High crime cache sites

[+Snoogans]

I think any one who is considering placing a cache in a dangerous/high crime place should take a look at this website.

 

My two sense is, Geocaching is supposed to be fun and sometimes even educational, but I wouldnt go some place in a high crime area just because it is historical or educational, interesting, etc. It is sad though that a lot of historical places of interest have been sucked up in to urban sprawl or with age the neighborhoods have gone "bad", but thats just how it is.

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

www.geocreed.info

 

WHEN PLACING OR SEEKING GEOCACHES, I WILL:

1. Not endanger myself or others

2. Observe all laws and rules of the area

3. Respect property rights and seek permission where

appropriate

4. Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm

5. Minimize my and others' impact on the environment

6. Be considerate of others

7. Protect the integrity of the game pieces

 

While that is really nice information to know, it has been my observation that only responsible, respectful and considerate citizens pay much attention to them.

 

You could probably find a list of what makes a 'good' neighbor. Good neighbors do not need such a list, 'bad' neighbors couldn't care less.

 

This was my exact objection to the creed. I was rather pleased that Groundspeak didn't officially adopt it, but rather included a link for those seeking information.

 

It was a noble if somewhat useless undertaking and it was interesting to watch the process as it was hammered out. I pulled the eject button pretty early on.

[+usyoopers]

Get your maps out and find the Upper Peninsula of Michigan....stuff like that doesn't go on here- please warn us of bad parts of the Country!!

Will do! I don't want geocachers wandering into bad-guy country any more than y'all want to find yourself there.

 

I've been watching documentaries about yoopers, and the stuff that goes on up there is indeed different!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kb9yhhflmvY

 

I don't go to deer camp myself but thats pretty much how I hear it is!

[+sbell111]

I think any one who is considering placing a cache in a dangerous/high crime place should take a look at this website.

 

My two sense is, Geocaching is supposed to be fun and sometimes even educational, but I wouldnt go some place in a high crime area just because it is historical or educational, interesting, etc. It is sad though that a lot of historical places of interest have been sucked up in to urban sprawl or with age the neighborhoods have gone "bad", but thats just how it is.

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

www.geocreed.info

 

WHEN PLACING OR SEEKING GEOCACHES, I WILL:

1. Not endanger myself or others

2. Observe all laws and rules of the area

3. Respect property rights and seek permission where

appropriate

4. Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm

5. Minimize my and others' impact on the environment

6. Be considerate of others

7. Protect the integrity of the game pieces

 

While that is really nice information to know, it has been my observation that only responsible, respectful and considerate citizens pay much attention to them.

 

You could probably find a list of what makes a 'good' neighbor. Good neighbors do not need such a list, 'bad' neighbors couldn't care less.

 

This was my exact objection to the creed. I was rather pleased that Groundspeak didn't officially adopt it, but rather included a link for those seeking information.

 

It was a noble if somewhat useless undertaking and it was interesting to watch the process as it was hammered out. I pulled the eject button pretty early on.

agreed

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

 

 

Here, I corrected it for you.

 

The Geocacher's Creed

 

No, you broke it. It was fine the way it was.

 

Geocachers is plural. Geocachers'is plural and possessive. Your repositioning of the apostrophe made it singular and possessive.

Edited December 14, 2009 by GeoGeeBee

[+jmd65]

 

Geocachers is plural. Geocachers'is plural and possessive. Your repositioning of the apostrophe made it singular and possessive.

 

It would seem to work as either singular or plural.

[+sbell111]

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

 

 

Here, I corrected it for you.

 

The Geocacher's Creed

 

No, you broke it. It was fine the way it was.

 

Geocachers is plural. Geocachers'is plural and possessive. Your repositioning of the apostrophe made it singular and possessive.

I'm fairly certain that you missed his point.

[Mr.Yuck]

I would hope the cache page mentions the fact that it's a high crime area, but I think it's perfectly fine to place caches in them. Nobody forces people to find certain caches. If the don't like the area they are free to stay in their car and move on out of there.

 

I have a cache in a high crime area. It's a virtual and has been there for 6 or 7 years. A few people have mentioned feeling uncomfortable in their logs, but not one of the nearly 200 finders has reported an incident.

 

I warn people on the page and it is their choice to find it.

 

I have seen that cache in your profile! Sounds awesome. Actually, within the last month I remember the guy with the naked man Avatar who has posted in this thread cracking jokes about that particular City in New Jersey. Not sure if you saw that. I've been nearby, but I don't think ever in the City proper.

 

I also remember a forum thread where people posted screen shots of "cache holes" in high crime areas, usually in inner cities. I found that fascinating. I'll see if I can't did that thread up. I'm off of work today because I have a cold, and my boss is the world's #1 germaphobe.

 

Oh, and I agree, people should definitely note the fact that the cache is in a high crime area on the cache page.

[+Renegade Knight]

....Does anyone have any suggestion on how to deal with these situations? My co-worker has notified the publisher about this but hasn't had a response.

 

The caches are fine. If you find them and are aware of a specific problem it's fair to say so in your log. I would not likely place one, but if I did I would probably mention it in the cache description.

