To ban or not to ban LPC's

[+sbell111]

There's just one significant difference between us. You think geocaching can go on forever at it's current rate of growth without repercussion. I don't. It's really as simple as that. I favor taking a step back and planning long term so the game will last and continue to florish. You would rather deal with the problem on the backside or after the train has run us over.

On it's face, your statement makes a lot of sense. However, for me to take it at face value, you would have to be requesting that the saturation guidelines be changed for all caches, not just those that you don't like.

 

As it stands, what I am taking away from your position is that you don't like LPCs and you found a convenient excuse to try to get rid of them. I'm not saying that this is your actual position, but it seems like it to me.

Edited February 27, 2007 by sbell111

[+tozainamboku]

There's just one significant difference between us. You think geocaching can go on forever at it's current rate of growth without repercussion. I don't. It's really as simple as that. I favor taking a step back and planning long term so the game will last and continue to florish. You would rather deal with the problem on the backside or after the train has run us over.

People have been saying that geocaching can't sustain its current rate of growth for years. In fact the caches you are complaining about are one of the ways geocaching has been able to continue to grow. More and more people are finding out about geocaching and participating in it. This includes a large group of people I like to refer to as "urban cachers". For one reason or another these people prefer to find caches nearby to where they live that don't require long hikes or other extreme activity. Caches hidden in parking lots are perfect for these people. Sure many also like to find larger caches hidden in city parks or other places that support a bigger cache, but in order to have enough caches to find nearby, they tend to hide a lot of urban micros. The development of smaller and smaller containers has allowed caches to be hidden in many more urban places. Non-urban cachers may feel that these are "zero effort", but really what is so hard about putting out an ammo can under a pile of sticks? We may be getting to the situation in a few urban areas where we are running out of places to hide. It will be interesting to see how geocaching develops in these areas to cope with this. I can't predict what will happen, but geocachers are a resourceful lot and I'm sure they'll find solutions. The only valid reason I see for limiting the growth of geocaching is to allow Grounspeak to once and for all solve the "Server Too Busy" issue

[Mushtang]

The reasons for banning them (or limiting them) have been all over the place.

As soon as it's shown that the LPCs can be avoided, the anti-LPC crowd claims that they're illegal.

As soon as it's shown that the illegal aspect is common to all kinds and it's not a reason to ban LPCs, the anti-LPC crowd claims that nobody likes LPCs anyway.

As soon as it's shown that so many people find them and leave thank you logs and therefore somebody must enjoy them, the anti-LPC crowd claims that micros don't have trade items and trade items are super important.

As soon as it's shown that you can filter out micros easily, the anti-LPC crowd will claim that cache saturation is the reason to get rid of (or limit) them.

As soon as it's shown that cache saturation applies to all caches and not just LPCs, the anti-LPC crowd will come up with some other BS to use as a reason to ban (or limit) LPCs.

 

There's just one significant difference between us. You think geocaching can go on forever at it's current rate of growth without repercussion. I don't. It's really as simple as that. I favor taking a step back and planning long term so the game will last and continue to florish. You would rather deal with the problem on the backside or after the train has run us over.

Good point. I added to my earlier post.

[+Team GeoBlast]

There's just one significant difference between us. You think geocaching can go on forever at it's current rate of growth without repercussion. I don't. It's really as simple as that. I favor taking a step back and planning long term so the game will last and continue to florish. You would rather deal with the problem on the backside or after the train has run us over.

People have been saying that geocaching can't sustain its current rate of growth for years. In fact the caches you are complaining about are one of the ways geocaching has been able to continue to grow. More and more people are finding out about geocaching and participating in it. This includes a large group of people I like to refer to as "urban cachers". For one reason or another these people prefer to find caches nearby to where they live that don't require long hikes or other extreme activity. Caches hidden in parking lots are perfect for these people. Sure many also like to find larger caches hidden in city parks or other places that support a bigger cache, but in order to have enough caches to find nearby, they tend to hide a lot of urban micros. The development of smaller and smaller containers has allowed caches to be hidden in many more urban places. Non-urban cachers may feel that these are "zero effort", but really what is so hard about putting out an ammo can under a pile of sticks? We may be getting to the situation in a few urban areas where we are running out of places to hide. It will be interesting to see how geocaching develops in these areas to cope with this. I can't predict what will happen, but geocachers are a resourceful lot and I'm sure they'll find solutions. The only valid reason I see for limiting the growth of geocaching is to allow Grounspeak to once and for all solve the "Server Too Busy" issue

 

I appreciate your comments T.

 

The mention of the "Server Too Busy" problem is a good example of a tangible indicator that problems "could exist" on the horizon and a better indicator that the growth issue could probably use a closer look.

 

When I review this thread, I am reminded why a conversation like this is really so hard to have. Nobody is keeping track. You, me or GC.com. So, there's really no way of knowing if there is a problem at all. But the Chicken Little me me screams that this mean problems are going undetected. I wish for better data mostly.

 

I am one of those that looks at it it from the sky view and wonders. I've run (and continue to run) a pocket query in the center of the 20 populated areas on the mainland US and this is one of the things that I base my opinion on. But I am the first to admit that the -real- answer is on the ground but nobody is really watching there.

[+sbell111]

... Nobody is keeping track. ...

Keeping track of what?

[+sbell111]

... I've run (and continue to run) a pocket query in the center of the 20 populated areas on the mainland US and this is one of the things that I base my opinion on. ...

What are those PQs telling you other than that there's a lot of caches wherever there's a lot of people?

[+Krandor]

Just my 2 cents on the issue.

