Off your Rocker

[+J-Way]

... The main point of the post was that I'd bet that the majority of micros placed in commercial parking lots are there without explicit permission from the land owner, but the hider checked that box anyway. ...

Where's the box that says "Explicit permission has been received for this cache"?

I must have missed that one.

You conveniently omitted the part of my post that makes your question not make sense, so that's why you "missed" it. Here it is again:

 

Just make sure you do NOT put "OYR" or "Barrellin to..." in the title. Call it something like "Micro #23987", check the little box saying you read and followed all listing guidelines (including the one about permission), and it will likely get listed. Isn't that how most commercial micro caches get published?

...

Actually, I was being sarcastic, but unfortunately sarcasm doesn't show up very well in text I do NOT advocate lying about permission, and in fact I'm a big proponent of getting permission. All my physical cache hides were placed with permission. The main point of the post was that I'd bet that the majority of micros placed in commercial parking lots are there without explicit permission from the land owner, but the hider checked that box anyway.

“…that box…” refers to the “Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.” box. I understand those guidelines to require adequate permission, and I’m very much aware that different people have different ideas as to what constitutes “adequate”. That’s a topic for a different thread.

 

Back to caches placed on Cracker Barrel property. Are you going to say now that you don’t need explicit permission to place a cache on Cracker Barrel property??? That you can place a cache in any private commercial parking lot you want to without asking the owner first? Sounds like a very good way to go from “no new caches on our property” to “get rid of all current caches on our property right now”.

 

And since you regularly read the forums and are aware of the ban, I would hope that you would not place a cache there. But what about someone who is blissfully ignorant? This ban has been a fact for 9 months… but the OP didn’t know that. Are you now going to say that he didn’t need permission before placing his cache?

 

[Edit: grammar]

Edited June 25, 2008 by J-Way

[+J-Way]

A secondary point was that if someone did precisely what I said, then a cache could be listed at a Cracker Barrel tomorrow, corporate ban or not.

Sure, if you review the location of the cache by name only.

Lets say I were to place a cache at one of the three remaining Cracker Barrel locations without a cache, list it as "Loop-the-Loop #234" (a local series, which is in reference to interstate off-ramps), and put as the description "Just another cache for a quick smiley. Easy interstate access, lots of parking." This is at a rural interstate exit with only poor or outdated satellite images available.

 

Now, considering the fact that some USA reviewers cover many thousands of square miles, can you honestly tell me that a mortal reviewer would somehow recognize the disguised OYR cache and refuse to publish it? I understand that mtn-man would recognize it, but he's the Uber Reviewer (all bow).

 

[Edit: spellin']

Edited June 25, 2008 by J-Way

[+mtn-man]

Actually, I was being sarcastic, but unfortunately sarcasm doesn't show up very well in text I do NOT advocate lying about permission, and in fact I'm a big proponent of getting permission.

I thought so. It did seem odd, hence the " " emote. Thanks for the clarification!

[+mtn-man]

I understand that mtn-man would recognize it, but he's the Uber Reviewer (all bow).

Your check is also in the mail.

[+Prime Suspect]

A secondary point was that if someone did precisely what I said, then a cache could be listed at a Cracker Barrel tomorrow, corporate ban or not.

Sure, if you review the location of the cache by name only.

Lets say I were to place a cache at one of the three remaining Cracker Barrel locations without a cache, list it as "Loop-the-Loop #234" (a local series, which is in reference to interstate off-ramps), and put as the description "Just another cache for a quick smiley. Easy interstate access, lots of parking." This is at a rural interstate exit with only poor our outdated satellite images available.

 

Now, considering the fact that some USA reviewers cover many thousands of square miles, can you honestly tell me that a mortal reviewer would somehow recognize the disguised OYR cache and refuse to publish it? I understand that mtn-man would recognize it, but he's the Uber Reviewer (all bow).

A reviewer might not. But I would bet someone would report it to him or her in very short order. And then you would get a note put in your permanent folder.

[+Runaround]

A reviewer might not. But I would bet someone would report it to him or her in very short order.