 

Emailing the owner about an issue you know about is also fair. They should have complete information and so you would be helping. Don't expect any specific response though. People are funny that way.

Edited December 14, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...They really shouldnt place caches in high crime areas...

 

Why would you say that? Folks actually living in the areas can place and find caches. This is their normal.

 

My high school was the one with the reputation for fights, knifings and such. Seemed ok to me, I certainly didnt' have any problems, or see anything outside normal. It was no worse than the snobby rich kids school across town. However the perception and maybe in the reality as seen from outside...maybe they had a point. However that was my every day world.

[+Renegade Knight]

I think any one who is considering placing a cache in a dangerous/high crime place should take a look at this website.

 

My two sense is, Geocaching is supposed to be fun and sometimes even educational, but I wouldnt go some place in a high crime area just because it is historical or educational, interesting, etc. It is sad though that a lot of historical places of interest have been sucked up in to urban sprawl or with age the neighborhoods have gone "bad", but thats just how it is.

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

www.geocreed.info

 

WHEN PLACING OR SEEKING GEOCACHES, I WILL:

1. Not endanger myself or others

2. Observe all laws and rules of the area

3. Respect property rights and seek permission where

appropriate

4. Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm

5. Minimize my and others' impact on the environment

6. Be considerate of others

7. Protect the integrity of the game pieces

 

While that is really nice information to know, it has been my observation that only responsible, respectful and considerate citizens pay much attention to them.

 

You could probably find a list of what makes a 'good' neighbor. Good neighbors do not need such a list, 'bad' neighbors couldn't care less.

 

This was my exact objection to the creed. I was rather pleased that Groundspeak didn't officially adopt it, but rather included a link for those seeking information.

 

It was a noble if somewhat useless undertaking and it was interesting to watch the process as it was hammered out. I pulled the eject button pretty early on.

 

It's not about the good neighbor, nor the bad one. It's about who we rely on for our activity. The very effort we make, the eduction we provide, impacts perception.

 

It's like security. A lot of that is just knowing it's there. You get that benefit regardless of skill and effectivness of the force.

[+Castle Mischief]

I often cache with my family. If I'm in a town I'm not familiar with, I'd appreciate knowing via the cache description that it's a problem area before I get there so I can avoid it. If you feel comfortable caching in these areas, more power to you, but I'd rather have the information up front so that I can make the choice before I get out of the van with my three kids.

[+sbell111]

I often cache with my family. If I'm in a town I'm not familiar with, I'd appreciate knowing via the cache description that it's a problem area before I get there so I can avoid it. If you feel comfortable caching in these areas, more power to you, but I'd rather have the information up front so that I can make the choice before I get out of the van with my three kids.

Of course, people have used this exact argument in many different topics. If changes were made every time this arguement was used, there would either be no caches at all, or each cache would come with a ten page file breaking down the hide and surrounding location.

[Mr.Yuck]

I think any one who is considering placing a cache in a dangerous/high crime place should take a look at this website.

 

My two sense is, Geocaching is supposed to be fun and sometimes even educational, but I wouldnt go some place in a high crime area just because it is historical or educational, interesting, etc. It is sad though that a lot of historical places of interest have been sucked up in to urban sprawl or with age the neighborhoods have gone "bad", but thats just how it is.

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

www.geocreed.info

 

WHEN PLACING OR SEEKING GEOCACHES, I WILL:

1. Not endanger myself or others

2. Observe all laws and rules of the area

3. Respect property rights and seek permission where

appropriate

4. Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm

5. Minimize my and others' impact on the environment

6. Be considerate of others

7. Protect the integrity of the game pieces

 

While that is really nice information to know, it has been my observation that only responsible, respectful and considerate citizens pay much attention to them.

 

You could probably find a list of what makes a 'good' neighbor. Good neighbors do not need such a list, 'bad' neighbors couldn't care less.

 

This was my exact objection to the creed. I was rather pleased that Groundspeak didn't officially adopt it, but rather included a link for those seeking information.

 

It was a noble if somewhat useless undertaking and it was interesting to watch the process as it was hammered out. I pulled the eject button pretty early on.

 

I agree they never officially adopted it. However, I've always wondered why they have it plastered on the wall at the GPS maze exhibit. That certainly seems like an endorsement to the average person who doesn't know it was hammered out here in the forums, just by regular players, not Groundspeak.

 

So, what are you saying, you pulled the eject button pretty early on because no one was going to pay attention to the creed?

[+Snoogans]

I think any one who is considering placing a cache in a dangerous/high crime place should take a look at this website.

 

My two sense is, Geocaching is supposed to be fun and sometimes even educational, but I wouldnt go some place in a high crime area just because it is historical or educational, interesting, etc. It is sad though that a lot of historical places of interest have been sucked up in to urban sprawl or with age the neighborhoods have gone "bad", but thats just how it is.

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

www.geocreed.info

 

WHEN PLACING OR SEEKING GEOCACHES, I WILL:

1. Not endanger myself or others

2. Observe all laws and rules of the area

3. Respect property rights and seek permission where

appropriate

4. Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm

5. Minimize my and others' impact on the environment

6. Be considerate of others

7. Protect the integrity of the game pieces

 

While that is really nice information to know, it has been my observation that only responsible, respectful and considerate citizens pay much attention to them.

