Geocaching Responsibly

[+Chrysalides]

I've noticed a correlation between "Texas" and "complaints about geolitter." Remember, Texas only has one reviewer - Ontario and Quebec, which are approx. equivalent in population to Texas, have SEVEN between them.

Is there a correlation between number of reviewers and quality of geocaches (in terms of availability)? Perhaps. I think the players themselves have a bigger influence though. Which, ironically, is one part of what that website is trying to point out, but in such a way that it rubs many people the wrong way.

 

Your "Texas" remark did nicely deflect the myopic dog's request to you to provide evidence that the guy is trying to undermine geocaching

[knowschad]

 

Your "Texas" remark did nicely deflect the myopic dog's request to you to provide evidence that the guy is trying to undermine geocaching

 

You noticed that too, huh?

[+narcissa]

I've noticed a correlation between "Texas" and "complaints about geolitter." Remember, Texas only has one reviewer - Ontario and Quebec, which are approx. equivalent in population to Texas, have SEVEN between them.

Is there a correlation between number of reviewers and quality of geocaches (in terms of availability)? Perhaps. I think the players themselves have a bigger influence though. Which, ironically, is one part of what that website is trying to point out, but in such a way that it rubs many people the wrong way.

 

Your "Texas" remark did nicely deflect the myopic dog's request to you to provide evidence that the guy is trying to undermine geocaching

 

I said I was unconvinced. I don't know that I can provide evidence of my being unconvinced.

[+kh54s10]

I have read all the comments with amusement and wish to say that with work the website could be useful to some.

 

I briefly scanned the website and was not very impressed. I did not look at any of the park and forest information because I was not interested in that now. If I ever were to place a cache in a state park or forest I would then take it upon myself to research their regulations.

 

After reading all the posts I went back and looked at the home page. I suggest that the whole thing be rewritten!!! The grammar and sentence structure is atrocious. Some of the points are good but the "preachy" air certainly does come across and in my opinion does not cast geocaching as a whole in a good light.

 

I find it hard to believe there is truly such a big problem with abandoned caches. Maybe you can provide some evidence on the percentage and that they are truly abandoned. Are they still listed? Do they need maintenance? How long since a NM log? If there NM logs are not being responded to is anyone posting NA logs?

 

To blame this on veterans is not the best way to get a point across to someone with much more experience than you have.

 

Work on the site - you may be able to turn it into something good.

[Mr.Yuck]

But what I really want to know is why Narcissa finds it interesting this initiative is coming from Texas.

Perhaps it is because Narcissa exchanged heated words with someone from Texas in the past. However, I think Narcissa had exchanged heated words with someone from just about every state of the union, and many other countries in addition.

 

I've noticed a correlation between "Texas" and "complaints about geolitter." Remember, Texas only has one reviewer - Ontario and Quebec, which are approx. equivalent in population to Texas, have SEVEN between them.

 

Oh shucks, I should have known, especially seeing as earlier in the thread I posted something like "The Texas reviewer sure gets a lot of help, or offers for it". Another guy started a thread last month wanting to be a reviewer in Texas, and it came out that Texas only has one reviewer, and the rumors were flying that he has threatened to quit if another reviewer was appointed. Don't know if I believe that, but the rumors were indeed flying.

[+narcissa]

 

Oh shucks, I should have known, especially seeing as earlier in the thread I posted something like "The Texas reviewer sure gets a lot of help, or offers for it". Another guy started a thread last month wanting to be a reviewer in Texas, and it came out that Texas only has one reviewer, and the rumors were flying that he has threatened to quit if another reviewer was appointed. Don't know if I believe that, but the rumors were indeed flying.

 

Yeah, it's not really my style to pick on people for where they live. Heck, most of the time I don't even notice where people live.

 

But now that I've pointed it out, whenever you see someone complaining about reviewers taking too much time or ignoring disabled caches or whatever, take note of where they live... Texas definitely seems to be a hotspot of malcontent.

