To ban or not to ban LPC's

[+DrAwKwArD]

Briansnat's post in another thread made me think: So the access panel hide does exist?

 

My second LPC hunt included me digging out a screwdriver and opening up the access panel until I came to my senses.. DNF. This is yet another reason to avoid any type of cache that can be misconstrued and private property being tampered with. Another case in point was my first LPC hunt at a state prison nonetheless. I proceded to bypass the lamp post and go straight for the sprinkler head. When it proved obvious that it WAS a sprinkler head I couldn't get the darn thing back together, so I promptly took my leave. I came home and discovered that 4 of the previous finders had been approached by security personnel in a not-so-nice manner. The moral to the story: Think before you hide urban micros. If you still plan to hide one.. think some more. Prison cache link:Phatboyz: Goto Jail! Do not pass go... hidden 9/25/04 but now archived.

Edited February 9, 2007 by cache-n-dash

[+NorthWes]

The last LPC I did found me leaping backwards about ten feet as I lifted the skirt and the roiling mass of bugs (cockroaches?) hiding beneath spilled out into the bright light of day. Yech! That was the last LPC I did during my most recent visit to the Las Vegas area... I HATE surprise bugs! I bet I looked hilarious...

 

...and I wouldn't miss 'em if prohibited...

 

...oh - and I did put on gloves & log the find. Yup - then threw those nitrex gloves away... YECH!

[+GRANPA ALEX]

We ain't got no bugs in NC, lots of skirt lifters - no worries (trust me)!

[+CYBret]

First they came for my virts and I said nothing because I did not like virts.

 

Then they came for my lpc's and I said nothing because I did not like lpc's...

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you Mr. Bonhoeffer.

 

[Clan Riffster]

I would actually like to see a guideline requiring explicit permission for any parking lot cache, regardless of size or proximity to lamp posts.

I think it would be good for the game.

Just my $0.02

[+Super_Nate]

We ain't got no bugs in NC, lots of skirt lifters - no worries (trust me)!

 

I know your title now.....yer the Geowoodstock 5 recruiter! Well, ya won me....I'll be there!

 

Do you mind placing a few more skirt lifters a couple weeks before the big event? I wanna get me some more numbers

Edited February 9, 2007 by Super_Nate

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I would actually like to see a guideline requiring explicit permission for any parking lot cache, regardless of size or proximity to lamp posts.

I think it would be good for the game.

Just my $0.02

So I drive 40 miles into the forest on dirt roads to find a parking lot for a trailhead leading to the Appalachian Trail... it's a parking lot and by your post needs explicit permission?

 

We have lots of Park-n-Ride parking lots to encourage carpooling - we need explicit permission to hide a cache in such parking lots?

 

We have malls with acre after acre of paved parking lots, thousands of folks driving and walking all over, cars being stolen from them, people being robbed in them... but an LPC needs explicit permission in them?

 

Which parking lots, exactly, do you want this to apply to?

[+DrAwKwArD]

[

 

We have malls with acre after acre of paved parking lots, thousands of folks driving and walking all over, cars being stolen from them, people being robbed in them... but an LPC needs explicit permission in them?

 

 

You're abosolutely right. People stealing cars from parking lots and people robbing others in parking lots also need permission.

 

Good, we got that cleared up... whew.

[Clan Riffster]

Which parking lots, exactly, do you want this to apply to?

I thought that was obvious, but apparently it was not. Sorry I was not clear. The answer to your question about my opinion would be, all of them. Let's assume for the moment that you weren't trying to shamelessly twist my post to suit your personal needs, and treat your concern accordingly:

 

Would it be a detriment to the game to make BillyBobNosePicker get explicit permission for his Appalachian Trail Trailhead parking lot cache?

 

Would it be a detriment to the game to make BillyBobNosePicker get explicit permission for his Wally World parking lot hide?

 

In either scenario, a confronted cacher could easily direct those doing the confronting to the person that allowed the hide.

[+TrailGators]

Which parking lots, exactly, do you want this to apply to?