 

I enjoy caches that give me an interesting hunt. That could be a nice hike in the woods or it could be an interesting micro. What I don't like are caches that take me zero effort to find. If I know before I even get my car parked that the cache is going to be under this lamppost skirt or over on that guardrail, that to me is just not fun. I want there to be some effort required.

 

I found two micros this weekend that were more interesting then the average micro

One was interesting because it was a very clever hide that I had not seen before and it took me time to figure out how they hid it. However, if that hiding method became common and I saw 10-20-or 30 of them so it got to the point where I immediatly knew where it would be before I got out of the car then it would lose its appeal

The other was in the parking lot of a best buy, but they didn't go for an easy "hide it under a lamppost" hide. It was hidden over near an area where there were quite a few possible hiding places so it took a little time to figure out where it was. Not the greatest hide, but I found it more intresting then if the cache had just been put until a lamppost.

 

To me, the problem isn't micros. It is not taking time to find a good location for one. That doesn't mean you can't place one in front of that Kroger or Publix, but don't just put it under a lamppost. Look around and try to find a better hiding sport for the micro and I bet if more people looked for them they would find them. It would make micros more interesting because instead of automatically knowing it will be under the lamppost or on the guardrail, if there are 5 or 10 other types of hiding places people were using in the parking lots it would make for much more overall variety of micro hides.

[+Team GeoBlast]

... Nobody is keeping track. ...

Keeping track of what?

 

Of things that you have already said don't concern you.

[Clan Riffster]

As soon as it's shown that you can filter out micros easily, the anti-LPC crowd will come up with some other BS to use as a reason to ban (or limit) LPCs.

Are you suggesting that any opinion differing from your must be BS? And sbell calls me insulting...

[+sbell111]

Just my 2 cents on the issue.

 

I enjoy caches that give me an interesting hunt. That could be a nice hike in the woods or it could be an interesting micro. What I don't like are caches that take me zero effort to find. If I know before I even get my car parked that the cache is going to be under this lamppost skirt or over on that guardrail, that to me is just not fun. I want there to be some effort required.

 

I found two micros this weekend that were more interesting then the average micro

One was interesting because it was a very clever hide that I had not seen before and it took me time to figure out how they hid it. However, if that hiding method became common and I saw 10-20-or 30 of them so it got to the point where I immediatly knew where it would be before I got out of the car then it would lose its appeal

The other was in the parking lot of a best buy, but they didn't go for an easy "hide it under a lamppost" hide. It was hidden over near an area where there were quite a few possible hiding places so it took a little time to figure out where it was. Not the greatest hide, but I found it more intresting then if the cache had just been put until a lamppost.

 

To me, the problem isn't micros. It is not taking time to find a good location for one. That doesn't mean you can't place one in front of that Kroger or Publix, but don't just put it under a lamppost. Look around and try to find a better hiding sport for the micro and I bet if more people looked for them they would find them. It would make micros more interesting because instead of automatically knowing it will be under the lamppost or on the guardrail, if there are 5 or 10 other types of hiding places people were using in the parking lots it would make for much more overall variety of micro hides.

Nice post. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Interestingly (or not), sometimes when I go geocaching, it is to escape the pressures of regular life. I've found that I actually prefer the really easy ones at these times because they give my brain some rest.

Edited February 27, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team GeoBlast]

... I've run (and continue to run) a pocket query in the center of the 20 populated areas on the mainland US and this is one of the things that I base my opinion on. ...

What are those PQs telling you other than that there's a lot of caches wherever there's a lot of people?

 

That there's saturation that could be harmful it continued that happening in a lot of places. Let's see if we can save a few posts..

 

You: How could this be harmful?

Me: Because it is reasonable to look at the history of anything that has been allowed to grow unchecked and find problems. There is a point where the non-caching population is going to get sick of them, at some point commercial property owners are going collectively realize that geocachers are using their property for fun and games, there's a point where it is going to come to the attention of lawmakers.. things like that.

You: That will never happen.

Me: Well that is your opinion that is based on exactly as much fact as mine is base on.

You: Stop trying ruin the fun for people who like to find the caches that you don't.

Me: Huh?

[+sbell111]

... Nobody is keeping track. ...

Keeping track of what?

Of things that you have already said don't concern you.

It might concern me. In fact, it might concern someone else that would agree with you if they could understand your post.

[+sbell111]

... I've run (and continue to run) a pocket query in the center of the 20 populated areas on the mainland US and this is one of the things that I base my opinion on. ...

What are those PQs telling you other than that there's a lot of caches wherever there's a lot of people?

That there's saturation that could be harmful it continued that happening in a lot of places. Let's see if we can save a few posts..

 

You: How could this be harmful?

Me: Because it is reasonable to look at the history of anything that has been allowed to grow unchecked and find problems. There is a point where the non-caching population is going to get sick of them, at some point commercial property owners are going collectively realize that geocachers are using their property for fun and games, there's a point where it is going to come to the attention of lawmakers.. things like that.

You: That will never happen.

Me: Well that is your opinion that is based on exactly as much fact as mine is base on.

You: Stop trying ruin the fun for people who like to find the caches that you don't.

Me: Huh?

Actually, that's not what I was going to post, this is:

 

How do you know that any specific urban area has reached a 'saturation point' just by running PQs? It seems to me that whether an area is saturated would be different for each area. This is the reason that some parks only can have a few caches, while others of the same size can have many. Similarly, each urban area (and each smaller section of each urban area) may be able to support a different amount of caches.

Edited February 27, 2007 by sbell111

[+Team GeoBlast]

Just my 2 cents on the issue.