 

I'm a volunteer for the Cleveland Metroparks geocaching program and I've seen something similar to this happen many times. Usually someone hides a cache without a permit and then posts it on another listing site other than GC.com. There is no shortage of cachers willing to report these caches.

 

Typically the CMP's contact the owner and give them a chance to come into compliance. If they refuse or don't respond in a reasonable period of time, someone is sent to pull the cache and a log is made on the other listing site noting the cache is gone. I've personally pulled at least a half dozen caches in the last 5 years and have been called all sorts of interesting names in emails.

[+Renegade Knight]

A reviewer might not. But I would bet someone would report it to him or her in very short order.

 

I'm a volunteer for the Cleveland Metroparks geocaching program and I've seen something similar to this happen many times. Usually someone hides a cache without a permit and then posts it on another listing site other than GC.com. There is no shortage of cachers willing to report these caches.

 

Typically the CMP's contact the owner and give them a chance to come into compliance. If they refuse or don't respond in a reasonable period of time, someone is sent to pull the cache and a log is made on the other listing site noting the cache is gone. I've personally pulled at least a half dozen caches in the last 5 years and have been called all sorts of interesting names in emails.

 

Has the permitting system been worth the paperwork and time? As opposed to just monitoring caches and dealing with the occasional exception to them being a benign casual recreational use?

[+Runaround]

You'd have to ask a CMP employee. It's their rules and their decision. I'm just free help. I do know of caches that have been denied a permit for various reasons. In some cases it is because the cache is in a place closed to all visitors or at least closed to off-trail hiking. There was cache that was going to be hidden right in the middle of a bird banding and survey site that gets used year round. People and mist nets don't work well together. Another cache was placed in the area behind the shooting range used by the CMP Rangers. I'm not sure how they missed all the signs. Others were in areas with rare or threatened flora/fauna. Most cases are just people who don't like the rules, or perhaps any rules. They view it as their park paid for by their tax dollars and they should be able to do whatever they want.

 

It's not like the system is oppressive. There are 1 to 4 permits per reservation depending on the size of the specific park. Every year there are unused permits.

 

EDIT: correction

Edited June 26, 2008 by Runaround

[+sequens vitae mortem]

I just have one question, and it may have been asked before, but I've read both the old and new threads on the Off Your Rocker series, and I don't think this point has been raised yet . . . How would you (no one in particular) act if you wanted to place a cache at an interesting location on someone's private property, and they denied you the permission? Would you get angry? Would you stomp off and never talk to that person again?

 

Another scenario, what if a landowner owns several pieces of property with good cache locations, and you ask him to put one up, and he says yes the first few times, but says no the last couple of times. When you ask him why, he just says "I don't want them there," which is what Cracker Barrel is saying in their nice, corporate-speak. Do you constantly hound him as to why he let you place the caches there before but suddenly changed his mind? Or, do you just realize that hounding him for reasons takes away your valuable time when you could be placing other caches in other locations or finding other caches?

 

I know that Cracker Barrel once allowed caches to be placed on their property, and, for whatever reason, they changed their policy. However, their store locations are their private property, and they have a right to change their minds about whether or not they allow caches to be placed there. We wouldn't be so disappointed (or at least angry enough to stop talking to them) in our local landowners' decisions to change their minds, so why are we acting this way about Cracker Barrel?

[+J-Way]

sequens_vitae_mortem:

You've posted an excellent summary. It's Cracker Barrel's PRIVATE property and they have the right to allow or deny anyone entrance to or use of their property as long as it doesn't violate national discrimination laws.

 

If someone doesn't want to eat there because CB doesn't allow new caches then that's a legitimate personal choice. I personally choose where to eat based on the quality of food (not quantity of food, and not whether they allow caches on property), but I would choose to visit a park with a few caches before visiting a neighboring park with none.

[+Quiggle]

Now, considering the fact that some USA reviewers cover many thousands of square miles, can you honestly tell me that a mortal reviewer would somehow recognize the disguised OYR cache and refuse to publish it?

Depends on the situation. I can't give you a blanket YES or NO, but IT DEPENDS. Will just have to leave it at that.