 

You could probably find a list of what makes a 'good' neighbor. Good neighbors do not need such a list, 'bad' neighbors couldn't care less.

 

This was my exact objection to the creed. I was rather pleased that Groundspeak didn't officially adopt it, but rather included a link for those seeking information.

 

It was a noble if somewhat useless undertaking and it was interesting to watch the process as it was hammered out. I pulled the eject button pretty early on.

 

I agree they never officially adopted it. However, I've always wondered why they have it plastered on the wall at the GPS maze exhibit. That certainly seems like an endorsement to the average person who doesn't know it was hammered out here in the forums, just by regular players, not Groundspeak.

 

So, what are you saying, you pulled the eject button pretty early on because no one was going to pay attention to the creed?

 

No. It went deeper than that, but that was the main point. At one point in the draft stage it was a rather long redundant list. There was some other stuff going on that made it feel like the mark of the beast to me....

 

We really needed George Carlin to boil it down like he did with the 10 commandments. He was alive then.

[+Snoogans]

I think any one who is considering placing a cache in a dangerous/high crime place should take a look at this website.

 

My two sense is, Geocaching is supposed to be fun and sometimes even educational, but I wouldnt go some place in a high crime area just because it is historical or educational, interesting, etc. It is sad though that a lot of historical places of interest have been sucked up in to urban sprawl or with age the neighborhoods have gone "bad", but thats just how it is.

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

www.geocreed.info

 

WHEN PLACING OR SEEKING GEOCACHES, I WILL:

1. Not endanger myself or others

2. Observe all laws and rules of the area

3. Respect property rights and seek permission where

appropriate

4. Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm

5. Minimize my and others' impact on the environment

6. Be considerate of others

7. Protect the integrity of the game pieces

 

While that is really nice information to know, it has been my observation that only responsible, respectful and considerate citizens pay much attention to them.

 

You could probably find a list of what makes a 'good' neighbor. Good neighbors do not need such a list, 'bad' neighbors couldn't care less.

 

This was my exact objection to the creed. I was rather pleased that Groundspeak didn't officially adopt it, but rather included a link for those seeking information.

 

It was a noble if somewhat useless undertaking and it was interesting to watch the process as it was hammered out. I pulled the eject button pretty early on.

 

It's not about the good neighbor, nor the bad one. It's about who we rely on for our activity. The very effort we make, the eduction we provide, impacts perception.

 

It's like security. A lot of that is just knowing it's there. You get that benefit regardless of skill and effectivness of the force.

 

Security is my field and you're right in the short term. It gets much more complicated in the long term.

 

I like the creed right where it is. A nice read and possibly helpful for honest seekers of information and for children. It makes for good press, but it can also be used against you if you make it a standard.

[+Castle Mischief]

I often cache with my family. If I'm in a town I'm not familiar with, I'd appreciate knowing via the cache description that it's a problem area before I get there so I can avoid it. If you feel comfortable caching in these areas, more power to you, but I'd rather have the information up front so that I can make the choice before I get out of the van with my three kids.

Of course, people have used this exact argument in many different topics. If changes were made every time this arguement was used, there would either be no caches at all, or each cache would come with a ten page file breaking down the hide and surrounding location.

 

I said "I'd appreciate" not "I demand changes be made". I was stating a preference, not a call to arms for changes to the guidelines or even changes to listing behavior.

 

I don't see how "This area has a history of crime" equates to a "ten page break-down" either.

Edited December 15, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+lavender5215]

I think any one who is considering placing a cache in a dangerous/high crime place should take a look at this website.

 

My two sense is, Geocaching is supposed to be fun and sometimes even educational, but I wouldnt go some place in a high crime area just because it is historical or educational, interesting, etc. It is sad though that a lot of historical places of interest have been sucked up in to urban sprawl or with age the neighborhoods have gone "bad", but thats just how it is.

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

www.geocreed.info

 

WHEN PLACING OR SEEKING GEOCACHES, I WILL:

1. Not endanger myself or others

2. Observe all laws and rules of the area

3. Respect property rights and seek permission where

appropriate

4. Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm

5. Minimize my and others' impact on the environment

6. Be considerate of others

7. Protect the integrity of the game pieces

 

While that is really nice information to know, it has been my observation that only responsible, respectful and considerate citizens pay much attention to them.

 

You could probably find a list of what makes a 'good' neighbor. Good neighbors do not need such a list, 'bad' neighbors couldn't care less.

 

This was my exact objection to the creed. I was rather pleased that Groundspeak didn't officially adopt it, but rather included a link for those seeking information.

 

It was a noble if somewhat useless undertaking and it was interesting to watch the process as it was hammered out. I pulled the eject button pretty early on.

 

It's not about the good neighbor, nor the bad one. It's about who we rely on for our activity. The very effort we make, the eduction we provide, impacts perception.