I thought that was obvious, but apparently it was not. Sorry I was not clear. The answer to your question about my opinion would be, all of them. Let's assume for the moment that you weren't trying to shamelessly twist my post to suit your personal needs, and treat your concern accordingly:

 

Would it be a detriment to the game to make BillyBobNosePicker get explicit permission for his Appalachian Trail Trailhead parking lot cache?

 

Would it be a detriment to the game to make BillyBobNosePicker get explicit permission for his Wally World parking lot hide?

 

In either scenario, a confronted cacher could easily direct those doing the confronting to the person that allowed the hide.

Hey CR, I just checked and there are no geocachers named BillyBobNosePicker.

 

Edit: Changed CF to CR..I was tired when I wrote that...

Edited February 9, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

Briansnat's post in another thread made me think: So the access panel hide does exist?

 

My second LPC hunt included me digging out a screwdriver and opening up the access panel until I came to my senses.. DNF. This is yet another reason to avoid any type of cache that can be misconstrued and private property being tampered with. Another case in point was my first LPC hunt at a state prison nonetheless. I proceded to bypass the lamp post and go straight for the sprinkler head. When it proved obvious that it WAS a sprinkler head I couldn't get the darn thing back together, so I promptly took my leave. I came home and discovered that 4 of the previous finders had been approached by security personnel in a not-so-nice manner. The moral to the story: Think before you hide urban micros. If you still plan to hide one.. think some more. Prison cache link:Phatboyz: Goto Jail! Do not pass go... hidden 9/25/04 but now archived.

 

Good advice. I cringe when I see caches like that.

[+Syndam]

Which parking lots, exactly, do you want this to apply to?

I thought that was obvious, but apparently it was not. Sorry I was not clear. The answer to your question about my opinion would be, all of them. Let's assume for the moment that you weren't trying to shamelessly twist my post to suit your personal needs, and treat your concern accordingly:

 

Would it be a detriment to the game to make BillyBobNosePicker get explicit permission for his Appalachian Trail Trailhead parking lot cache?

 

Would it be a detriment to the game to make BillyBobNosePicker get explicit permission for his Wally World parking lot hide?

 

In either scenario, a confronted cacher could easily direct those doing the confronting to the person that allowed the hide.

Hey CF, I just checked and there are no geocachers named BillyBobNosePicker.

Now I need to find that thread that was "How to change your user name"...

Edited February 9, 2007 by Syndam

[+TrailGators]

Which parking lots, exactly, do you want this to apply to?

I thought that was obvious, but apparently it was not. Sorry I was not clear. The answer to your question about my opinion would be, all of them. Let's assume for the moment that you weren't trying to shamelessly twist my post to suit your personal needs, and treat your concern accordingly:

 

Would it be a detriment to the game to make BillyBobNosePicker get explicit permission for his Appalachian Trail Trailhead parking lot cache?

 

Would it be a detriment to the game to make BillyBobNosePicker get explicit permission for his Wally World parking lot hide?

 

In either scenario, a confronted cacher could easily direct those doing the confronting to the person that allowed the hide.

Hey CR, I just checked and there are no geocachers named BillyBobNosePicker.

Now I need to find that thread that was "How to change your user name"...

Edited February 9, 2007 by TrailGators

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Which parking lots, exactly, do you want this to apply to?

I thought that was obvious, but apparently it was not. Sorry I was not clear. The answer to your question about my opinion would be, all of them. Let's assume for the moment that you weren't trying to shamelessly twist my post to suit your personal needs, and treat your concern accordingly:

 

Would it be a detriment to the game to make BillyBobNosePicker get explicit permission for his Appalachian Trail Trailhead parking lot cache?

 

Would it be a detriment to the game to make BillyBobNosePicker get explicit permission for his Wally World parking lot hide?

 

In either scenario, a confronted cacher could easily direct those doing the confronting to the person that allowed the hide.

No, I may not be the best of writers, maybe I don't express myself as well as I should, but I am not trying to twist your post - I have no dog in this fight, no parking-lot caches, so to me it really is just trying to understand and discuss.

 

I try to write without sounding argumentative and angry, I am neither, but evidently don't have much success with that.

 

I tried to mention three types of parking-lots where I can see no reason for explicit permission in response to your idea that all parking-lots should have them.