[+bradleyhenley]

I thought cemetery caches were no longer allowed?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC2PJ4F

[+Student Camper]

I read the opening page and did a quick review of the rest of the site, but frankly, I saw very little that wasn't already addressed on another site, in truth, most of what I saw appeared to be obtained from another site.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw very little originality, very boring.

[+niraD]

I thought cemetery caches were no longer allowed?

Why would you think that?

[+bradleyhenley]

I thought cemetery caches were no longer allowed?

Why would you think that?

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=306

 

1.3. Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

1. If your cache is reported by the land owner or land manager as being an unwanted intrusion, Groundspeak will respect their wishes, support their request and take action.

2. Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict cache placement. Some park systems also have specific geocaching rules. Local geocaching organizations or your local reviewer are often able to provide information on regional requirements.

3. A cache may be disabled or archived if (list is not exhaustive) one or more of the following is true. If your cache is located within one of the areas listed below and you have complied with special regulations by obtaining written permission or a permit, please explain this in a "Note to Reviewer."

o Placement does not meet all guidelines.

 

o Cache placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and vehicular traffic including but not limited to archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries.

 

 

o Cache defaces or destroys property (public or private) either in the hiding of or searching for the cache.

o Cache is near active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary.

o Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

4. The Review Process outlines steps to take if your geocache has been placed on hold, temporarily disabled or archived.

[+bradleyhenley]

I read the opening page and did a quick review of the rest of the site, but frankly, I saw very little that wasn't already addressed on another site, in truth, most of what I saw appeared to be obtained from another site.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw very little originality, very boring.

 

Nothing about my sight should be original.

 

The site is a place I am gathering the links to the state and federal laws.

 

The website is to inform people that there are State and Federal Laws governing the sport of Geocaching.

 

Also on the redesign I am working on right now. I will be placing links to different articles that talk about the sport of geocaching.

[+StarBrand]

....

3. A cache may be disabled or archived if (list is not exhaustive) one or more of the following is true. If your cache is located within one of the areas listed below and you have complied with special regulations by obtaining written permission or a permit, please explain this in a "Note to Reviewer."

o Placement does not meet all guidelines.

 

o Cache placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and vehicular traffic including but not limited to archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries.

...

 

Please note the permission clause there. Permission for a cemetary cache can be obtained making them ok.

[+BelKen]

 

Why? We have a perfectly comprehensive set of guidelines right here on this site.

 

These cover what you need to do if you wish to list a cache on this site. Some of us don't exactly believe that they form any complete list of guidelines to geocaching.

 

Having said that the person/s who put the mentioned site together has even less relevance to geocaching in my eyes.

[+roziecakes]

I thought cemetery caches were no longer allowed?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC2PJ4F

 

It depends on where you live. There are some states that forbid them, but in most places you would treat it like any other cache placement and get permission from the land manager. I have two caches in cemeteries both with permission here in Lane County, OR, and I know I've found many cemetery caches that have been around a long time with no problems.

 

This is part of why I'm a little concerned that someone with a lack of experience telling other cachers what to do; and that's not a personal criticism, it's a genuine concern.

Edited March 5, 2011 by nymphnsatyr

[+simpjkee]

I think this guy has the right idea, but a few of the details could use some touching up.

[+Chrysalides]

I think this guy has the right idea, but a few of the details could use some touching up.

You obviously don't agree with Narcissa

[+simpjkee]

I think this guy has the right idea, but a few of the details could use some touching up.

You obviously don't agree with Narcissa

For the record, I was basing my opinion solely on his website. I haven't and probably won't actually read this thread. I trust narcissa's judgement and am sure she is right and he is wrong.

[knowschad]

I thought cemetery caches were no longer allowed?

 

http://www.geocachin...aspx?wp=GC2PJ4F

 

I believe most reviewers today will insist on explicit permission for a hide that is actually within the cemetery proper. Most cemetery caches that I am aware of are actually outside of them. Also, most of the cemeteries that I have found caches near are very old, seldom used historic sites.