 

It's like security. A lot of that is just knowing it's there. You get that benefit regardless of skill and effectivness of the force.

 

Security is my field and you're right in the short term. It gets much more complicated in the long term.

 

I like the creed right where it is. A nice read and possibly helpful for honest seekers of information and for children. It makes for good press, but it can also be used against you if you make it a standard.

 

When i posted this my goal was simply to reference the creed as something to make people think a little before they go and put a a cache out in a high crime rate area.

 

No i dont think it should be made a standard nessesarily, even though most of our practices as geocachers seem similiar.

 

When i read the groungspeak rules the creed does echo there. Im still almost an "fresh out of the box newbie" and I found the creed helpful to me to know how i should proceed as a geocacher as to not ruin the game for everyone else with my ignorance.

 

I dont think that anything should be forced upon a person, including the geocreed, but if the individual wishes to adopt it as personally there own its not a bad idea. the practices on the creed can help save people some trouble and grief.

 

Edited December 15, 2009 by lavender5215

[+Team Cotati]

Its not up to the reviewers to determine the level of danger in the neighborhood as a practical matter its not possible for that evaluaton to be made.

True, and that is as it should be. Neither Reviewers nor Groundspeak evaluate cache listings for danger.

...everybody has a different level of tolerance for danger. Its within the boundaries of the rules to place a cache anywhere that the hider has permission. Its also the responsibility of the seekers to report in their logs their experiences, particluarly where real or perceved danger of injury exists. If i rolled up to a cache where 3 or 4 previous finders reported danger I'd probably pass. Such a cache most likely would quickly go offline. No gnashing of teeth required.

It is indeed within the guidelines to place a cache in any permissible area without regard to physical danger or perceived crime level.

 

Whether it is within the bounds of good sense and concern for other players is the question here.

 

My position is that we do have a personal duty and responsibility to avoid luring others into known high-crime areas by placing a cache there.

 

A foundry I once did a network computer system for used to sell castings to antique dealers on King Street in Charleston SC. They made them in a gray-iron foundry here in Birmingham or imported them from China and India and sold them to antique dealers in high-dollar tourist areas such as the famed King Street Antique District and the French Quarter in New Orleans. Some (can't say all, but I think most) were prone to take a casting such as an iron boot scraper, ornamental iron fence panel or a horse head casting for a post finial and toss it out in the weather for six months or so behind their shop. When it was sufficiently rusty and weathered they would bring it in and suddenly this casting was an antique that had gained in value from the $5 they paid for it a few months ago to an item "of indeterminable age, but apparently very old" and sold for $75. So, one could argue that just about the whole place is a high-crime area. However, there is a particular cross-street, I don't remember the name of it, that divides King Street from okay to not okay in terms of violent criminal activity... I have never seen such a clear divide anywhere else. King Street east of that intersection, cool, west of it, not so much. This is a huge tourist area and only if a local warned you would you know about this divide and which side to geocache on! If I lived there I would not have any problem hiding a cache in the antique district, even knowing that certain shop owners were crooks, because they pose no physical threat to geocachers. I would not choose to put caches in the more dangerous area due to simple consideration for geocachers.

 

Here in Birmingham we have a long-existing Pickle Park at a parking lot and wooded trail area where US Hwy 280 crosses the Cahaba River. Because they cause no trouble the police choose to ignore this place, so for at least 30 years that I know of it has been known to locals as a safe hangout for gay men. Sometimes in election years a Mayor or Sheriff will put on a 'Christian Morals Crusade' to run them off, but that doesn't last beyond election day. If you are with someone else, especially a woman or kids, you may see these guys sitting in their car or walking on the trail but they will leave you completely alone. If you are male and go there by yourself then they may try to make eye contact or somehow signal their interest, but I have never heard of any of them acting out or making a hard pass at anyone... a simple shake of the head and they ignore you.

 

There are picnic tables at the parking lot, which is beside the river at a spillway dam so it is a beautiful spot that can be seen easily from the highway, thus it attracts the un-knowing who, driving by, just see a pretty picnic spot for lunch. There is also a popular canoe put-in just below the dam.

 

So, a cacher aware of the location's activities but not believing these men to be of danger to anyone (they're not, they police their own behavior, which is why the police leave them alone) put a cache there. I was FTF on it and while there was watched by a couple of men at different places coming in the trail and looking for the cache. Knowing this to be a pickle park I called them over, explained the game, told them that geocachers would be coming to look for it, showed them the cache and contents, and asked them to please put out the word to their friends that it was there and to leave it alone. They did, and the cache never had any trouble from muggles.

 

However, pretty quickly more and more online logs began to say something like "OMG! There's GAY men here and one of them LOOKED at me! ICKY! I just knew that my life was in danger! This cache should be archived IMMEDIATELY!!!"

 

No indication whatsoever of danger, just your typical redneck homophobia. Evidently many folks equate gay with child-molesting rapist criminals.

 

So it became a topic on our local forum... is leading folks to a known pickle park acceptable?

