+Wild Thing 73 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Why would you knowingly place a cache that does not comply with the Geo Guidelines? Or are you saying that "guidelines" are meant to be broken to suit the situation that you want? What about the others of us who have placed caches that didn't meet the guidelines and were archived. ??? If we all challenged that decision, what a mess that would be in tying up the Geo Admin....get over it and get to caching....Happy Caching and Smooth Trails... Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted October 15, 2008 Share Posted October 15, 2008 Why would you knowingly place a cache that does not comply with the Geo Guidelines? Or are you saying that "guidelines" are meant to be broken to suit the situation that you want? What about the others of us who have placed caches that didn't meet the guidelines and were archived. ??? If we all challenged that decision, what a mess that would be in tying up the Geo Admin....get over it and get to caching....Happy Caching and Smooth Trails... No one knowingly placed a cache in violation of the guidelines in this instance. In the cache owner's opinion, teh cache was neither "near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks" nor was it placed on or near a "highway bridges". The reviewer disagreed on it's appropriateness, but that doesn't mean that the guideline is clear on this issue. Quote Link to comment
+TotemLake Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Thanks for the responses. If the original post seems disorganized....sorry for that. Just wanted to get some feed back from others with more experience than I. I did not want to tell the exact location of the cache before I made my decision. Since I have pulled the cache....the location of the cache was in Deale MD. The bridge in question is a small bridge with guard rails going up to the side walk of the bridge. No way would I even attemp to put a cache on 495... ...edited... (TL) Thanks again for your feedback and hope to meet more cachers along the way! v/r Ken aka gldwing_rider Well done. You asked and you listened. That's more than I can say for most similar threads asking for opinions. Good luck on your future hides! Quote Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 (edited) Darwinism is a wild concept, isn't it. Darwinism? I assume from this remark that you are suggesting that anyone who dares walk (or bicycle) along a secondary state road is somehow defective and it would, therefore, be better if they were culled from the gene pool. Personally, I find this position to be somewhat off-base. Dude, it was meant as a joke. Forum smileys, laughing, you know. Darwinism doesn't say that people *should* be culled from the gene pool. It only theorizes that those beings that make better decisions in their life tend to live longer -- no matter what the species is. Beings that choose to play in a park stand a better chance of living a longer life than those who choose to play in traffic. You don't have to be "defective" to make poor choices. Since the actual location has not been released to those of us in the cheap seats, we can only assume that the reviewer made the correct decision. TotemLake is correct with his reminder... There has been enough bomb squad activity that has probably caused Groundspeak to reconsider any newly placed bridge caches. Enough said. I think that of the many news stories that have been posted here, bridge caches cause problem after problem and represent the vast majority of these public scares involving mass mobilization of public resources (like the bomb squad, fire department and police). Being proactive in addressing this issue seems to be the right thing to do. I would totally agree with the reviewer, especially after looking at the cache. (Clarified the quotes by adding in the names) Edited October 16, 2008 by mtn-man Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 Since the actual location has not been released to those of us in the cheap seats, we can only assume that the reviewer made the correct decision. TotemLake is correct with his reminder... The bit that you quoted was actually my attempt to support the reviewer's decision. I can see how it could be viewed differently. Quote Link to comment
+Uncopyrighted Posted October 16, 2008 Share Posted October 16, 2008 I hate caches under bridges. If it's a big bridge, then people gather under it during the summer for swimming and the cahce gets muggled. If it's a small bridge, then homeless people sleep under it, and it get muggled. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I hate caches under bridges. If it's a big bridge, then people gather under it during the summer for swimming and the cahce gets muggled. If it's a small bridge, then homeless people sleep under it, and it get muggled. Don't even get me started on the trolls. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.