 

It seems to me that you tend to see things mostly in black and white... am I right about that?

[+Chokecherry]

I thought cemetery caches were no longer allowed?

 

http://www.geocachin...aspx?wp=GC2PJ4F

 

I believe most reviewers today will insist on explicit permission for a hide that is actually within the cemetery proper. Most cemetery caches that I am aware of are actually outside of them. Also, most of the cemeteries that I have found caches near are very old, seldom used historic sites.

 

It seems to me that you tend to see things mostly in black and white... am I right about that?

 

I thought it depended more on the local rules about this. Once out of MN I found a few caches right in the cemeteries we were in.

[knowschad]

I thought cemetery caches were no longer allowed?

 

http://www.geocachin...aspx?wp=GC2PJ4F

 

I believe most reviewers today will insist on explicit permission for a hide that is actually within the cemetery proper. Most cemetery caches that I am aware of are actually outside of them. Also, most of the cemeteries that I have found caches near are very old, seldom used historic sites.

 

It seems to me that you tend to see things mostly in black and white... am I right about that?

 

I thought it depended more on the local rules about this. Once out of MN I found a few caches right in the cemeteries we were in.

It depends on the reviewer, I'm sure, but more likely those were older caches. But yeah, I've found some in both states that were actually within the cemetery.

[+Semper Questio]

I thought cemetery caches were no longer allowed?

 

http://www.geocachin...aspx?wp=GC2PJ4F

 

I believe most reviewers today will insist on explicit permission for a hide that is actually within the cemetery proper. Most cemetery caches that I am aware of are actually outside of them. Also, most of the cemeteries that I have found caches near are very old, seldom used historic sites.

 

It seems to me that you tend to see things mostly in black and white... am I right about that?

 

And that's one the problems with his approach.

 

He sees so much in absolutes when so much of this game is far from that. Between guidelines, land managers, individual judgments of both the hider and finder, individual playing styles, and the plethora of laws that vary from place to place there is no way to pin down this game into the strict set of "rules" he seems to think we should all live by. And he sure as heck can't be a singular authority on the "proper" way to geocache (as if there is just one) for everyone given differences in people, places, governing agencies, and his own lack of experience.

 

Thanks, but when I have questions about any aspect of geocaching, I'll seek out other cachers with more experience than I and when I encounter new cachers with questions I can't answer I'll direct them to cachers with more experience than I, not far less.

[JohnX]

From the site: "If you are willing to answer the calling of Mother Nature by informing yourself about the proper procedures to geocache."

 

This becomes humorous when you consider what "Answering the call of nature." sometimes means.

 

A definition of the idiom:

 

answer the call of nature (humorous)

to urinate (= pass liquid from the body) I had to go into the woods to answer the call of nature.

[sabrefan7]

I read the opening page and did a quick review of the rest of the site, but frankly, I saw very little that wasn't already addressed on another site, in truth, most of what I saw appeared to be obtained from another site.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw very little originality, very boring.

 

The site is a place I am gathering the links to the state and federal laws.

 

The website is to inform people that there are State and Federal Laws governing the sport of Geocaching.

 

Now that Geocaching is a "sport" governed by state and federal law I vote to start testing for performance enhancing drugs! Any one with more than 500 finds is nothing but a cheating steroid junkie. Strip the East Germans and Soviets of all their finds! Dont even get me started on the Chinese

I wouldn't trust them Canucks either! That goes for the Hockey team too

[Mushtang]

I put the OPs website and the Geocacher's Creed together in the same basket.

 

Some other people playing the game have taken it upon themselves to tell me the best way to play this game, and are suggesting that if I don't follow their example then I'm doing it wrong.

 

I'm SO not interested in the preachings of the self appointed know-it-alls, no matter how much or how little experience they have geocaching.

[+narcissa]

I put the OPs website and the Geocacher's Creed together in the same basket.

 

Some other people playing the game have taken it upon themselves to tell me the best way to play this game, and are suggesting that if I don't follow their example then I'm doing it wrong.