 

As in this thread some defended the right for any cache to exist anywhere, some thought "OMG! Gays! Archive it!" and some, as here, thought that putting a warning in the cache description was sufficient. Interestingly, the two 'out' gays in our geocaching association thought the cache should be archived so the geocachers wouldn't intrude on the men there!

 

The overwhelming responses were along the lines of "Yes, you can place a cache there, but I wish you wouldn't. I don't want to go to such a place."

 

The warning in the listing idea didn't meet with good reception because so many of us cache paperless and just follow the GPS to the next nearest, so those folks would not see the warning.

 

After maybe six months the cache owner decided that in the face of so many alarmist logs and overwhelming "I wouldn't" posts in our local forum that it was best to archive it.

 

Perhaps a year later another cacher, not knowing the spot or its geocaching history, thought "what a lovely place" and hid a cache there. Overwhelmingly our community of cachers explained why it wasn't such a good spot and he archived it within days.

 

Since then that spot has remained free of caches by consensus.

 

Danger then, from our fellow humans (at least here in central Alabama) IS treated by cache hiders as different than physical danger (a cliff, etc), but cacher discomfort is considered as well and we as a geocaching community choose not to put caches where seekers will likely be uncomfortable.

 

It isn't about Guidelines or whether the place is permissible, it's about would we want to be taken there. In that particular case it was decided that taking someone to a pretty place was over-ridden by the decision not to put them in an uncomfortable position, er, place.

 

I like that. I like that I can feel comfortable that if a local cacher puts a cache there then they feel like it is an okay place. That's not to say a safe place, just not one that should give cachers a case of the leaping fantods.

 

I think that's common sense and simple courtesy.

I think that the local cachers in question should butt out. It is not their place to monitor everyone else's cache locations. If they don't care for the spot, they can simply ignore the cache.

 

How rude.

We have had areas that became pickle parks over the years. They didn't last long due to local police patrols. ATM we have a park, out in the county that is serving the same purpose. We have a cache hidden at GZ and there are several others that require foot transit through the active area. Perhaps the presence of cachers will discourage the 'seekers' and they will move on eventually.

Agreed. One of the reasons that crime takes over parks like those discussed in this thread is because people allow it to happen. They give the criminals a nice quiet place to be. The more 'regular' people that use these areas, the less comnfy the miscreants will be.

Okay. Here's an edited version of an interesting log...

I noticed that the park was virtually empty - just as I expected at 8:00 AM. I admired the views from the overlook and scouted-out a route down the steep hillside - the skeletal remains of an long iron staircase. Down I went without a problem and over to the brush where my GPSr was pointing.

Now here's where the fun began.

I must have been followed because just as I started searching, I heard footsteps approaching. Not the sound of someone walking by, but slow deliberate steps. I poke my head up and spot two guys scanning the hillside to see where I went. I saw them before they saw me, so it was quite obvious what they were looking for. I say "what's up?" and just get stares in return. They walk by but stop just out of sight.

Growing up in the city and working on the streets for 16 years makes me feel that my senses are well tuned. So, right about now I know that something isn't right and I feel my brain release a hefty dose of adrenaline as a reaction to the stress. Not the type situation that I'd prefer, but it feels good nonetheless.

My mind is racing now, but I just want to find the cache and get the hell out of here, so I continue searching.

Again I here them walking over and before I look up I hear "watcha doin' ova there?"

"looking for snakes" I respond without even thinking like I'm some sort of bad a** herpetologist(yeah, it's funny now but I'll admit I was scared).

Instead of them walking off together, they split-up, one on the path to the north and the other to the south. Now I have no doubt at all that I'm going to get jumped.

My options are pretty much limited now. I'm alone, in a closed section of a park, with only one route choice left - up.

Lucky I can climb because the hillside is very steep with barren rock outcroppings. So, up and out I went."

Great park. Spectacular views!! Historic. Not the best neighborhood. This cacher returned two weeks later for the FTF. Not knowing this, we went two days later for 2nd & 3rd of 5 to find. Bright, sunny Sunday afternoon, with lots of people in the park. We were surprised that, when we followed the trail into the woods, the kids playing in the woods went running out! Found cache with little problem. It was archive a few months later.

Sometimes it depends on when and how you search for a cache. Quite a shame that this part of the park is not well maintained. It is a spectacular location! Oh, well. BTW, no new caches have been hidden in this section of the park since. Were we crazy to go hunting for it? Naw. We chose a good time for the search.

Note the two bolded bits. The cacher's spidey sense was tingling like crazy, so he kept looking or the cache. He's lucky that his stupid decision to ignore his own senses didn't have a catastrophic result.

 

Would have spiced up the story a bit though. How exciting!!

[+bflentje]

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

 

 

Here, I corrected it for you.

 

The Geocacher's Creed

 

No, you broke it. It was fine the way it was.

 

Geocachers is plural. Geocachers'is plural and possessive. Your repositioning of the apostrophe made it singular and possessive.

 

I don't need a lecture on syntax and grammar. I fixed it exactly the way I had intended. To be one geocachers creed, not some thing the rest of us endorse. While I think there are some good points in it, the whole notion of its existence is laughable.