 

I enjoy caches that give me an interesting hunt. That could be a nice hike in the woods or it could be an interesting micro. What I don't like are caches that take me zero effort to find. If I know before I even get my car parked that the cache is going to be under this lamppost skirt or over on that guardrail, that to me is just not fun. I want there to be some effort required.

 

I found two micros this weekend that were more interesting then the average micro

One was interesting because it was a very clever hide that I had not seen before and it took me time to figure out how they hid it. However, if that hiding method became common and I saw 10-20-or 30 of them so it got to the point where I immediatly knew where it would be before I got out of the car then it would lose its appeal

The other was in the parking lot of a best buy, but they didn't go for an easy "hide it under a lamppost" hide. It was hidden over near an area where there were quite a few possible hiding places so it took a little time to figure out where it was. Not the greatest hide, but I found it more intresting then if the cache had just been put until a lamppost.

 

To me, the problem isn't micros. It is not taking time to find a good location for one. That doesn't mean you can't place one in front of that Kroger or Publix, but don't just put it under a lamppost. Look around and try to find a better hiding sport for the micro and I bet if more people looked for them they would find them. It would make micros more interesting because instead of automatically knowing it will be under the lamppost or on the guardrail, if there are 5 or 10 other types of hiding places people were using in the parking lots it would make for much more overall variety of micro hides.

Nice post. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

Interestingly (or not), sometimes when I go geocaching, it is to escape the pressures of regular life. I've found that I actually prefer the really easy ones at these times because they give my brain some rest.

 

I am sure that there's many like you too. That means that you are wandering around commercial parking lots with half your brain tied behind your back in a relaxed state of mind staring at your hand held device while drawing more and more attention to yourself. If it was my cache that you were seeking and I had lied about having permission to put it there, I want you to be a little more attentive and consider the ramifications of you getting spotted walking around relaxing.

 

Welcome to the other side of your "you can't legislate good hides" rant. You also can't count on people not assuming that them walking around private property is okay.. why? Because it was listed on GC.com and you need permission to do that.

 

You: What about an ammo box placed illegally.

Me: There's not a hundreds of eyes watching you and the ramifications of doing this are far greater. Can't you see this?

You: No, I don't see any difference.

Me: Sigh.

[+Team GeoBlast]

... I've run (and continue to run) a pocket query in the center of the 20 populated areas on the mainland US and this is one of the things that I base my opinion on. ...

What are those PQs telling you other than that there's a lot of caches wherever there's a lot of people?

That there's saturation that could be harmful it continued that happening in a lot of places. Let's see if we can save a few posts..

 

You: How could this be harmful?

Me: Because it is reasonable to look at the history of anything that has been allowed to grow unchecked and find problems. There is a point where the non-caching population is going to get sick of them, at some point commercial property owners are going collectively realize that geocachers are using their property for fun and games, there's a point where it is going to come to the attention of lawmakers.. things like that.

You: That will never happen.

Me: Well that is your opinion that is based on exactly as much fact as mine is base on.

You: Stop trying ruin the fun for people who like to find the caches that you don't.

Me: Huh?

Actually, that's not what I was going to post, this is:

 

How do you know that any specific urban area has reached a 'saturation point' just by running PQs? It seems to me that whether an area is saturated would be different for each area. This is the reason that some parks only can have a few caches, while others of the same size can have many. Similarly, each urban area (and each smaller section of each urban area) may be able to support a different amount of caches.

 

Saturation is a matter of opinion. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that yours is different that mine. What I do know and learn by running these PQs is that if someone is an urban cacher, there's plenty (and a growing number) of areas that will keep them busy for a very long time.

[+Team GeoBlast]

There's just one significant difference between us. You think geocaching can go on forever at it's current rate of growth without repercussion. I don't. It's really as simple as that. I favor taking a step back and planning long term so the game will last and continue to florish. You would rather deal with the problem on the backside or after the train has run us over.

On it's face, your statement makes a lot of sense. However, for me to take it at face value, you would have to be requesting that the saturation guidelines be changed for all caches, not just those that you don't like.

 

As it stands, what I am taking away from your position is that you don't like LPCs and you found a convenient excuse to try to get rid of them. I'm not saying that this is your actual position, but it seems like it to me.

 

Assume for a moment that there will come a day that GC.com will need to limit the amount of caches being hidden in urban areas. I know you don't feel that way but assume it to be a reality. Take a look around, how do that without outlawing micros? What caches are -collectively- the most damaging if the owner found out what was happening? What areas take up very large pots in dense urban spaces? My vote goes to PLCs (including LPCs) in Big Box Parking lots. Now.. seeing at we want people to continue to play the game and enjoy themselves, let's do the difficult thing and rank what caches are going to be missed the most. Again, my vote goes to the Big Box PLC.

 

I don't see the danger of other LPCs, especially those that were placed in accordance with GC.com guidelines.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Just my 2 cents on the issue.

 

I enjoy caches that give me an interesting hunt. That could be a nice hike in the woods or it could be an interesting micro. What I don't like are caches that take me zero effort to find. If I know before I even get my car parked that the cache is going to be under this lamppost skirt or over on that guardrail, that to me is just not fun. I want there to be some effort required.

 

I found two micros this weekend that were more interesting then the average micro

One was interesting because it was a very clever hide that I had not seen before and it took me time to figure out how they hid it. However, if that hiding method became common and I saw 10-20-or 30 of them so it got to the point where I immediatly knew where it would be before I got out of the car then it would lose its appeal

The other was in the parking lot of a best buy, but they didn't go for an easy "hide it under a lamppost" hide. It was hidden over near an area where there were quite a few possible hiding places so it took a little time to figure out where it was. Not the greatest hide, but I found it more intresting then if the cache had just been put until a lamppost.