[+J-Way]

Depends on the situation. I can't give you a blanket YES or NO, but IT DEPENDS. Will just have to leave it at that.

On a completely non-related topic, would wearing Depends Undergarments help if you were going for a record-breaking most-finds-in-a-day run?

[+mtn-man]

Depends on the situation. I can't give you a blanket YES or NO, but IT DEPENDS. Will just have to leave it at that.

On a completely non-related topic, would wearing Depends Undergarments help if you were going for a record-breaking most-finds-in-a-day run?

That would be directly related to the part of the country you are in and the number of bushes next to those park and grab hides that usually become the targets. In the south, you might be better off (guys I suppose). In the desert southwest, wear your Depends!

[+sequens vitae mortem]

sequens_vitae_mortem:

You've posted an excellent summary. It's Cracker Barrel's PRIVATE property and they have the right to allow or deny anyone entrance to or use of their property as long as it doesn't violate national discrimination laws.

 

If someone doesn't want to eat there because CB doesn't allow new caches then that's a legitimate personal choice. I personally choose where to eat based on the quality of food (not quantity of food, and not whether they allow caches on property), but I would choose to visit a park with a few caches before visiting a neighboring park with none.

 

I agree with you. It is a legitimate personal choice because I too would be more apt to visit a park that had caches in it as opposed to one that had none. I understand why some people would be upset, but I kind of feel some of us are taking this too far. I know I have never found an Off Your Rocker cache, and I know I haven't hidden any caches yet, but I don't think I would act this way if one of my caches got refused. I would simply find another place.

 

I neither love nor hate micros. I am not all about the numbers, but I do get excited about caching. I get excited about finding any and all caches, no matter whether they are a two mile hike up steep hills or under a lamp post skirt. This may have something to do with my cache density, I don't know. I like the hunt, and I get excited about seeing a capsule of any size holding anything whether or not it is a log or geocoins or travel bugs or trinkets hidden somewhere. I get excited about seeing things I might not have known about had I not taken up geocaching.

 

I realize Cracker Barrel was a cool company because they allowed the hides on their porch, but let's remember the excitement of the hunt! We can find the caches that are already there, and find them somewhere else. We can even hide them somewhere else. However, I hope no one who really likes eating at Cracker Barrel stopped eating there just because they changed their minds. As stated in my previous post, it's like being angry at a local landowner who doesn't want you placing caches on his property, though he was really neat to be around before this.

 

I'm stopping now, because I feel like everyone else: This is beating the dead horse, and I like horses, and they need to be treated with the utmost respect, whether dead or alive.

[+WebChimp]

I personally choose where to eat based on the quality of food (not quantity of food, and not whether they allow caches on property).

 

Exactly the same here. I have food from Wendy's on a semi-regular basis, abut have never found a cache there. Our favorite Mexican and Chinese restaurants don't have caches.

 

So, apparently the presence/absence of a cache has nothing to with whether or not I patronize a business.

 

I also shop at Wal-Mart, despite the LPCs lurking nearby.

[+sbell111]

I personally choose where to eat based on the quality of food (not quantity of food, and not whether they allow caches on property).

Exactly the same here. I have food from Wendy's on a semi-regular basis, abut have never found a cache there. Our favorite Mexican and Chinese restaurants don't have caches.

 

So, apparently the presence/absence of a cache has nothing to with whether or not I patronize a business.

 

I also shop at Wal-Mart, despite the LPCs lurking nearby.

Choosing a restaurant is never about 'just the food'. There are many factors that increase any particular restaurant's favorability or unfavorability. Sometimes, one the those things is altered slightly and a restaurant that you were previously happy with giving money to suddenly lands on your 'no go' list.

 

Lots of factors that all build each person's individual decision.

 

Here's an analogy:

 

My wife and I have flown to lots of places on lots of different airlines. Every one of those airlines have proven that they could get us safely from A to B pretty much just as well as each other airline. However, getting a person for A to B is not the only criteria when choosing an airline. There are lots of little things that go into the decision. As such, there are some airlines that we've chosen to never use again, if we have a choice.