[+lavender5215]

Oh by the way just for everyones info. I didnt find the creed by the link on geocaching.com I actually stumbled upon it when a did a search for websites offering free signature card templates.

 

I dont know if that makes a difference but i thought i tell ya!

[+lavender5215]

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

 

 

Here, I corrected it for you.

 

The Geocacher's Creed

 

No, you broke it. It was fine the way it was.

 

Geocachers is plural. Geocachers'is plural and possessive. Your repositioning of the apostrophe made it singular and possessive.

 

I don't need a lecture on syntax and grammar. I fixed it exactly the way I had intended. To be one geocachers creed, not some thing the rest of us endorse. While I think there are some good points in it, the whole notion of its existence is laughable.

 

I agree the geocreed is to be adopted individually by choice of each person, it should be listed as singular possessive.

[+sbell111]

I often cache with my family. If I'm in a town I'm not familiar with, I'd appreciate knowing via the cache description that it's a problem area before I get there so I can avoid it. If you feel comfortable caching in these areas, more power to you, but I'd rather have the information up front so that I can make the choice before I get out of the van with my three kids.

Of course, people have used this exact argument in many different topics. If changes were made every time this arguement was used, there would either be no caches at all, or each cache would come with a ten page file breaking down the hide and surrounding location.

I said "I'd appreciate" not "I demand changes be made". I was stating a preference, not a call to arms for changes to the guidelines or even changes to listing behavior.

 

I don't see how "This area has a history of crime" equates to a "ten page break-down" either.

I con only imagine that you did a quick scan of my post rather than actually reading it through.

[+Castle Mischief]

I often cache with my family. If I'm in a town I'm not familiar with, I'd appreciate knowing via the cache description that it's a problem area before I get there so I can avoid it. If you feel comfortable caching in these areas, more power to you, but I'd rather have the information up front so that I can make the choice before I get out of the van with my three kids.

Of course, people have used this exact argument in many different topics. If changes were made every time this argument was used, there would either be no caches at all, or each cache would come with a ten page file breaking down the hide and surrounding location.

I said "I'd appreciate" not "I demand changes be made". I was stating a preference, not a call to arms for changes to the guidelines or even changes to listing behavior.

 

I don't see how "This area has a history of crime" equates to a "ten page break-down" either.

I con only imagine that you did a quick scan of my post rather than actually reading it through.

 

Specifically, where do you think that I've misinterpreted your post?

[+sbell111]

I often cache with my family. If I'm in a town I'm not familiar with, I'd appreciate knowing via the cache description that it's a problem area before I get there so I can avoid it. If you feel comfortable caching in these areas, more power to you, but I'd rather have the information up front so that I can make the choice before I get out of the van with my three kids.

Of course, people have used this exact argument in many different topics. If changes were made every time this argument was used, there would either be no caches at all, or each cache would come with a ten page file breaking down the hide and surrounding location.

I said "I'd appreciate" not "I demand changes be made". I was stating a preference, not a call to arms for changes to the guidelines or even changes to listing behavior.

 

I don't see how "This area has a history of crime" equates to a "ten page break-down" either.

I con only imagine that you did a quick scan of my post rather than actually reading it through.

 

Specifically, where do you think that I've misinterpreted your post?

You appear to have misread the first and second sentences.

[4wheelin_fool]

...They really shouldnt place caches in high crime areas...

 

Why would you say that? Folks actually living in the areas can place and find caches. This is their normal.

 

My high school was the one with the reputation for fights, knifings and such. Seemed ok to me, I certainly didnt' have any problems, or see anything outside normal. It was no worse than the snobby rich kids school across town. However the perception and maybe in the reality as seen from outside...maybe they had a point. However that was my every day world.

 

I mean REALLY high crime areas. Not all high crime areas are alike. There are plenty of places that are safe during the day but unsafe at night. Some people's perception is a lot different than what it really is.

They should at least put communication on the cache page about the area as a warning. Some places just really should not have caches. If you place a micro on a corner where dealers sell crack and there are drive by shootings, a geocacher who does not know about it would be walking into trouble. The cacher arrives and tries to play it cool and protect the integrity of the game piece, meanwhile the dealer is trying to play it cool and trying to protect himself from going to jail.. The cacher is walking around with a small electronic device and acting suspicious.. Dealers tend to hide the bulk of their stash near where they deal, so as not to be caught with it..

Unfortunately any spot could be a potential crime area, so you just need to be careful.

[CoyoteRed]

...the whole notion of its existence is laughable.

I'm curious as to why you would think so.

[4wheelin_fool]

I think any one who is considering placing a cache in a dangerous/high crime place should take a look at this website.

 

My two sense is, Geocaching is supposed to be fun and sometimes even educational, but I wouldnt go some place in a high crime area just because it is historical or educational, interesting, etc. It is sad though that a lot of historical places of interest have been sucked up in to urban sprawl or with age the neighborhoods have gone "bad", but thats just how it is.