 

To me, the problem isn't micros. It is not taking time to find a good location for one. That doesn't mean you can't place one in front of that Kroger or Publix, but don't just put it under a lamppost. Look around and try to find a better hiding sport for the micro and I bet if more people looked for them they would find them. It would make micros more interesting because instead of automatically knowing it will be under the lamppost or on the guardrail, if there are 5 or 10 other types of hiding places people were using in the parking lots it would make for much more overall variety of micro hides.

 

I mostly agree with this but I will add that taking into consideration line of sight (LPC are right out in the open usually) where it is easy to be spotted searching from a long distance.

[+sbell111]

I am sure that there's many like you too. That means that you are wandering around commercial parking lots with half your brain tied behind your back in a relaxed state of mind staring at your hand held device while drawing more and more attention to yourself. If it was my cache that you were seeking and I had lied about having permission to put it there, I want you to be a little more attentive and consider the ramifications of you getting spotted walking around relaxing. ...

Your asumption is incorrect. I'm always very careful to avoid giving away a hide location.

[+sbell111]

Saturation is a matter of opinion. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that yours is different that mine. What I do know and learn by running these PQs is that if someone is an urban cacher, there's plenty (and a growing number) of areas that will keep them busy for a very long time.

Im' sorry. I apparently failed to get your point. Please explain why this is necessarily a problem. Edited February 27, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Assume for a moment that there will come a day that GC.com will need to limit the amount of caches being hidden in urban areas. I know you don't feel that way but assume it to be a reality. Take a look around, how do that without outlawing micros? What caches are -collectively- the most damaging if the owner found out what was happening? What areas take up very large pots in dense urban spaces? My vote goes to PLCs (including LPCs) in Big Box Parking lots. Now.. seeing at we want people to continue to play the game and enjoy themselves, let's do the difficult thing and rank what caches are going to be missed the most. Again, my vote goes to the Big Box PLC.

 

I don't see the danger of other LPCs, especially those that were placed in accordance with GC.com guidelines.

I think you are creating a complicated solution for a simple problem. Actually, I think you have a solution that is desperately looking for a problem.

 

If we assume that the problem will one day exist, the reviewers already have the solution for it. They would treat those areas that are saturated just like they treat a saturated park. They will use the 'Power trail' guideline.

Edited February 27, 2007 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I mostly agree with this but I will add that taking into consideration line of sight (LPC are right out in the open usually) where it is easy to be spotted searching from a long distance.

That's an interesting comment. I find that it is easy peasy to log a LPC without being spotted. You see, the light pole is either surrounded by cars already, or the view is blocked by my Grand Cherokee.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I mostly agree with this but I will add that taking into consideration line of sight (LPC are right out in the open usually) where it is easy to be spotted searching from a long distance.

That's an interesting comment. I find that it is easy peasy to log a LPC without being spotted. You see, the light pole is either surrounded by cars already, or the view is blocked by my Grand Cherokee.

 

Conversation overheard in this thread in the past few weeks......

 

TGB: BLACK!

sbell: WHITE!

 

TGB CAT!

sbell DOG!

 

TGB: IN!

sbell: OUT!

 

Question... how do you get your Grand Cherokee to levitate up and block the security cameras? Or, if there's no cars there...bend all the way around it and block north, east, west, and south?

[+Team GeoBlast]

Saturation is a matter of opinion. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that yours is different that mine. What I do know and learn by running these PQs is that if someone is an urban cacher, there's plenty (and a growing number) of areas that will keep them busy for a very long time.

Im' sorry. I apparently failed to get your point. Please explain why this is necessarily a problem.

 

It's not a problem but the key word is enough. But it appears that the word "enough" is not in your vocabulary.. except when we are talking about rules.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Assume for a moment that there will come a day that GC.com will need to limit the amount of caches being hidden in urban areas. I know you don't feel that way but assume it to be a reality. Take a look around, how do that without outlawing micros? What caches are -collectively- the most damaging if the owner found out what was happening? What areas take up very large pots in dense urban spaces? My vote goes to PLCs (including LPCs) in Big Box Parking lots. Now.. seeing at we want people to continue to play the game and enjoy themselves, let's do the difficult thing and rank what caches are going to be missed the most. Again, my vote goes to the Big Box PLC.

 

I don't see the danger of other LPCs, especially those that were placed in accordance with GC.com guidelines.

I think you are creating a complicated solution for a simple problem. Actually, I think you have a solution that is desperately looking for a problem.

 

If we assume that the problem will one day exist, the reviewers already have the solution for it. They would treat those areas that are saturated just like they treat a saturated park. They will use the 'Power trail' guideline.

 

You've made it clear that you don't think it is a problem nor do you think it will ever be a problem. There's nothing you have presented to prove that we won't have a problem in the future but nor have I.. stalemate. But I was trying to answer your question as to how I would slow growth by not eliminating one type of cache.. micros. Alas you are too busy disagreeing with everything I say to realize that.

[+sbell111]

I mostly agree with this but I will add that taking into consideration line of sight (LPC are right out in the open usually) where it is easy to be spotted searching from a long distance.

That's an interesting comment. I find that it is easy peasy to log a LPC without being spotted. You see, the light pole is either surrounded by cars already, or the view is blocked by my Grand Cherokee.

 

Conversation overheard in this thread in the past few weeks......

 

TGB: BLACK!

sbell: WHITE!

 

TGB CAT!

sbell DOG!

 

TGB: IN!

sbell: OUT!