 

As to the "would it be a detriment" questions, yes, I think it would in those cases, just as it would be to require explicit permission for a cache just up the trail from the trail-head parking lot - I can't see why one would and one wouldn't.

[+TrailGators]

It seems like a parking lot cache at a local business would be in violation of this guideline:

 

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services.

 

The business probably figures that by allowing geocaching on their property it will entice (solicit) those people to shop at their business. Why else would they give permission?

[Clan Riffster]

As to the "would it be a detriment" questions, yes, I think it would in those cases, just as it would be to require explicit permission for a cache just up the trail from the trail-head parking lot - I can't see why one would and one wouldn't.

I'm afraid you lost me there, Ed. Can you explain how requiring explicit permission would hurt either one? In my case, I'm focused more on the Wally World parking lot, not the AT parking lot, but the debate could conceivably be stretched to cover both. At the Wally World lot you have a business that would either want folks pawing around their shrubbery, lifting their lamp post skirts, etc, or they would not want it. If they do want it, everything's golden. Management is happy cuz a fairly benign activity is drawing potential customers. Cachers are happy cuz the rent-a-cops aren't hassling them. It's a win-win scenario. If they don't want us playing in their hundred acres of black top, then maybe we owe it to the community to avoid any potential black eyes and plop our soggy log film canisters elsewhere. Management's happy cuz they don't have to worry about eccentric ol' geezers playing with high tech gadgets on their property. Cachers are happy cuz they don't get hassled by rent-a-cops. Again, a win-win scenario.

 

I'm not seeing a whole lot of detriment here.

[CoyoteRed]

I'm not seeing a whole lot of detriment here.

 

Neither do I.

 

What I do see is an issue with the definition of a parking lot as you know a small segment will attempt to twist the definition to their advantage and continue to place the caches we're talking about.

 

Second is the problem with the "we need parking lot micros for the poor wheelchair-bound and feeble" crowd--alway the ones to relegate the less mobile to generally less-than-satisfying caches.

 

Third will be the segment, quite a large and vocal one, that will howl because they can no longer do the types of cache runs of yore. No longer will they be able to simply slide the van door open to find, retrieve, sign, and replace a cache without stepping out--much less do that a couple hundred times in a day. Look above to references to GW5 and you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

I see problems, a lot of them, in banning, or even slightly restricting, PLCs, or even LPCs for that matter.

 

Call me a cynic, but I don't see it happening without a massive outside force coming down hard on Groundspeak or the general community.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm not seeing a whole lot of detriment here.

 

Neither do I.

 

What I do see is an issue with the definition of a parking lot as you know a small segment will attempt to twist the definition to their advantage and continue to place the caches we're talking about.

 

Second is the problem with the "we need parking lot micros for the poor wheelchair-bound and feeble" crowd--alway the ones to relegate the less mobile to generally less-than-satisfying caches.

 

Third will be the segment, quite a large and vocal one, that will howl because they can no longer do the types of cache runs of yore. No longer will they be able to simply slide the van door open to find, retrieve, sign, and replace a cache without stepping out--much less do that a couple hundred times in a day. Look above to references to GW5 and you'll know what I'm talking about.

 

I see problems, a lot of them, in banning, or even slightly restricting, PLCs, or even LPCs for that matter.

 

Call me a cynic, but I don't see it happening without a massive outside force coming down hard on Groundspeak or the general community.

 

I've been saying for ages that almost all retail parking lot LPC's are placed without permission, while the reviewers look the other way, even though permission is required for such hides. But nothing is going to happen, so put me down for what Coyote Red said. The prison parking lot cache referenced by the OP is almost unbelievable. It definately would have ended up on my ignore list. But I don't think ignore lists existed back then.

 

Edit: for spelling, and to clarify CR meaning Coyote Red, as opposed to Clan Riffster.

Edited February 9, 2007 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+sbell111]

Briansnat's post in another thread made me think: So the access panel hide does exist?

 

My second LPC hunt included me digging out a screwdriver and opening up the access panel until I came to my senses .. DNF. This is yet another reason to avoid any type of cache that can be misconstrued and private property being tampered with. Another case in point was my first LPC hunt at a state prison nonetheless. I proceded to bypass the lamp post and go straight for the sprinkler head. When it proved obvious that it WAS a sprinkler head I couldn't get the darn thing back together, so I promptly took my leave. ... The moral to the story: Think before you hide urban micros.