 

I'm SO not interested in the preachings of the self appointed know-it-alls, no matter how much or how little experience they have geocaching.

 

+1

[+simpjkee]

I read the opening page and did a quick review of the rest of the site, but frankly, I saw very little that wasn't already addressed on another site, in truth, most of what I saw appeared to be obtained from another site.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw very little originality, very boring.

 

The site is a place I am gathering the links to the state and federal laws.

 

The website is to inform people that there are State and Federal Laws governing the sport of Geocaching.

 

Now that Geocaching is a "sport" governed by state and federal law I vote to start testing for performance enhancing drugs! Any one with more than 500 finds is nothing but a cheating steroid junkie. Strip the East Germans and Soviets of all their finds! Dont even get me started on the Chinese

I wouldn't trust them Canucks either! That goes for the Hockey team too

I'll forfeit my finds before I submit to drug testing.

[sabrefan7]

I read the opening page and did a quick review of the rest of the site, but frankly, I saw very little that wasn't already addressed on another site, in truth, most of what I saw appeared to be obtained from another site.

Maybe I missed it, but I saw very little originality, very boring.

 

The site is a place I am gathering the links to the state and federal laws.

 

The website is to inform people that there are State and Federal Laws governing the sport of Geocaching.

 

Now that Geocaching is a "sport" governed by state and federal law I vote to start testing for performance enhancing drugs! Any one with more than 500 finds is nothing but a cheating steroid junkie. Strip the East Germans and Soviets of all their finds! Dont even get me started on the Chinese

I wouldn't trust them Canucks either! That goes for the Hockey team too

I'll forfeit my finds before I submit to drug testing.

 

[+bradleyhenley]

Geocacheresponsibly.info Redesigned.

[+bradleyhenley]

I put the OPs website and the Geocacher's Creed together in the same basket.

 

Some other people playing the game have taken it upon themselves to tell me the best way to play this game, and are suggesting that if I don't follow their example then I'm doing it wrong.

 

I'm SO not interested in the preachings of the self appointed know-it-alls, no matter how much or how little experience they have geocaching.

 

Do you realize that the Geocacher's Creed is abopted by Groundspeak. refer to: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=46

[Mr.Yuck]

I put the OPs website and the Geocacher's Creed together in the same basket.

 

Some other people playing the game have taken it upon themselves to tell me the best way to play this game, and are suggesting that if I don't follow their example then I'm doing it wrong.

 

I'm SO not interested in the preachings of the self appointed know-it-alls, no matter how much or how little experience they have geocaching.

 

Do you realize that the Geocacher's Creed is abopted by Groundspeak. refer to: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=46

 

Does that mean it's "adopted"? I dunno. I was actually rather shocked to see it plastered on the walls of the Groundspeak GPS maze exhibit. One thing I do know is it was hammered out by popular consensus right here in these very forums. Even before my time. Or around the time I joined, but I didn't look here then.

[+niraD]

Geocacheresponsibly.info Redesigned.

Just a few quibbles about your Mission Objectives page:

1. Ignoring claims about the "mission of every geocacher", there are violations that call for "Needs Archived" rather than "Needs Maintenance". Actually, most things I would consider violations fall into that category. A "Needs Maintenance" log is for things like full logs or damaged containers, not violations.
2. Just because you can't find it doesn't mean the cache owner needs to do anything, or that the cache needs maintenance. And the signs of an abandoned geocache are usually full logs and broken, leaking containers, not DNFs.
3. Some caches will need maintenance more often than once a month (especially early on, when they're being found frequently by the local geocachers). Others can go much longer than three months between owner visits.
4. Thank you for not encouraging throw-down caches. FWIW, another problem with non-owner replacements is the CO may no longer be active, or may think the cache has run its course and prefer not to keep the cache going. In such cases, archiving the cache is generally a better choice.
5. Helping active owners maintain their caches is a good thing to do. But it is never required, and those who don't provide such help are not being irresponsible.