 

Question... how do you get your Grand Cherokee to levitate up and block the security cameras? Or, if there's no cars there...bend all the way around it and block north, east, west, and south?

First, I rather doubt that every square foot of WalMart's parking lot is covered by cameras. Second, you don't need to levitate your vehicle because the LPCs are but a few feet off the ground. Third, like every urban cache, you only need to block the view from the surrounding people. Generally, that's the direction that the business is in, but every cache is different.

[+sbell111]

Saturation is a matter of opinion. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that yours is different that mine. What I do know and learn by running these PQs is that if someone is an urban cacher, there's plenty (and a growing number) of areas that will keep them busy for a very long time.

I'm sorry. I apparently failed to get your point. Please explain why this is necessarily a problem.

 

It's not a problem but the key word is enough. But it appears that the word "enough" is not in your vocabulary.. except when we are talking about rules.

Perhaps if you could point out the key word.

 

(BTW, it's true that I believe that we have the correct amount of rules. I see no need for more.)

[+sbell111]

Assume for a moment that there will come a day that GC.com will need to limit the amount of caches being hidden in urban areas. I know you don't feel that way but assume it to be a reality. Take a look around, how do that without outlawing micros? What caches are -collectively- the most damaging if the owner found out what was happening? What areas take up very large pots in dense urban spaces? My vote goes to PLCs (including LPCs) in Big Box Parking lots. Now.. seeing at we want people to continue to play the game and enjoy themselves, let's do the difficult thing and rank what caches are going to be missed the most. Again, my vote goes to the Big Box PLC.

 

I don't see the danger of other LPCs, especially those that were placed in accordance with GC.com guidelines.

I think you are creating a complicated solution for a simple problem. Actually, I think you have a solution that is desperately looking for a problem.

 

If we assume that the problem will one day exist, the reviewers already have the solution for it. They would treat those areas that are saturated just like they treat a saturated park. They will use the 'Power trail' guideline.

 

You've made it clear that you don't think it is a problem nor do you think it will ever be a problem. There's nothing you have presented to prove that we won't have a problem in the future but nor have I.. stalemate. But I was trying to answer your question as to how I would slow growth by not eliminating one type of cache.. micros. Alas you are too busy disagreeing with everything I say to realize that.

You asked me to assume that one day we would have a problem and to opine as to the solution of same. I gave you an honest opinion. YOu still weren't happy.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I mostly agree with this but I will add that taking into consideration line of sight (LPC are right out in the open usually) where it is easy to be spotted searching from a long distance.

That's an interesting comment. I find that it is easy peasy to log a LPC without being spotted. You see, the light pole is either surrounded by cars already, or the view is blocked by my Grand Cherokee.

 

Conversation overheard in this thread in the past few weeks......

 

TGB: BLACK!

sbell: WHITE!

 

TGB CAT!

sbell DOG!

 

TGB: IN!

sbell: OUT!

 

Question... how do you get your Grand Cherokee to levitate up and block the security cameras? Or, if there's no cars there...bend all the way around it and block north, east, west, and south?

First, I rather doubt that every square foot of WalMart's parking lot is covered by cameras. Second, you don't need to levitate your vehicle because the LPCs are but a few feet off the ground. Third, like every urban cache, you only need to block the view from the surrounding people. Generally, that's the direction that the business is in, but every cache is different.

 

I didn't realize that you were also an expert on Big Box security strategy and are qualified to speak with authority on such things:unsure:

 

Remember we were talking about line of sight... your model assumes that the LPC is placed at an optimum location.. is this something that you can count on across the nation in every LPC hide? You can honestly say that every parking lot doesn't have an eye in the sky... maybe even up there on the light pole that you are messing with?

 

It's time to remind you of this again.. this isn't about your personal Wally World. I

Edited February 28, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+tozainamboku]

Question... how do you get your Grand Cherokee to levitate up and block the security cameras? Or, if there's no cars there...bend all the way around it and block north, east, west, and south?

Hmm. LPC are line of sight so everyone in the Big Box parking lot can see you. And there are security cameras and security patros. Not just that but they're selling GPS receivers, all kinds of containers that can be used as geocaches, sell lots of inexpensive swags, and the photo department will even give you 35mm film cans. So WHEN the Big Bog executives find out about all the caches place in their parking lot without permission their going to sue to shut down Geocaching? Don't they know already?

[+sbell111]

I mostly agree with this but I will add that taking into consideration line of sight (LPC are right out in the open usually) where it is easy to be spotted searching from a long distance.

That's an interesting comment. I find that it is easy peasy to log a LPC without being spotted. You see, the light pole is either surrounded by cars already, or the view is blocked by my Grand Cherokee.

... Question... how do you get your Grand Cherokee to levitate up and block the security cameras? Or, if there's no cars there...bend all the way around it and block north, east, west, and south?

First, I rather doubt that every square foot of WalMart's parking lot is covered by cameras. Second, you don't need to levitate your vehicle because the LPCs are but a few feet off the ground. Third, like every urban cache, you only need to block the view from the surrounding people. Generally, that's the direction that the business is in, but every cache is different.

I didn't realize that you were also an expert on Big Box security strategy and are qualified to speak with authority on such things:unsure:

What part of a sentence that started with 'I rather doubt' made you think I was passing myself off as an expert?

Remember we were talking about line of sight... your model assumes that the LPC is placed at an optimum location.. is this something that you can count on across the nation in every LPC hide?

I'm pretty confident that the height of the great majority of LPCs is relatively the same. I'm really confident that my Jeep is much higher than this height.

You can honestly say that every parking lot doesn't have an eye in the sky... maybe even up there on the light pole that you are messing with?