Golly. Do you always tear up the area that you are searching in?

 

I've found a few caches and have never felt the need to take a screwdriver to any piece of equipment. I've also found a few sprinkler head caches. They were all obvious. A quick inspection (without disassembly) determines whether a sprinkler head is real or fake.

 

For some reason, everyone is quick to read your post and jump on the band wagon to ban LPMs. However, you didn't know that either of those caches were LPMs. In fact, you didn't check to see if they were LPMs.

 

The real moral of the story is that we should all use our heads when looking for a cache and not do damage to the area. This is true whether you are looking for a cache in the woods or in the asphalt jungle.

[+TrailGators]

The real moral of the story is that we should all use our heads when looking for a cache and not do damage to the area. This is true whether you are looking for a cache in the woods or in the asphalt jungle.

I agree. However, I also think that certain locations of cache placements inevitably lead to problems. Some people simply don't get it and you have to take those people into account when you place a cache. I can't tell you how many trampled landscaping/flower beds I've seen. It's really annoying.

[+sbell111]

The real moral of the story is that we should all use our heads when looking for a cache and not do damage to the area. This is true whether you are looking for a cache in the woods or in the asphalt jungle.

I agree. However, I also think that certain locations of cache placements inevitably lead to problems. Some people simply don't get it and you have to take those people into account when you place a cache. I can't tell you how many trampled landscaping/flower beds I've seen. It's really annoying.

I think that we all can agree that of all hide methods, LPMs have the very smallest chance of causing damage to the surrounding area.

[+TrailGators]

The real moral of the story is that we should all use our heads when looking for a cache and not do damage to the area. This is true whether you are looking for a cache in the woods or in the asphalt jungle.

I agree. However, I also think that certain locations of cache placements inevitably lead to problems. Some people simply don't get it and you have to take those people into account when you place a cache. I can't tell you how many trampled landscaping/flower beds I've seen. It's really annoying.

I think that we all can agree that of all hide methods, LPMs have the very smallest chance of causing damage to the surrounding area.

I hate to say it, but I guess that is one pro for them.

[+DrAwKwArD]

Golly. Do you always tear up the area that you are searching in?

 

I've found a few caches and have never felt the need to take a screwdriver to any piece of equipment. I've also found a few sprinkler head caches. They were all obvious. A quick inspection (without disassembly) determines whether a sprinkler head is real or fake.

Hmmm.. you've seemed to miss my original point entirely. My whole argument involves newbie cachers like myself in times passed where it's conceivable that the cacher will mistake a nearby object for the cache. For example, we have the common post, "Boy, I'm glad I've found one like this before, so it was an easy find." This causes you to think that probably the first time this person hunted for the LPC-type hide it was a whole different matter. They may have even posted DNF after a thorough search of the area.

 

As for the screwdriver, yes, I've found several caches where a screwdriver or some other tool was necessary to extricate the container or logsheet.

For some reason, everyone is quick to read your post and jump on the band wagon to ban LPMs. However, you didn't know that either of those caches were LPMs. In fact, you didn't check to see if they were LPMs.

Again, you've completely confused me with someone who actually knew what a LPC was. I had never before hunted a LPC-type cache before. Obviously, if I had, why would I search around the lamp post?

The real moral of the story is that we should all use our heads when looking for a cache and not do damage to the area. This is true whether you are looking for a cache in the woods or in the asphalt jungle.

If you reread my original post above you'll notice that I referenced the cache hidden in the access panel. Why did I remove the access panel during my first time? Obviously, because I think like a cacher, and sometimes cachers place them there! I've learned a valuable lesson to just move on since there are plenty of better hides just calling me, but newbies will continue to hunt LPC's, look suspicious, and at times try to tamper with nearby property. It happens. And it's a problem.

Edited February 9, 2007 by cache-n-dash

[+sbell111]

I still don't think your premise calls for banning LPCs.

 

As you say, once you've found a LPC, that's the first place you look. Therefore, the fact that many LPCs exist, doesn't increase the potential for damage.