[+bradleyhenley]

Geocacheresponsibly.info Redesigned.

Just a few quibbles about your Mission Objectives page:

1. Ignoring claims about the "mission of every geocacher", there are violations that call for "Needs Archived" rather than "Needs Maintenance". Actually, most things I would consider violations fall into that category. A "Needs Maintenance" log is for things like full logs or damaged containers, not violations.
2. Just because you can't find it doesn't mean the cache owner needs to do anything, or that the cache needs maintenance. And the signs of an abandoned geocache are usually full logs and broken, leaking containers, not DNFs.
3. Some caches will need maintenance more often than once a month (especially early on, when they're being found frequently by the local geocachers). Others can go much longer than three months between owner visits.
4. Thank you for not encouraging throw-down caches. FWIW, another problem with non-owner replacements is the CO may no longer be active, or may think the cache has run its course and prefer not to keep the cache going. In such cases, archiving the cache is generally a better choice.
5. Helping active owners maintain their caches is a good thing to do. But it is never required, and those who don't provide such help are not being irresponsible.

 

#1) I was told by the Texas Reviewer to post "Needs Maintenance" for violations so the owner could repair the issue before the reviewer had to step in.

 

#2) on that one I base on my geocaching in my area where when you place a geocache it get 5-10 finds in about 2 weeks then left untouched for months. We have just about gotten all the abandoned caches archived from Hurricane Katrina.

 

#3) the 1-3 months maintenance window is what I relate to geocaching.com's guideline of cache maintenance.

 

#4) thank you for the additional view on the statement.

 

#5) I know helping is never required.

 

The entire page titled "Mission Objectives" is to offer reasonable ideas, like geocaching stating CITO on every outing.

We both know not everyone will CITO on every outing.

 

I don't expect everyone to follow everything stated on the page.

They are personal missions I set for myself.

Edited March 8, 2011 by bradleyhenley

[Mushtang]

I put the OPs website and the Geocacher's Creed together in the same basket.

 

Some other people playing the game have taken it upon themselves to tell me the best way to play this game, and are suggesting that if I don't follow their example then I'm doing it wrong.

 

I'm SO not interested in the preachings of the self appointed know-it-alls, no matter how much or how little experience they have geocaching.

Do you realize that the Geocacher's Creed is abopted by Groundspeak. refer to: http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=46

Do you realize that on the page you quoted it clearly says, "It was created and is managed by the geocaching community without direction from Groundspeak.".

 

So yes, the creed was created by people in these forums, who took it upon themselves to tell me the best way they think I should play the game, and they were also suggesting that if I didn't follow their example then I'm doing it wrong.

 

For what it's worth, your website and your posts here seem the same to me. For some reason you've taken it upon yourself to tell me how I should be playing.

 

That's something I can do without, thanks.

[+niraD]

Ignoring claims about the "mission of every geocacher", there are violations that call for "Needs Archived" rather than "Needs Maintenance". Actually, most things I would consider violations fall into that category. A "Needs Maintenance" log is for things like full logs or damaged containers, not violations.

I was told by the Texas Reviewer to post "Needs Maintenance" for violations so the owner could repair the issue before the reviewer had to step in.

Okay, so what do you (and the Texas Reviewer) consider a "violation" worthy of a "Needs Maintenance", but not worthy of a "Needs Archived"? The violations I've seen have been things like caches placed without permission and the owner/manager wants it gone. That's a "Needs Archived", not a "Needs Maintenance".

 

Posting "Needs Maintenance" is for things like full logs or damaged containers, which I'd hardly consider "violations".

[+bradleyhenley]

Ignoring claims about the "mission of every geocacher", there are violations that call for "Needs Archived" rather than "Needs Maintenance". Actually, most things I would consider violations fall into that category. A "Needs Maintenance" log is for things like full logs or damaged containers, not violations.

I was told by the Texas Reviewer to post "Needs Maintenance" for violations so the owner could repair the issue before the reviewer had to step in.