 

My choosing not to fly on specific airlines is not going to make or break them. That being said, I have got flights scheduled in August that total aroung $15,000. It was my choice who to give that money to (or not to) and the airlines on our 'no fly' list didn't get any.

Edited June 26, 2008 by sbell111

[+WebChimp]

Choosing a restaurant is never about 'just the food'. There are many factors that increase any particular restaurant's favorability or unfavorability.

 

I never said it was about 'just the food', so I don't know why you put that in quotes.

 

The theme I was addressing was cachers who claim they won't patronize a CB because they no longer allow caches.

 

My point was, I patronize all sorts of restaurants that never have caches, so why would I avoid one that doesn't have them, regardless of the reason? The most populous restaurant cache in our area would be the Sonic Drive-Ins, which I try to avoid at all costs. The most traffic-heavy places around here would be Wendy's which never have caches, but I frequently visit them.

 

But, you're right, it's never about "just the food". (Quoting you. )

 

I'll drop a restaurant in heartbeat over rude or oblivious wait staff before I drop them over one or two less than par fares served.

 

Wait a minute..............

 

What were we talking about?

[+sbell111]

I personally choose where to eat based on the quality of food (not quantity of food, and not whether they allow caches on property).

Exactly the same here. I have food from Wendy's on a semi-regular basis, abut have never found a cache there. Our favorite Mexican and Chinese restaurants don't have caches.

 

So, apparently the presence/absence of a cache has nothing to with whether or not I patronize a business.

 

I also shop at Wal-Mart, despite the LPCs lurking nearby.

Choosing a restaurant is never about 'just the food'. There are many factors that increase any particular restaurant's favorability or unfavorability.

I never said it was about 'just the food', so I don't know why you put that in quotes.

You actually did. Your post was your agreement that you choose a restaurant based on the quality of the food. You didn't qualify that to mean the quality of the food, plus other factors.

The theme I was addressing was cachers who claim they won't patronize a CB because they no longer allow caches.

 

My point was, I patronize all sorts of restaurants that never have caches, so why would I avoid one that doesn't have them, regardless of the reason? The most populous restaurant cache in our area would be the Sonic Drive-Ins, which I try to avoid at all costs. The most traffic-heavy places around here would be Wendy's which never have caches, but I frequently visit them.

 

But, you're right, it's never about "just the food". (Quoting you. )

 

I'll drop a restaurant in heartbeat over rude or oblivious wait staff before I drop them over one or two less than par fares served.

Since we agree that many things go into the decision to eat at a specific restaurant, I'm sure that you agree that any one of these small factors could push the decision one way or the other. Edited June 27, 2008 by sbell111

[+WebChimp]

Since we agree that many things go into the decision to eat at a specific restaurant, I'm sure that you agree that any one of these small factors could push the decision one way or the other.

 

Sure it could.

 

Two less than positive impressions out of two visits to a CB tell me I probably won't find the next visit very enjoyable, either.

 

What I don't factor into my choice of a dining establishment is whether or not they have or allow geocaches on their property. That variable isn't even on the list.

 

Since I'm not employed by Groundspeak or a geocoin company, caching for me is just a hobby, the same as shooting black powder rifles.

 

I would never eliminate a restaurant from my list of dining options because they wouldn't allow rifle shooting in their parking lot. By the same logic, I wouldn't eliminate a restaurant based on their geocaching policies.

 

Some of the posters here seem indignant that a restaurant chain has asked that their parking lot not be used for our hobby. Their reasoning evades me.

[+sbell111]

Do we also agree that each of us gets to choose which restaurant we spend our money at and that whatever criteria we use in that decision is valid, since it is our money to spend?

[+Prime Suspect]

[+flask]

why, sure. we can all agree that many factors contribute to your choice of restaurant.

 

the salient point, however, is that nobody cares.

 

if you make a protest and the only person who knows about it is a houseplant, you might reconsider whether or not it's worth it.