 

I also disagree with your premise that the placement of a cache necessarily results in damage to the area. Irresponsible seekers cause damage. Responsible seekers cause no damage. This is true whether you are looking for a cache on the side of a mountain or in the parking lot of the nearby Meiers.

[+DrAwKwArD]

I also disagree with your premise that the placement of a cache necessarily results in damage to the area. Irresponsible seekers cause damage. Responsible seekers cause no damage. This is true whether you are looking for a cache on the side of a mountain or in the parking lot of the nearby Meiers.

 

Here's my log for the above cache:

 

The hint said: "Lift and look...not to hard miss." I feel I did the responsible thing and reported potential problems with this hide. And apparently I'm not alone in thinking this. Posters in this very thread seem dumbfounded that a cache at a Correctional Institute would even exist. So, is it the hiders fault or the finders?

[+ibycus]

I also disagree with your premise that the placement of a cache necessarily results in damage to the area. Irresponsible seekers cause damage. Responsible seekers cause no damage. This is true whether you are looking for a cache on the side of a mountain or in the parking lot of the nearby Meiers.

 

Are you telling me you've never gotten carried away with a search? Ever? Maybe checking fence post caps and seeing if they come off? (ooops it did..and shouldn't have), or looking for loose rocks. or loose logs, and not putting them back exactly where you found them?

I remember my first fence post cache. Had no idea where to look. I spend a good 45 minutes wandering about the nearby bush looking for the cache... Did I tear things apart? No. Did I maybe break a few branches (accidentally) or step in a few places I shouldn't? Probably. Was I being irresponsible? I'm not sure. Its tempting to cause any damage at all irresponsible, especially when you consider multiplying it by 50 or more people coming through. But the fact is, unless the hide is brain dead obvious, *some* damage will be caused by the search.

[+sbell111]

I also disagree with your premise that the placement of a cache necessarily results in damage to the area. Irresponsible seekers cause damage. Responsible seekers cause no damage. This is true whether you are looking for a cache on the side of a mountain or in the parking lot of the nearby Meiers.

 

Here's my log for the above cache:

 

The hint said: "Lift and look...not to hard miss." I feel I did the responsible thing and reported potential problems with this hide. And apparently I'm not alone in thinking this. Posters in this very thread seem dumbfounded that a cache at a Correctional Institute would even exist. So, is it the hiders fault or the finders?

The damage to the sprinkler system is clearly the finder's fault. Whether the cache was in the parking lot of a prison or that of a state park makes no difference. The reason people 'seemed dumbfounded' was because they wouldn't want to head to the prison to look for a cache, not because of the damage.

[+ibycus]

The damage to the sprinkler system is clearly the finder's fault. Whether the cache was in the parking lot of a prison or that of a state park makes no difference. The reason people 'seemed dumbfounded' was because they wouldn't want to head to the prison to look for a cache, not because of the damage.

 

I should also ask, have you never taken anything apart (caching or not), being sure it would go back together, and have it fall apart in your hands?

 

You pull, figuring its just stuck, and then ooops you pull too hard and break it?

[+sbell111]

I remember my first fence post cache. Had no idea where to look. I spend a good 45 minutes wandering about the nearby bush looking for the cache... Did I tear things apart? No. Did I maybe break a few branches (accidentally) or step in a few places I shouldn't? Probably. Was I being irresponsible? I'm not sure. Its tempting to cause any damage at all irresponsible, especially when you consider multiplying it by 50 or more people coming through. But the fact is, unless the hide is brain dead obvious, *some* damage will be caused by the search.

Your examples of turning over a rock or breaking small branches is quite different than what the OP described.

[+sbell111]

I should also ask, have you never taken anything apart (caching or not), being sure it would go back together, and have it fall apart in your hands?

 

You pull, figuring its just stuck, and then ooops you pull too hard and break it?

In normal life? Of course. While caching? No.

 

Edited to add that either way, if I break something that I don't own, it's my responsibility to fix it or pay for it's replacement. Just because a cache was hidden nearby does not transfer that responsibility to anyone else.

Edited February 9, 2007 by sbell111

[+Nero]

We already have enough regulations/rules.