Okay, so what do you (and the Texas Reviewer) consider a "violation" worthy of a "Needs Maintenance", but not worthy of a "Needs Archived"? The violations I've seen have been things like caches placed without permission and the owner/manager wants it gone. That's a "Needs Archived", not a "Needs Maintenance".

 

Posting "Needs Maintenance" is for things like full logs or damaged containers, which I'd hardly consider "violations".

 

I've posted "Needs Maintenance" for caches:

 

1) Attached to live cables.

-moved after a note from the Reviewer

-the CO said the wires were not live

-but the container stated DANGER LIVE WIRES. Refer: http://coord.info/GC24QY3 “

Sept. 21, 2010 our “NM” logs have been deleted by owner as well as Reviewers.

 

2) Attached to a Federal Post Office Mail Box in front of the local Post office.

- removed after Reviewer archived the cache. Refer: http://coord.info/GCRTED

 

On both of these cases I posted Needs Maintenance and emailed the Reviewer with pictures.

Edited March 8, 2011 by bradleyhenley

[knowschad]

Ignoring claims about the "mission of every geocacher", there are violations that call for "Needs Archived" rather than "Needs Maintenance". Actually, most things I would consider violations fall into that category. A "Needs Maintenance" log is for things like full logs or damaged containers, not violations.

I was told by the Texas Reviewer to post "Needs Maintenance" for violations so the owner could repair the issue before the reviewer had to step in.

Okay, so what do you (and the Texas Reviewer) consider a "violation" worthy of a "Needs Maintenance", but not worthy of a "Needs Archived"? The violations I've seen have been things like caches placed without permission and the owner/manager wants it gone. That's a "Needs Archived", not a "Needs Maintenance".

 

Posting "Needs Maintenance" is for things like full logs or damaged containers, which I'd hardly consider "violations".

 

I've posted "Needs Maintenance" for caches:

 

1) Attached to live cables.

-moved after a note from the Reviewer

-the CO said the wires were not live

-but the container stated DANGER LIVE WIRES. Refer: http://coord.info/GC24QY3 “

Sept. 21, 2010 our “NM” logs have been deleted by owner as well as Reviewers.

 

2) Attached to a Federal Post Office Mail Box in front of the local Post office.

- removed after Reviewer archived the cache. Refer: http://coord.info/GCRTED

 

On both of these cases I posted Needs Maintenance and emailed the Reviewer with pictures.

Actually, I would suggest that your first example is really nobody's business but the cache owner and the seekers, just as with a cache that is on a cliff that you need to rappel to. If you don't dare to do it, you should just walk away.

 

Your 2nd example is most certainly a NA log. Think of "NA" as standing for "Needs Reviewer Attention" rather than a strict "Needs Archived". A cache on a USP mailbox is against the law, hence a violation.

[+bradleyhenley]

Ignoring claims about the "mission of every geocacher", there are violations that call for "Needs Archived" rather than "Needs Maintenance". Actually, most things I would consider violations fall into that category. A "Needs Maintenance" log is for things like full logs or damaged containers, not violations.

I was told by the Texas Reviewer to post "Needs Maintenance" for violations so the owner could repair the issue before the reviewer had to step in.

Okay, so what do you (and the Texas Reviewer) consider a "violation" worthy of a "Needs Maintenance", but not worthy of a "Needs Archived"? The violations I've seen have been things like caches placed without permission and the owner/manager wants it gone. That's a "Needs Archived", not a "Needs Maintenance".

 

Posting "Needs Maintenance" is for things like full logs or damaged containers, which I'd hardly consider "violations".

 

I've posted "Needs Maintenance" for caches:

 

1) Attached to live cables.

-moved after a note from the Reviewer

-the CO said the wires were not live

-but the container stated DANGER LIVE WIRES. Refer: http://coord.info/GC24QY3

Sept. 21, 2010 our NM logs have been deleted by owner as well as Reviewers.

