Today's Geocaching

[+Don_J]

Here's the most recent cache published in my area. http://coord.info/GC2PQ29

 

You are looking for a small container in a condo complex. There may be "muggles" watching, so look around. There is also a playground near by so watch out.

 

Looking at Google Earth, it is in the middle of a small traffic circle, which handles all traffic from the main street. It seems to be directly in front of what can only be the management building and recreational facilities.

 

I just don't get it. If you are going to hide a run of the mill micro, why not go down the road a 1/4 mile? (Of course I know why, they're playing James Bond, while I'm playing in the mountains.

 

I have other concerns that I would never air on the forums, but lest just say that perhaps the review process is a bit to progressive in So Cal.

 

BTW, I also feel that if explicate permission has been granted, it must be listed in the description.

 

I would never in my life approach such a cache, but it will have ten finds by tomorrow. The eleventh guy will get busted by security, and knowing the neighborhood, he may be held until the Ventura Co SO arrives, and they will be mad because they don't want to be there. I have been there, done that. VCSO had five cars arrive because I had been stopped by a senior deputy because of tinted windows in my truck. Ended up with a fix it ticket to remove the tint.

[+gpsfun]

Of course I know why, they're playing James Bond, while I'm playing in the mountains.

Did you just answer your own question?

[+LukeTrocity]

Just remember while you value a specific type of cache others might disagree.

[+Ecylram]

I've looked at the satellite shot and I've looked at the description.

 

For the life of me I can't tell you what guideline was violated by that cache placement. The only (obvious) possibility is the "adequate permission" guideline and there is no evidence that the CO doesn't have "Adequate Permission".

 

You might argue, as has been argued many times on this board, that the guidelines should be changed but I don't see anything that indicates the reviewer missed anything or is overloaded.

[+DanOCan]

I just don't get it. If you are going to hide a run of the mill micro, why not go down the road a 1/4 mile? (Of course I know why, they're playing James Bond, while I'm playing in the mountains.

 

I don't get it either. Poking around in a condo complex like that seems like a bad idea to me. It's not the sort of cache I would bother hunting for. If it were near me I'd put in on my Ignore list and go off to the mountains, which is what I think I'm going to do now.

[+niraD]

Of course I know why, they're playing James Bond, while I'm playing in the mountains.

Did you just answer your own question?

I think he did. And keep in mind that reviewers merely check for compliance with the guidelines. They don't evaluate the "quality" of the cache. More than one reviewer has mentioned that there are times when they have to hold their noses when they click the "publish" button...

[+StarBrand]

I don't understand why some cacher's tend to gravitate to piles of rusty junk and trash for caches either. But they get permission from the owner and it does not violate the guidelines. I arrive,note the area, mark it off my search list without getting out of the Jeep and move to the next one.

[+Don_J]

Just remember while you value a specific type of cache others might disagree.

 

Actually, I value a wide spectrum of caches. I just don't understand the ones that are designed to intentionally draw attention from others, while we are searching.

[+L0ne.R]

The CO might be a kid. Maybe he plants within biking distance of his home.

[+roziecakes]

As someone who suffers from some health problems, I have to say that I appreciate park and grab urban caches sometimes. While I would love to hike five miles to every cache, or bike to every cache, or do something rugged and awesome every time, sometimes I simply can't. I try my best, and I enjoy challenging myself with harder terrain, and have lost a lot of weight caching; BUT sometimes I have limits, and when I want to get my caching fix, I really am grateful for urban, easy hides.

 

I have a friend who wanted to try caching but thought that he couldn't because he had back surgery recently and was of limited mobility, well, I told him to look for terrain one caches. Also, he lives in LA, so urban is where it's at for him; and he was thrilled to find that there were caches that he could do.

 

We all have different likes and dislikes... me I like variety, and sometimes I have no other option if I want to go caching.

[Keystone]

I've looked at the satellite shot and I've looked at the description.

 

For the life of me I can't tell you what guideline was violated by that cache placement. The only (obvious) possibility is the "adequate permission" guideline and there is no evidence that the CO doesn't have "Adequate Permission".