 

If you don't like them, don't do them.

 

Next.

[chuckr30]

Commercial caches attempt to use the Geocaching.com web site cache reporting tool directly or indirectly (intentionally or non-intentionally) to solicit customers through a Geocaching.com listing. These are NOT permitted. Examples include for-profit locations that require an entrance fee, or locations that sell products or services.

So it is ok for people to put caches in state parks, which are non-profit but require an entrance fee?

[+DrAwKwArD]

The damage to the sprinkler system is clearly the finder's fault. Whether the cache was in the parking lot of a prison or that of a state park makes no difference. The reason people 'seemed dumbfounded' was because they wouldn't want to head to the prison to look for a cache, not because of the damage.

Ok, let's agree on something, By George. Yes, it was the finder's fault (mine). And a lot of faults add up to one big mess and affect the good name of Caching.

[+sbell111]

The damage to the sprinkler system is clearly the finder's fault. Whether the cache was in the parking lot of a prison or that of a state park makes no difference. The reason people 'seemed dumbfounded' was because they wouldn't want to head to the prison to look for a cache, not because of the damage.

Ok, let's agree on something, By George. Yes, it was the finder's fault (mine). And a lot of faults add up to one big mess and affect the good name of Caching.

The point at which we differ is that the potential damage to the game in your examples was caused by you, not the cache owners. Further, it was caused by your find methods, not the hide methods of the cache owners.

[+DrAwKwArD]

The point at which we differ is that the potential damage to the game in your examples was caused by you, not the cache owners. Further, it was caused by your find methods, not the hide methods of the cache owners.

Back to differing again, are we?

 

sbell111 and all defenders of the free LPC world will just never understand (getting back to the original issue) the potential dangers of LPC's. But, then again, if lamp post caches go the way of the dodo bird we'll never again have that rush of adrenaline as we dart across the parking lot hoping, just hoping, we won't be spotted by security personnel. Ah, shucks, I miss'em already.

[+sbell111]

Back to differing again, are we?

 

sbell111 and all defenders of the free LPC world will just never understand (getting back to the original issue) the potential dangers of LPC's. ...

You have yet to introduce any valid dangers presented by LPCs. You brought up damage as the issue when you were the one causing the damage, not the cache owner.

 

If you are making the security guards the issue, I still think you are off-base. LPCs don't result in any more security issues than other urban caches. If you are concerned about talking to security personnel, I would suggest that you either don't look for urban caches or don't look for caches in areas that you would not be comfortable explaining yourself. I certainly skip caches that I am not comfortable with. I hope we all do.

[+DrAwKwArD]

The mere fact that you went back and edited a post to say, yes, your actions at one time or another did affect the area of a cache makes me smile from ear to ear. Isn't it good to confess that we're not always right from time to time? It's like taking our medicine.

 

So, if the hider chooses a location that could cause problems, no, it may not result in arrests, fines, banning of caches, but it certainly can be an issue. I feel like I"m not alone in this simple point. Perhaps, like others before me I was a bit hasty with the way I worded the topic.

[+sbell111]

The mere fact that you went back and edited a post to say, yes, your actions at one time or another did affect the area of a cache makes me smile from ear to ear. Isn't it good to confess that we're not always right from time to time? It's like taking our medicine.

Sorry, but you might want to take a closer look at the post in question. My edit was only to add that if I were to break something that I didn't own, in any part of my life, I would take responsibility. The original post was never altered in any other way.

So, if the hider chooses a location that could cause problems, no, it may not result in arrests, fines, banning of caches, but it certainly can be an issue. I feel like I"m not alone in this simple point. Perhaps, like others before me I was a bit hasty with the way I worded the topic.

You are not alone on this point, but the simple fact that some geocachers damage the surrounding area while looking for a cache is not condemnation of the cache. It's condemnation of the irresponsible cache seekers.