 

The Geocachers’ Creed

www.geocreed.info

 

WHEN PLACING OR SEEKING GEOCACHES, I WILL:

1. Not endanger myself or others

2. Observe all laws and rules of the area

3. Respect property rights and seek permission where

appropriate

4. Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm

5. Minimize my and others' impact on the environment

6. Be considerate of others

7. Protect the integrity of the game pieces

 

No, cachers should be:

1. trustworthy
   
2. loyal
   
3. helpful
   
4. friendly
   
5. courteous
   
6. kind
   
7. obedient
   
8. cheerful
   
9. thrifty
   
10. brave..
    

Perhaps thats too much, make it:

• fidelity
  
• bravery
  
• integrity
  

[+Castle Mischief]

Specifically, where do you think that I've misinterpreted your post?

You appear to have misread the first and second sentences.

 

I'm going to play this game for two more posts counting this one, then I'm going to go do something productive, like eat lunch.

 

Your post was:

 

Of course, people have used this exact argument in many different topics.

 

A statement of fact. No argument from me there. Please explain how I've misinterpreted this sentence, with specifics.

 

Now let's break-down this next little nugget of forum gold:

 

If changes were made every time this argument was used...

 

I'm not asking for changes. Perhaps you aren't implying that I am- which would be odd since you addressed my post and quoted it. Is this the weak link in my comprehension skills?

 

...there would either be no caches at all...

 

Supposition based on lack of evidence, but again feel free to explain to me, with specifics, how I've misinterpreted this portion of your post.

 

...or each cache would come with a ten page file breaking down the hide and surrounding location.

 

Again, you're imagining a possible future world that is not based on any facts or evidence. At some point in the past the need was identified for more information about a cache location- along come attributes. More information was provided without the need for this fictional multi-page document that you've dreamed up with your crazy moon-man logic. Now help me out, because I am prone to only read your posts with the monitor upside down and one eye closed at a break-neck speed often only really reading the first two letters of each word. In other words, make a specific point.

 

It seems to me that you are saying that my act of stating a preference for a certain behavior will either result in that behavior or will somehow cause new guidelines and rules to enforce that behavior. Stated behavior being- a mention of the high-crime rate of a general area surrounding the cache site.

 

But hey, I've been wrong before.

[Mr.Yuck]

...the whole notion of its existence is laughable.

I'm curious as to why you would think so.

 

First, even though I'm not quoting him, thanks to Snoogans for his answer to my question.

 

I still too am curious why there would be any Creed hata's out there? Seems like a pretty good Creed to me.

 

And no one has responded to my observation that Groundspeak has it plastered on the wall of the GPS maze exhibit. Doesn't anyone else find that strange, considering it isn't officially endorsed?

Edited December 15, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel

[CoyoteRed]

While that is really nice information to know, it has been my observation that only responsible, respectful and considerate citizens pay much attention to them.

You completely miss the point of the whole project.

 

Folks who are very thoughtful will not ever need rules. They instinctively, intuitively, or thoughtful do the right thing. They don't need rules or laws to tell them to not kill, steal, cheat, etc. So, the rules and laws in place are useless to make them do the right thing.

 

Folks who couldn't care less about others, or rules, will do whatever they please regardless of the consequences. They think the rules don't apply to them and will kill, steal, cheat, etc. So, the rules and laws in place are useless to make them do the right thing. (Of course, the laws provide a way to make them change their minds or remove them from society.)

 

Who the rules (decorum, guidelines, laws, whatever) are for are those who need some sort of guidance. Figure which side of the road you need to drive on. It's hard to instinctively know. The government says, "Okay, everyone, we're going to be driving on this side of the road." Cool, now we know.

 

The Creed isn't for folks who already instinctively know what to do or those who are going to ignore it. It for those who need a bit of guidance. That's why it's a voluntary thing. It's not rules. It a set of ideas for when one's instincts or intuition fails them. They can look at that list of ideas and it will guide them to a decision, generally one that will be good for their fellow hobbyists and the hobby itself. It's even in order of importance.

 

The definition of creed: "...a set of beliefs, principles, or opinions that strongly influence the way people live or work." In this case, how one pursues this hobby.

[+sbell111]

Specifically, where do you think that I'vemisinterpreted your post?

You appear to have misread the first and second sentences.

I'm going to play this game for two more posts counting this one, then I'm going to go do something productive, like eat lunch.

 

Your post was:

Of course, people have used this exact argument in many different topics.

A statement of fact. No argument from me there. Please explain how I've misinterpreted this sentence, with specifics.

 

Now let's break-down this next little nugget of forum gold:

If changes were made every time this argument was used...

I'm not asking for changes. Perhaps you aren't implying that I am- which would be odd since you addressed my post and quoted it. Is this the weak link in my comprehension skills?

...there would either be no caches at all...

Supposition based on lack of evidence, but again feel free to explain to me, with specifics, how I've misinterpreted this portion of your post.

...or each cache would come with a ten page file breaking down the hide and surrounding location.

Again, you're imagining a possible future world that is not based on any facts or evidence. At some point in the past the need was identified for more information about a cache location- along come attributes. More information was provided without the need for this fictional multi-page document that you've dreamed up with your crazy moon-man logic. Now help me out, because I am prone to only read your posts with the monitor upside down and one eye closed at a break-neck speed often only really reading the first two letters of each word. In other words, make a specific point.