 

You might argue, as has been argued many times on this board, that the guidelines should be changed but I don't see anything that indicates the reviewer missed anything or is overloaded.

Perfect answer, thanks for posting.

[jholly]

I've looked at the satellite shot and I've looked at the description.

 

For the life of me I can't tell you what guideline was violated by that cache placement. The only (obvious) possibility is the "adequate permission" guideline and there is no evidence that the CO doesn't have "Adequate Permission".

 

You might argue, as has been argued many times on this board, that the guidelines should be changed but I don't see anything that indicates the reviewer missed anything or is overloaded.

 

It obviously violates the standards of the majority and should not have been published. Groundspeak should institute a peer review program to avoid caches with no favorite votes (although someone has favorited the cache owners hides so he must be doing something right), 1.5s, those that don't require a 5 mile hike to grab the hide, power trails, light posts, etc. Maybe someone could start a class and certification program that we could go to learn the correct way to place a hide.

Peer review? That has been tried and proven not to work. And how do you get a cache with a favorite vote before it is published? It seems nothing about this hide violated the guidelines so it should be published. If it should be looked for is a different thing separate from the guidelines.

[+cache_test_dummies]

The Peer review panel could also beta test each cache prior to its publishing and determine the likelihood a cache would meet one's high standards. That way the OP could keep his area free of such caches.

Unless, of course, the Peer review panel was made up of people who had their own set of "high standards" that differed from the OP's.

 

But short of a peer review since the cache is in the OPs area I think a snarky email from the them to the cache owner is in order!

I think this would be a bad idea.

[+WascoZooKeeper]

Mournful lament about how the sport of geocaching is being ruined by people who don't adhere to my particular standards.

 

Gratuitous swipe at Jeremy and the lackey reviewers for selling out to commercialism instead of upholding the integrity of the game.

 

Vague hint of geocide.

[+E = Mc2]

Vague hint of geocide.

 

Pretty please?

 

OT: AS long as the cache doesn't violate the lusting guidelines, then the reviewer publishes it. Per a previous post: The reviewer may not like the cache or the CO, but that doesn't mean they won't publish it (while holding their nose).

[+simpjkee]

Yeah, I don't see where the evidence is to support the idea that the reviewer messed up or is overloaded or whatever. However, I'd definitely ignore that cache if it popped up next to me. Looks lame-o.

[4wheelin_fool]

Groundspeak should institute a peer review program to avoid caches with no favorite votes.

 

I think a beer review program would be great. Everyone could sit down together and discuss it while enjoying a cold one.

Edited March 6, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[+WRASTRO]

Ok so the forums don't believe a peer review panel is needed. Maybe an email, whether snarky or polite, to the cache owner before posting to an international forum explaining the virtues of placing a quality cache is the way to go. Especially when that cache is in one's home area, and not dragging one's community or volunteer reviewers through the mud! Our area gets blasted all the time by people in the forums that have never been here only going on second hand information. Why not speak to those people who you think place bad caches directly?

You have 10,000 finds and seven years in the game. I would suggest you should be an evangalist in your area for quality hides. Attend events and do the right thing!

[+gpsfun]

Ok so the forums don't believe a peer review panel is needed. Maybe an email, whether snarky or polite, to the cache owner before posting to an international forum explaining the virtues of placing a quality cache is the way to go. Especially when that cache is in one's home area, and not dragging one's community or volunteer reviewers through the mud! Our area gets blasted all the time by people in the forums that have never been here only going on second hand information. Why not speak to those people who you think place bad caches directly?

This might be a good point at which to start providing specific information such as cache GC Codes that support these statements. What area specifically, specific references to the "blasting" being mentioned, how frequently is "all the time," and how it is known that the persons making these references have not visited the area referenced as "our area" would be a good start. It is quite difficult to appreciate and respond to vague references, limiting forum participants from being able to reply helpfully.

[+Don_J]

The CO might be a kid. Maybe he plants within biking distance of his home.

 

Nope, he's caching in a very wide radius. But, like I mentioned in another topic, he's fairly new and his feet haven't left the pavement.

[Luckless]

Vague hint of geocide.

 

Pretty please?

