.

 

Them: Thank you for bring this to our attention, etc, etc, etc...................

 

Next........EVERY cemetery in the yellow pages...............

 

Have fun :P

 

 

and this proves...

 

In the end you purify the sport which I thank you for... it doesn't get you any closer to having your caches approved?

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...