I'm pretty sure that if that light pole had a security camera on it, it wouldn't be pointed straight down at it's base.

It's time to remind you of this again.. this isn't about your personal Wally World.

I never suggested that it was.

I

U Edited February 28, 2007 by sbell111

[+Moose Mob]

(Yawn!)

 

OK guys, this is getting a bit too personal. Play nice.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Question... how do you get your Grand Cherokee to levitate up and block the security cameras? Or, if there's no cars there...bend all the way around it and block north, east, west, and south?

Hmm. LPC are line of sight so everyone in the Big Box parking lot can see you. And there are security cameras and security patros. Not just that but they're selling GPS receivers, all kinds of containers that can be used as geocaches, sell lots of inexpensive swags, and the photo department will even give you 35mm film cans. So WHEN the Big Bog executives find out about all the caches place in their parking lot without permission their going to sue to shut down Geocaching? Don't they know already?

 

If geocachers did come above board and ask permission to put LPCs in the parking lots from both the Big Boxes and then were honest when they check the little boxes on the submittal page, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. If they did say it was fine with them sometime in the future then I want you to remember me, cuz I will invite you my crow dinner.

 

No, I don't think they know already or do I have think that we will get blanket permission to place LPC or PLCs on their property.

[+sbell111]

I'd be really surprised if they didn't know.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I mostly agree with this but I will add that taking into consideration line of sight (LPC are right out in the open usually) where it is easy to be spotted searching from a long distance.

That's an interesting comment. I find that it is easy peasy to log a LPC without being spotted. You see, the light pole is either surrounded by cars already, or the view is blocked by my Grand Cherokee.

... Question... how do you get your Grand Cherokee to levitate up and block the security cameras? Or, if there's no cars there...bend all the way around it and block north, east, west, and south?

First, I rather doubt that every square foot of WalMart's parking lot is covered by cameras. Second, you don't need to levitate your vehicle because the LPCs are but a few feet off the ground. Third, like every urban cache, you only need to block the view from the surrounding people. Generally, that's the direction that the business is in, but every cache is different.

I didn't realize that you were also an expert on Big Box security strategy and are qualified to speak with authority on such things:unsure:

What part of a sentence that started with 'I rather doubt' made you think I was passing myself off as an expert?

Remember we were talking about line of sight... your model assumes that the LPC is placed at an optimum location.. is this something that you can count on across the nation in every LPC hide?

I'm pretty confident that the height of the great majority of LPCs is relatively the same. I'm really confident that my Jeep is much higher than this height.

You can honestly say that every parking lot doesn't have an eye in the sky... maybe even up there on the light pole that you are messing with?

I'm pretty sure that if that light pole had a security camera on it, it wouldn't be pointed straight down at it's base.

It's time to remind you of this again.. this isn't about your personal Wally World.

I never suggested that it was.

I

U

 

Sorry sbell, I don't think we are getting anywhere and we are boring the others. Ta-Ta!

[Mushtang]

As soon as it's shown that you can filter out micros easily, the anti-LPC crowd will come up with some other BS to use as a reason to ban (or limit) LPCs.

Are you suggesting that any opinion differing from your must be BS? And sbell calls me insulting...

No, these aren't opinions. They're reasons given for suggesting that LPCs be banned (or limited). And when these reasons are shown not to apply at all, or not to apply to just LPCs, other reasons are given.

 

It shows that the anti-LPC crowd doesn't really have a solid argument when they keep changing their reasons.

[Mushtang]

Question... how do you get your Grand Cherokee to levitate up and block the security cameras? Or, if there's no cars there...bend all the way around it and block north, east, west, and south?

Hmm. LPC are line of sight so everyone in the Big Box parking lot can see you. And there are security cameras and security patros. Not just that but they're selling GPS receivers, all kinds of containers that can be used as geocaches, sell lots of inexpensive swags, and the photo department will even give you 35mm film cans. So WHEN the Big Bog executives find out about all the caches place in their parking lot without permission their going to sue to shut down Geocaching? Don't they know already?

 

If geocachers did come above board and ask permission to put LPCs in the parking lots from both the Big Boxes and then were honest when they check the little boxes on the submittal page, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. If they did say it was fine with them sometime in the future then I want you to remember me, cuz I will invite you my crow dinner.

 

No, I don't think they know already or do I have think that we will get blanket permission to place LPC or PLCs on their property.

Again, lack of permission isn't an issue only with LPCs. Many other kinds of cache hides are done without permission, so why target the LPCs?

 

Answer, because you've decided you don't like LPCs, and are grasping at any reason to give for them to be limited.

[+Too Tall John]

I

U

Can I get dibs on "E"?

I'd be really surprised if they didn't know.

I was listening to a debate sparked by "An Inconvenient Truth" on the radio this afternoon. The guy arguing against seemed to have just as many scientists backing his view that the movie is wrong as there are scientists backing the movie. The defender of the movie said something like this:

"OK, lets just say there is a possibility that I'm wrong. That also means that I might be right. Is this the kind of thing we want to take no action on because I might be wrong?"

What if the Big Boxes don't know? (Having been part of one, it isn't as far fetched an idea as you suggest) When they find out, if they decide they need to do something about it, it will be swift, it will be across the board, and it won't be pretty.

Is this the kind of thing we want to take no action on because I might be wrong?

Don't ban LPCs, but if we don't regulate them (and all caches placed on commercial property) in some way, someone else is going to ban 'em for us!

[+sbell111]

There's a lot of suppositions built on several 'ifs'. I believe that you are over reacting. I don't say that to insult you. I just think that you are wrong.

[+Too Tall John]

There's a lot of suppositions built on several 'ifs'.