[+tozainamboku]

The first LPC I found, I did unscrew the access plate before I discovered that you lift up the skirt. I learned what is behind that access plate and decided that it wasn't a good place for a cache and screwed it back on right away. If someone did hid one behind the access plate now, I wouldn't find it. I have become very cautious about taking anything apart. I prefer a sprinkler hide where the fake sprinkler is obviously fake - perhaps a different brand that the real sprinklers nearby or out of place where there shouldn't be a sprinkler. Do I still wind up unscrewing real sprinklers? Yes, but I am trying to be more observant and not take apart something that is really supposed to be there. Perhaps the guide to finding your first cache needs to be updated to emphasize the responsibility of the finder to take care not to damage property when searching for a cache.

 

As far at the original post. It is clear that he has an issue with LPCs. Often these "ban" cache X revolve around why these caches are bad for the game. The OP has expressed several reasons why he thinks these cache are bad for the game. The only problem is that the issues he brings up are not limited to LPCs. Nor are they inherent in the cache type itself. Plenty of LPCs are placed with permission. Even when placed without permission, if there is an encounter with security it's likely the worst that will happen is you being asked to remove the cache and have it archived and not with you getting an expensed paid vacation inside the state prison. With proper descriptions on the cache page to push newbies in the right direction (e.g. there is no need to unscrew anything), there is no reason to damage anything searching for these caches. While there are dangers inherent in these caches (e.g. the finder decides to mess with the wires while looking under the skirt or perhaps finds a black widow spider living there) these dangers are not particularly out of line with other caches. If you personally don't enjoy being in parking lots or have an extreme fear of security guards or spiders, you can avoid looking for these caches. But so far I haven't seen real evidence of problems that warrant banning of these caches.

[+ibycus]

I should also ask, have you never taken anything apart (caching or not), being sure it would go back together, and have it fall apart in your hands?

 

You pull, figuring its just stuck, and then ooops you pull too hard and break it?

In normal life? Of course. While caching? No.

 

Edited to add that either way, if I break something that I don't own, it's my responsibility to fix it or pay for it's replacement. Just because a cache was hidden nearby does not transfer that responsibility to anyone else.

 

Oh, I agree absolutely. I'm the kind of guy who leaves a note when I scratch someone's car. But what if there's no one obvious to report to?

 

Lets say random city park as an example....Do you call up the city and say "Hello, umm yes I was looking for a hidden container that I thought might be in your sprinkler head, when I damaged it. I would like to pay for the damages." That kind of call is going to be almost impossible to get to the right person.

[+ibycus]

Oh, I agree absolutely. I'm the kind of guy who leaves a note when I scratch someone's car. But what if there's no one obvious to report to?

 

Actually, never mind about this part, I just realized how off topic we're getting here from the original post...

[+Bud]

Oh, I agree absolutely. I'm the kind of guy who leaves a note when I scratch someone's car. But what if there's no one obvious to report to?

 

Actually, never mind about this part, I just realized how off topic we're getting here from the original post...

 

No, no, no. We need to start an argument about multiple logging of virtual pipe bomb light pole event caches on bridges with bad cliched hints in New Hampshire.

 

NOW we're way off topic.

 

Sorry, don't close down the thread, I was just funnin'.

[GermanSailor]

First they came for my virts and I said nothing because I did not like virts.

 

Then they came for my lpc's and I said nothing because I did not like lpc's...

Thank you Mr. Bonhoeffer.

 

Well if they come after people who don't know what they are talking about then you should run:

 

I guess you ment Martin Niemöller.

Both were lutheran pastors and in the resistance movement.

 

One could argue if it is good manners so compare the sacrifices those men made, just to have a very out of context "argument" for defending something so banal as LPC. I think the topic those two men were dealing with was / is much more serious than what we are talking about.

 

I hope you uderstand what I mean and think a bit more before writing stuff like this, at least do your homework first and know whom you are quoting.

 

GermanSailor

[+sbell111]

First they came for my virts and I said nothing because I did not like virts.

 

Then they came for my lpc's and I said nothing because I did not like lpc's...

Thank you Mr. Bonhoeffer.

Well if they come after people who don't know what they are talking about then you should run:

 

I guess you ment Martin Niemöller.

Both were lutheran pastors and in the resistance movement. ... I hope you uderstand what I mean and think a bit more before writing stuff like this, at least do your homework first and know whom you are quoting.

Considering the fact that the quote is often attributed to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, your response is awfully rude.