 

2) Attached to a Federal Post Office Mail Box in front of the local Post office.

- removed after Reviewer archived the cache. Refer: http://coord.info/GCRTED

 

On both of these cases I posted Needs Maintenance and emailed the Reviewer with pictures.

Actually, I would suggest that your first example is really nobody's business but the cache owner and the seekers, just as with a cache that is on a cliff that you need to rappel to. If you don't dare to do it, you should just walk away.

 

Your 2nd example is most certainly a NA log. Think of "NA" as standing for "Needs Reviewer Attention" rather than a strict "Needs Archived". A cache on a USP mailbox is against the law, hence a violation.

 

The first suggestion offers several different issues.

1) The placement was in the top of a cable repair.

2) The placement was not a permanent fixture. The cable would be buried later.

 

As far as your "Cliff Rappel" example:

1) There is an attribute for climbing showing that additional supplies will be needed and a matter of difficulty.

2) Electricity is not an attribute, it is a danger not associated with the sport.

 

Side note: Did you see how many finds and years the post box cache was out? 80 smiles and almost 5 years

Edited March 8, 2011 by bradleyhenley

[+Lil Devil]

Side note: Did you see how many finds and years the post box cache was out? 80 smiles and almost 5 years

Which shows how many people are willing to break the law for a smiley. Sad.

[+Semper Questio]

Side note: Did you see how many finds and years the post box cache was out? 80 smiles and almost 5 years

Which shows how many people are willing to break the law for a smiley. Sad.

 

But, surprisingly, it is not widely known that caches on mailboxes - even p[utting a cache on your mailbox at your home - is illegal.

[+StarBrand]

Step #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs, log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs, log a needs archived

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Yikes!!

 

Waaaaayyy too simplistic.

 

I have a cache with exactly 8 finds in a tad over 4 years. By your plan, a single DNF would get it archived as it goes 8 to 9 months often between finds. Rural caches just are not sought after as frequently.

 

DNF doesn't mean its missing. DNF does not mean it need maintenance. DNF means you didn't find the cache. If I had a dime for every DNF that declared one of my caches to be "missing for sure" only to have me race over and find it in place, I would have enough to take my wife to dinner.

[jholly]

Step #1 - Actively look for a geocache, if not found, log as DNF!

Step #2 - 2 weeks later, if no new logs, log needs maintenance.

Step #3 - 1 month later, if still no new logs, log a needs archived

Step #4 - 1 month later, if the reviewer has not disabled, log needs archived

 

Yikes!!

 

Waaaaayyy too simplistic.

 

I have a cache with exactly 8 finds in a tad over 4 years. By your plan, a single DNF would get it archived as it goes 8 to 9 months often between finds. Rural caches just are not sought after as frequently.

 

DNF doesn't mean its missing. DNF does not mean it need maintenance. DNF means you didn't find the cache. If I had a dime for every DNF that declared one of my caches to be "missing for sure" only to have me race over and find it in place, I would have enough to take my wife to dinner.

I have to agree that this a much to simplistic outlook on life. I have a couple that are infrequently logged. A log every month would be a rare couple months. An occasional DNF does not run up the red flags or start ringing the Needs Maintenance alarms. It means that someone simply did not find the camo'ed cache. And if someone followed your agenda I probably would start deleting logs and send them an email to quit being a cache cop and stick with the LPC and GRC hides that they can manage.

[+fizzymagic]

For some reason you've taken it upon yourself to tell me how I should be playing.

 

That's something I can do without, thanks.

 

I am in considerable pain as I write this , but....

 

I agree completely with Mushtang. Completely.

[+Roland_oso]

I thought cemetery caches were no longer allowed?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC2PJ4F

 

From another topic on Cemetery caches in Texas..............

 

It seems like the COs did not receive permission to place these caches. The cemetery official feel like the only resource they have left is to have the city pass a law outlawing caching.. this is why permission is so important.