I used two "if"s in my statement. Several means "being more than two but fewer than many in number." My suppositions of how Wal-Mart will react are based on ten years of employment with them.

I believe that you are over reacting.

Maybe, but you seem intent on downplaying the possibility that something is wrong. Well, besides me in your opinion.

I don't say that to insult you.

As I really don't mean to insult you. I can handle being told I'm wrong. My wife does it all the time.

I just think that you are wrong.

If I'm right, when Wal-Mart wakes up to this activity, it is going to lash out like a startled pit bull. (If you don't like the analogy of a pit, insert your least favorite animal with a bad reputation here) I think GC.com would do well to have its fingers as far away from the mouth when that happens.

Is this the kind of thing we want to take no action on because I might be wrong?

[Mushtang]

Is this the kind of thing we want to take no action on because I might be wrong?

I vote no action.

 

You're suggesting limiting LPCs, limiting geocaches, limiting the fun I get to have, limiting the fun a LOT of other people that like LPCs get to have, limiting the growth of a hobby that we enjoy so much, just because you think that maybe someone someday might have a problem?

 

You drive your car to work I'm guessing. Do you realize how dangerous that might be? If you had a wreck, or some drunk driver smashed into you, you could have serious problems. You might be okay since you've done okay so far. But... is that the kind of risk you want to take because I might be wrong?

 

If you want to insist that explicit permission be given for every cache, that's a good discussion for a different thread. If you want to use that as a reason for limiting (or banning) LPCs only, then I'm going to tell you that it's not a good enough reason.

[+Team GeoBlast]

There's a lot of suppositions built on several 'ifs'.

I used two "if"s in my statement. Several means "being more than two but fewer than many in number." My suppositions of how Wal-Mart will react are based on ten years of employment with them.

I believe that you are over reacting.

Maybe, but you seem intent on downplaying the possibility that something is wrong. Well, besides me in your opinion.

I don't say that to insult you.

As I really don't mean to insult you. I can handle being told I'm wrong. My wife does it all the time.

I just think that you are wrong.

If I'm right, when Wal-Mart wakes up to this activity, it is going to lash out like a startled pit bull. (If you don't like the analogy of a pit, insert your least favorite animal with a bad reputation here) I think GC.com would do well to have its fingers as far away from the mouth when that happens.

Is this the kind of thing we want to take no action on because I might be wrong?

 

If ten years in the employ of a Big Box doesn't make your insight on this topic credible, I don't know what does. It's already been stated by a few of the supporters of LPCs that they are certain that Walmart already knows. Why don't you pick up the phone and ask someone who would know and then report back here? I will be very relieved to know that they are as cool with it as we are guessing that it is.

[+sbell111]

There's a lot of suppositions built on several 'ifs'.

I used two "if"s in my statement. Several means "being more than two but fewer than many in number." My suppositions of how Wal-Mart will react are based on ten years of employment with them.

OK. Make that 'suppositions built on two 'ifs'. Also, given that we have no idea what kind of 'management position you held or how long ago it went away, I'll withhold my opinion as to whether or not you are qualified to guess what their actions may or may not be.

If I'm right, when Wal-Mart wakes up to this activity, it is going to lash out like a startled pit bull. (If you don't like the analogy of a pit, insert your least favorite animal with a bad reputation here) I think GC.com would do well to have its fingers as far away from the mouth when that happens.

It's not that I don't care for the analogy, other than the fact that it is basically untrue. The pit bull is just like any large dog. It becomes what you train it to be. Either way, I suspect that you are overestimating their wrath based on whatever bad experience you had.

Is this the kind of thing we want to take no action on because I might be wrong?

Well, if you put it that way. Yes.

[+sbell111]

If ten years in the employ of a Big Box doesn't make your insight on this topic credible, I don't know what does. It's already been stated by a few of the supporters of LPCs that they are certain that Walmart already knows. Why don't you pick up the phone and ask someone who would know and then report back here? I will be very relieved to know that they are as cool with it as we are guessing that it is.

I wonder how long the guy that stands at the front of the store has been working there. I'll ask him the next time he gives me a cart.

[Clan Riffster]

No, these aren't opinions. They're reasons given for suggesting that LPCs be banned (or limited).

Of course they are opinions. You've got yours, I've got mine, SBell has his, etc, etc... All that has been posted from every side of this issue is opinions. I believe commercial property caches should have explicit permission. Several others believe the same thing. Likewise, several folks have opined that adequate permission is fine. People on both sides have offered opinions as to why they feel that way. So, how are these not opinions?

 

It shows that the anti-LPC crowd doesn't really have a solid argument when they keep changing their reasons.

No Sir. What it shows is that there are several different beliefs regarding why some folks feel this way. I have 4 or 5 reasons why I don't think Groundspeak should allow CPC's without explicit permission. Just because you don't believe reason A, B or C to be valid, doesn't mean the argument does not have a solid foundation.

 

You're suggesting limiting LPCs

I don't think he's suggesting limiting LPC's. I think he's suggesting that folks get permission for LPC's. How does that limit them, unless the property owner doesn't want them there? If that is the case, is placing one there anyway a good idea? Will it benefit the game, or hinder it?

[X-isle]

I'm new to all of this, and have not read this entire thread. But my newbie 2 cents are as follows;

I DON'T do LPC's. They're dangeous, damaging, and I'm sure would be considered vandalism by onlooking police. As an x police officer, I know of what I speak. There are many good cache spots available without LPC's. I don't care if they are banned or not. I won't do them. And eventually, they will hurt the sport. Undoubtably! Absolutely! Sooner or later, geocaching will suffer over this. Not to mention, someone may be in for a big shock!