One could argue if it is good manners so compare the sacrifices those men made, just to have a very out of context "argument" for defending something so banal as LPC. I think the topic those two men were dealing with was / is much more serious than what we are talking about.

One could certainly argue that it is perfectly on point. After all, in the context of the quote, Communists, Socialists, and Trade Union members were 'not important'. In the CYBret's paraphrasing of it, virts and LPCs are less important than whatever future type that is to be lost.

 

Either way, perhps you might consider lightening up.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I've been saying for ages that almost all retail parking lot LPC's are placed without permission, while the reviewers look the other way, even though permission is required for such hides. But nothing is going to happen, so put me down for what Coyote Red said. The prison parking lot cache referenced by the OP is almost unbelievable. It definately would have ended up on my ignore list. But I don't think ignore lists existed back then.

 

Interesting article

[+tozainamboku]

One could argue if it is good manners so compare the sacrifices those men made, just to have a very out of context "argument" for defending something so banal as LPC. I think the topic those two men were dealing with was / is much more serious than what we are talking about.

One could certainly argue that it is perfectly on point. After all, in the context of the quote, Communists, Socialists, and Trade Union members were 'not important'. In the CYBret's paraphrasing of it, virts and LPCs are less important than whatever future type that is to be lost.

Perhaps he means to invoke Godwin's Law and get this thread locked

[+sbell111]

I've been saying for ages that almost all retail parking lot LPC's are placed without permission, while the reviewers look the other way, even though permission is required for such hides. But nothing is going to happen, so put me down for what Coyote Red said. The prison parking lot cache referenced by the OP is almost unbelievable. It definately would have ended up on my ignore list. But I don't think ignore lists existed back then.

 

Interesting article

Yup. It doesn't have anything to do with this thread, but it's interesting.

[+sbell111]

One could argue if it is good manners so compare the sacrifices those men made, just to have a very out of context "argument" for defending something so banal as LPC. I think the topic those two men were dealing with was / is much more serious than what we are talking about.

One could certainly argue that it is perfectly on point. After all, in the context of the quote, Communists, Socialists, and Trade Union members were 'not important'. In the CYBret's paraphrasing of it, virts and LPCs are less important than whatever future type that is to be lost.

Perhaps he means to invoke Godwin's Law and get this thread locked

I was thinking the same thing.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Briansnat's post in another thread made me think: So the access panel hide does exist?

 

My second LPC hunt included me digging out a screwdriver and opening up the access panel until I came to my senses.. DNF. This is yet another reason to avoid any type of cache that can be misconstrued and private property being tampered with. Another case in point was my first LPC hunt at a state prison nonetheless. I proceded to bypass the lamp post and go straight for the sprinkler head. When it proved obvious that it WAS a sprinkler head I couldn't get the darn thing back together, so I promptly took my leave. I came home and discovered that 4 of the previous finders had been approached by security personnel in a not-so-nice manner. The moral to the story: Think before you hide urban micros. If you still plan to hide one.. think some more. Prison cache link:Phatboyz: Goto Jail! Do not pass go... hidden 9/25/04 but now archived.

I have just stumbled upon this thread on LPC caches, and I must say that I am extremely dismayed. The very idea of hiding a cache container inside a Liquid Propane Container (LPC) sounds, to me, to be EXTREMELY hazardous to the hider, to prospective finders and even to the entire neighborhood in which the liquid propane gas tank is located. It is ALWAYS extemely dangerous to open such a pressurized propane tank and it should never be done under any circumstances! Please, if you ever encounter an LPC cache, please avoid it at all costs, and please report it to the reviewer!

 

Also, it has come to my attention that there has been talk in this thread of "lifting skirts". Please, I urge you, keep this fourm family-friendly and God-friendly, and please stop making comments about lifting women's skirts. Such is gutter talk, the talk of heathens and hooligans; I know this to be true because my sainted Mother told me so when I was still quite small and my Mother was never wrong. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[+Rich the Bushwhacker]

I think Light Post caches should banned under the electrical equipment guideline. They have 120 or 220 volt electrical lines running through them, and people have been zapped by one with a bad ground and energized housing. And they weren't poking around them with a screwdriver.