Texas has an Open Cemetery law. That basically means there it no such thing as a private cemetery in the state. If you're a land owner, and there's a cemetery on your land, you are required to allow anyone who wants to visit the cemetery to do so. The land owner is allowed to make reasonable restrictions, such as imposing specific visiting days and times. But they're not allowed to make a complete ban.

 

and from the same thread.................

 

Funny thing that was pointed out by one of our cachers from Central Tx is a document released by the Texas Historical Commission.

 

Perserving Historical Cemeteries

 

The caption below the picture on page 12 states

 

"One of the best ways to protect cemeteries is to educate our school children. They are our future preservationists. Lessons can be developed using scavenger hunts to teach history, art, math, geology and sociology."

 

and on page 17

 

"The community as a whole can take an active part in the preservation, maintenance and protection of local cemeteries. Civic organizations, church groups, scout troops and historical societies all are potential assistants in efforts to care for cemeteries."

 

I think we need to contact the Texas Historical Commission and have them update that to include geocaching organizations as a potential assistant.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Roland_oso

[+bradleyhenley]

* Be advised *

 

Additional comments about the website geocacheresponsibly.info are being discussed on the Facebook page for Geocache - Responsibly.

 

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_165569306825041#!/home.php?sk=group_165569306825041

[+StarBrand]

* Be advised *

 

Additional comments about the website geocacheresponsibly.info are being discussed on the Facebook page for Geocache - Responsibly.

 

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_165569306825041#!/home.php?sk=group_165569306825041

 

**BE Advised**

 

I do not participate in facebook. I will not participate in facebook. Not on train. Not in the rain.

[+bradleyhenley]

* Be advised *

 

Additional comments about the website geocacheresponsibly.info are being discussed on the Facebook page for Geocache - Responsibly.

 

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_165569306825041#!/home.php?sk=group_165569306825041

 

**BE Advised**

 

I do not participate in facebook. I will not participate in facebook. Not on train. Not in the rain.

 

Just being informative.

[+WRASTRO]

Thanks for being informative. Are you adding to your learning experience by paying attention to the numerous helpful posts and questions here? And are you updating your site based on this feedback?

[+Ninja R]

After extensive discussion with bradleyhenley (after being cursed at and having my cache placements threatened by a supporter who thinks I'm anti-forest when I raised my concerns) on the Facebook group threads, bradleyhenley said his main focus is on national parks and forests. The rest of the site -- his missions -- are his and his own. He doesn't want anyone else to take up his mantle, and doesn't want to imply that his missions should be anyone else's. I understand his concerns, and I think many others do, also. It could probably be better worded, but he means only to cite applicable laws to national parks and forests.

[+bradleyhenley]

Thanks for being informative. Are you adding to your learning experience by paying attention to the numerous helpful posts and questions here? And are you updating your site based on this feedback?

 

Check to website.

 

I redesigned it yesterday.

 

I removed me ranting at the beginning and posted links to every statement.

 

I also posted a statement at the top of Mission about this being my view.

[+bradleyhenley]

After extensive discussion with bradleyhenley (after being cursed at and having my cache placements threatened by a supporter who thinks I'm anti-forest when I raised my concerns) on the Facebook group threads, bradleyhenley said his main focus is on national parks and forests. The rest of the site -- his missions -- are his and his own. He doesn't want anyone else to take up his mantle, and doesn't want to imply that his missions should be anyone else's. I understand his concerns, and I think many others do, also. It could probably be better worded, but he means only to cite applicable laws to national parks and forests.

 

I want everyone to know and have access to the State, Federal, and Corps of engineers laws and views of Geocaching.

 

Here in East Texas I realized that the laws were known (Geocacher Mousetrap posted the same Region 8 laws in I believe 2008 here on Geocaching.com forum) and were disregarded by the veteran cachers (Geocacher Mousetrap is part of the Piney woods Cachers who have placed multiple caches in question).

 

After review Yes it was 2008 Refer: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=197140&st=0&p=3530554entry3530554

Edited March 9, 2011 by bradleyhenley