[+derangedlunatech]

...and I choose not to eat at Wendys because I think that square hamburgers are unAmerican. Which I'm sure everyone on here cares as much about as they do your choice not to eat at CB *shrug*

[+WebChimp]

Do we also agree that each of us gets to choose which restaurant we spend our money at and that whatever criteria we use in that decision is valid.

 

Not sure what definition the word "valid" would have here, but, I'd agree that all people may spend their money however they choose, using whatever criteria their grey matter dictates.

 

That hasn't been a question in this thread, unless I missed something.

 

The question has been, at least to me, is it reasonable to choose a restaurant based on whether or not they allow you to practice your hobby in their parking lot. My answer would be "no". That's not what they open the doors for each day.

[+WebChimp]

 

if you make a protest and the only person who knows about it is a houseplant, you might reconsider whether or not it's worth it.

 

I discussed your observation with my houseplant. He reminded me that he is frequently the only one who hears my protests, and that I should go play at some hobby. He suggested geocaching, as long as I don't do it in the parking lot at the Cracker Barrel.

 

You know, I imagine there will now be a whole string of NOYR caches, in the parking lots of whatever is in view of local CBs. That wouldn't surprise me a bit.

[+Renegade Knight]

...and I choose not to eat at Wendys because I think that square hamburgers are unAmerican. Which I'm sure everyone on here cares as much about as they do your choice not to eat at CB *shrug*

 

If only they had quare buns to match I'd eat at Wendy's more often. If you are going to be different. Do it right.

[Dinoprophet]

...and I choose not to eat at Wendys because I think that square hamburgers are unAmerican. Which I'm sure everyone on here cares as much about as they do your choice not to eat at CB *shrug*

 

If only they had quare buns to match I'd eat at Wendy's more often. If you are going to be different. Do it right.

No, White Castle already does that. And by only squaring the burger, they're throwing off the shakles of uniformity, which is darkly ironic for a fast food chain.

 

Besides, if you are going to go with a square bun, you can't then neglect the tomato, onion, and pickle.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Review of a recent cache I hid.

 

"I am one of the volunteer admins for Geocaching.com. I was just reviewing your recent submission. Unfortunately, I am unable to accept it due to a couple of reasons.

Cracker Barrel Corporation has asked that no other caches be listed at their stores."

 

I enjoy hitting the Cracker Barrels while traveling but now I may start favoring other establishments.

 

You?

Sigh... although you do not realize it, you are resurrecting an issue that has been aired a number of times here in the past, and for some godforsaken reason, you have also seen fit to resurrect the whole issue of threatening to possibly boycott the chain as "punishment" for not allowing geocaches any longer. Personally, I feel that suggestions that geocachers might wish to boycott a restaurant chain because they once allowed geoaches on their premises but no longer allow them carte blanche, to be incredibly infantile and boorish, and I am saddened -- and I also kinda wanna toss my most recent meal, as in propulsive vomiting -- every time I see a geoacher suggest such an incredibly short-sighted, petty piece of buffoonery. In fact, I am feeling so cranky just from seeing your suggestion that I must end this message posthaste and go have a long drink of radium-and-radon-rich water from my Revigator radioactive water dispenser to soothe my nerves and help to restore a sense of calm.

 

Okay, good, thanks Vinny.

 

I don't have to add my .02 because here it is above. Just add a little stronger emphasis on the buffoonery. This thread makes me want to write another letter thanking CB for taking the position of not allowing caches in their parking lots with a cc to Walmart and a few other corporate chains.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Team GeoBlast

[CLV3]

Choosing a restaurant is never about 'just the food'. There are many factors that increase any particular restaurant's favorability or unfavorability.

 

I never said it was about 'just the food', so I don't know why you put that in quotes.

 

 

Actually for me its just the food....

[+derangedlunatech]

 

No, White Castle already does that. And by only squaring the burger, they're throwing off the shakles of uniformity, which is darkly ironic for a fast food chain.

 

Besides, if you are going to go with a square bun, you can't then neglect the tomato, onion, and pickle.

 

White Castle is like the "pointless micro-spew" of fast food

[+WebChimp]

Actually for me its just the food....

 

You are obviously blessed with the gifts of reason and logic.