 

It seems to me that you are saying that my act of stating a preference for a certain behavior will either result in that behavior or will somehow cause new guidelines and rules to enforce that behavior. Stated behavior being- a mention of the high-crime rate of a general area surrounding the cache site.

 

But hey, I've been wrong before.

... and you are again.

 

You've taken the position that information should be given on the cache page that would allow a geocacher to avoid the cache if it didn't crank his motor.

 

I merely reminded you that you and others have made this very argument against all manner of caches that they might choose not to hunt. I further opined that if all cache owners were required to do what you ask in order to list a cache that there would either be no caches or each cache would come with a ten-page addendum.

 

To you and BS and those others who like to complain about things and then claim that they are not trying to actually illicit any required change, I think that you are being either intentionally or unintentionally untruthful. It's possible that you truly believe that the force of your words in this thread is going to spontaneously cause all cachers to bend to your will, but I doubt it. In my opinion, it's more likely that the hint of agreement in a thread like this would either be used as a call to make formal (or informal) guidelines changes or be used to bully those who disagree.

 

(BTW, from the bolded bit, I can only assume that you didn't read the forum guidelines very closely, either.)

Edited December 15, 2009 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

Perhaps we could take the 'Creed' conversation to a different thread. It's off-topic and it's all been discussed before.

 

Those who wish to can tattoo it to their foreheads, for all I care.

[+Castle Mischief]

To you and BS and those others who like to complain about things and then claim that they are not trying to actually illicit any required change, I think that you are being either intentionally or unintentionally untruthful. It's possible that you truly believe that the force of your words in this thread is going to spontaneously cause all cachers to bend to your will, but I doubt it. In my opinion, it's more likely that the hint of agreement in a thread like this would either be used as a call to make formal (or informal) guidelines changes or be used to bully those who disagree.

 

So you're suggesting that I'm a either liar or just not able to recognize the lies when I type them down. You are also suggesting that you are somehow much better to recognize these lies when they inevitably surge forth from my fingers. In that case, we have reached an impasse.

 

I am telling you that I merely prefer to have the dangers spelled out on the cache page. In the same way that I like to see the "curve in the road" sign before enter the curve. I don't require it and I don't expect it, but it's nice when it happens.

 

Now let me be clear: HEY Groundspeak, I DO NOT WISH YOU TO CHANGE ANY GUIDELINES! DO YOU HEAR ME! I THINK I'M BEING TRUTHFUL, BUT YOU'D BETTER ASK SBELL111, JUST TO BE SURE!

 

Ah, but I see now that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander...

 

I would prefer traditional caches over multis, but you should hide whatever you would prefer.

 

Apparently, only some people are allowed to post a preference.

 

(BTW, from the bold-ed bit, I can only assume that you didn't read the forum guidelines very closely, either.)

 

You mean, where I referred to your logic as both crazy and resembling that of a moon-man? Well you nailed me there. I'm just not rascally enough to tell somebody that they are a liar and unable recognize their own lies without just typing it out in plain English.

 

...and I'm done. You want to indirectly insult me further, take it to PMs.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+bflentje]

...the whole notion of its existence is laughable.

I'm curious as to why you would think so.

 

A creed is defined as...

 

Main Entry: creed

Pronunciation: \ˈkrēd\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English crede, from Old English crēda, from Latin credo (first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), from credere to believe, trust, entrust; akin to Old Irish cretid he believes, Sanskrit śrad-dadhāti

Date: before 12th century

1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief

2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle

 

 

I don't need someone dictating my beliefs. As for principles and guidelines, I think (un)common sense and the Groundspeak terms of use fulfill my needs perfectly. Some phony creed is just another means of micromanaging the people.

[+GrateBear]

To the OP, you need to get over your fears of the Chicopee/Springfield/Holyoke area. Latest crime stats show the area as 51 on the list (http://www.kcra.com/download/2009/1123/21700787.pdf) for crime. I'm guessing you don't even venture into downtown Springfield.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I don't need a lecture on syntax and grammar. I fixed it exactly the way I had intended. To be one geocachers creed, not some thing the rest of us endorse. While I think there are some good points in it, the whole notion of its existence is laughable.

 

Well, why didn't you say so?

[+Snoogans]

...the whole notion of its existence is laughable.

I'm curious as to why you would think so.

 

First, even though I'm not quoting him, thanks to Snoogans for his answer to my question.

 

I still too am curious why there would be any Creed hata's out there? Seems like a pretty good Creed to me.

 

And no one has responded to my observation that Groundspeak has it plastered on the wall of the GPS maze exhibit. Doesn't anyone else find that strange, considering it isn't officially endorsed?

 

I meant to answer that too, but I got pressed for time...

 

My guess is that activities at museums, aquariums, and zoos are usually geared toward children. As I stated earlier, I think the creed is a good thing for kids to learn and be exposed to. Wellll that, and it's a warm, fluffy bunnies and kittens thang for a reporter reviewing the exhibit to possibly mention.

 

That's just my opinion. Actual mileage may vary...