[+Too Tall John]

Is this the kind of thing we want to take no action on because I might be wrong?

I vote no action.

 

You're suggesting limiting LPCs, limiting geocaches, limiting the fun I get to have, limiting the fun a LOT of other people that like LPCs get to have, limiting the growth of a hobby that we enjoy so much, just because you think that maybe someone someday might have a problem?

If by limiting you mean explicitly requiring permission for caches placed on commercial property, then that's what I'm for. They already require it for cemetery caches. There have already been situations involving caches placed w/out permission that have made GC look bad. Let's get that under control before someone else steps in and does it for us.

You drive your car to work I'm guessing. Do you realize how dangerous that might be? If you had a wreck, or some drunk driver smashed into you, you could have serious problems. You might be okay since you've done okay so far. But... is that the kind of risk you want to take because I might be wrong?

Not that it really matters, but I walk to work. I do drive places, and it's a matter of weighing costs vs benefits. If we do something preemptive now, what will the benefits be down the road? I suggest that they'll be big.

If you want to insist that explicit permission be given for every cache, that's a good discussion for a different thread. If you want to use that as a reason for limiting (or banning) LPCs only, then I'm going to tell you that it's not a good enough reason.

My whole argument is that I don't want to see LPCs banned, be it by GC.com or by the Big Boxes, but I see danger of that happening.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I'm new to all of this, and have not read this entire thread. But my newbie 2 cents are as follows;

I DON'T do LPC's. They're dangeous, damaging, and I'm sure would be considered vandalism by onlooking police. As an x police officer, I know of what I speak. There are many good cache spots available without LPC's. I don't care if they are banned or not. I won't do them. And eventually, they will hurt the sport. Undoubtably! Absolutely! Sooner or later, geocaching will suffer over this. Not to mention, someone may be in for a big shock!

 

As a former law enforcement agent, I understand your position on any cache where you could be considered a vandal, trespasser, or the like. What has been your experience so far in finding these types of caches? Have you found one on commercial private property yet, for example in a Walmart parking lot? How would you have treated finding someone seeking a cache like this when you were an officer?

[+Team GeoBlast]

Is this the kind of thing we want to take no action on because I might be wrong?

I vote no action.

 

You're suggesting limiting LPCs, limiting geocaches, limiting the fun I get to have, limiting the fun a LOT of other people that like LPCs get to have, limiting the growth of a hobby that we enjoy so much, just because you think that maybe someone someday might have a problem?

 

You drive your car to work I'm guessing. Do you realize how dangerous that might be? If you had a wreck, or some drunk driver smashed into you, you could have serious problems. You might be okay since you've done okay so far. But... is that the kind of risk you want to take because I might be wrong?

 

If you want to insist that explicit permission be given for every cache, that's a good discussion for a different thread. If you want to use that as a reason for limiting (or banning) LPCs only, then I'm going to tell you that it's not a good enough reason.

 

Why does the suggestion of pro actively approaching Walmart for explicit across the board permission to put caches on their property bother you so much? Is it more fun for you if you are "getting away" with something?

[+Team GeoBlast]

As soon as it's shown that you can filter out micros easily, the anti-LPC crowd will come up with some other BS to use as a reason to ban (or limit) LPCs.

Are you suggesting that any opinion differing from your must be BS? And sbell calls me insulting...

No, these aren't opinions. They're reasons given for suggesting that LPCs be banned (or limited). And when these reasons are shown not to apply at all, or not to apply to just LPCs, other reasons are given.

 

It shows that the anti-LPC crowd doesn't really have a solid argument when they keep changing their reasons.

 

Nobody is changing reasons, there is a whole host of reasons to choose from. The only compelling reason that has been stated not to goes something like "because you don't like them, why do you want to mess with other people's fun" or "don't tell me how to cache."

Edited February 28, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Too Tall John]

Also, given that we have no idea what kind of 'management position you held or how long ago it went away, I'll withhold my opinion as to whether or not you are qualified to guess what their actions may or may not be.

I was a Specialty Divisions manager, specifically for the Photo Lab. I handles all aspects of the lab, from budgeting, hiring, training, and maintenance. I answered directly to the District Manager, who was responsible for a good portion of Maine and New Hampshire. The company sent me to a number of seminars involving topics ranging from good management practices, union activities (from which I base my statements about allowable activities in the parking lot) to Photo Lab maint. I was heavily involved with Loss Prevention in the store (as cameras are a high risk item), and spent enough time with the LP associate to have a handle on that end of the job as well. (I even was in on a shoplifter stop where it turned out the guy had a knife. Not fun!) I left the company 4 years ago to pursue a career in outdoor ministries. In four years the policies about LP and unions have changed very little, if at all.

If I'm right, when Wal-Mart wakes up to this activity, it is going to lash out like a startled pit bull. (If you don't like the analogy of a pit, insert your least favorite animal with a bad reputation here) I think GC.com would do well to have its fingers as far away from the mouth when that happens.

It's not that I don't care for the analogy, other than the fact that it is basically untrue. The pit bull is just like any large dog. It becomes what you train it to be.

A pit bull is known for its powerful jaws, the main reason I picked this animal, but I say again:

(If you don't like the analogy of a pit, insert your least favorite animal with a bad reputation here)

Either way, I suspect that you are overestimating their wrath based on whatever bad experience you had.

Actually, I quite enjoyed my time at Wal-Mart, I think my DM was shocked when I told him I was leaving & every time I pass through "My Store" I get asked when I'm coming back. Edited February 28, 2007 by Too Tall John