 

OT: AS long as the cache doesn't violate the lusting guidelines, then the reviewer publishes it. Per a previous post: The reviewer may not like the cache or the CO, but that doesn't mean they won't publish it (while holding their nose).

 

Where do I find these lusting guidelines?

[+Ambrosia]

Vague hint of geocide.

 

Pretty please?

 

OT: AS long as the cache doesn't violate the lusting guidelines, then the reviewer publishes it. Per a previous post: The reviewer may not like the cache or the CO, but that doesn't mean they won't publish it (while holding their nose).

 

Where do I find these lusting guidelines?

That's what I was wondering, too.

[+Don_J]

As someone who suffers from some health problems, I have to say that I appreciate park and grab urban caches sometimes. While I would love to hike five miles to every cache, or bike to every cache, or do something rugged and awesome every time, sometimes I simply can't. I try my best, and I enjoy challenging myself with harder terrain, and have lost a lot of weight caching; BUT sometimes I have limits, and when I want to get my caching fix, I really am grateful for urban, easy hides.

 

I have a friend who wanted to try caching but thought that he couldn't because he had back surgery recently and was of limited mobility, well, I told him to look for terrain one caches. Also, he lives in LA, so urban is where it's at for him; and he was thrilled to find that there were caches that he could do.

 

We all have different likes and dislikes... me I like variety, and sometimes I have no other option if I want to go caching.

 

Please understand that I meant no offense. I have read other post of yours and I know that you are grateful that caching has had a positive effect on your health. Locally, also LA, we have a couple that has greatly endeared themselves to the Geocaching community. I believe that she is 91 and he is 83. They are out almost everyday hunting down the urban micros. I understand that not everyone can hike five miles for a cache. This couple reminds me every time I read one of their logs, or when they show up at our monthly Meet n' Greet. (Her bison tube earrings are a hoot)

 

I do not have a problem with urban micros. What I have is a problem with hides that are intentionally designed to expose our activities to muggles. When it is directly in front of the manager's window in a private community, what good can come from it?

 

Personally, I drive up, take a look, and keep going. Not every one has that restraint. They head out, get confronted, try to explain the game, and leave, not realizing that they just put a really bad idea of Geocaching in someone elses mind.

[+Don_J]

I've looked at the satellite shot and I've looked at the description.

 

For the life of me I can't tell you what guideline was violated by that cache placement. The only (obvious) possibility is the "adequate permission" guideline and there is no evidence that the CO doesn't have "Adequate Permission".

 

You might argue, as has been argued many times on this board, that the guidelines should be changed but I don't see anything that indicates the reviewer missed anything or is overloaded.

Perfect answer, thanks for posting.

 

Keystone, I certainly do not want to bump heads with you, and I was really trying to not be disrespectful to my local reviewer, who I have the utmost respect for. I just see a cache in a private community, in a spot that a pedestrian is never expected to be in.

 

Although I have never been to this community, I did deliveries for 18 years in the area. I have never driven into one that did not have a "No Trespassing", or "Right to pass by permit only, and may be revocable" sign in the entrance drive.

 

Who knows, the guy could work in the office outside of the cache. Wouldn't that make me look like a Butthead.

[+Don_J]

Vague hint of geocide.

 

Pretty please?

 

OT: AS long as the cache doesn't violate the lusting guidelines, then the reviewer publishes it. Per a previous post: The reviewer may not like the cache or the CO, but that doesn't mean they won't publish it (while holding their nose).

 

Actually, that is on topic. I Totally agree that if a cache doesn't break guidelines, the cache should be published, even the the one pressing the button has to hold their tongue.

 

Since I am not a reviewer and don't know anyone who is, I don't have complete knowledge of the process. I thought, and would hope that part of that process was reading the description. I have had a cache held up a few hours because the same reviewer did not understand one of my descriptions. The way I originally wrote it made perfect sense to me, but it could also mean that I was directing you to trespass on Southern Cal Gas property. The fact was I was trying to keep you off their property. The reviewer's guidance was very beneficial to me.

 

I just wonder about the part, "the cache is in a condo complex". Did it slip by? Was he questioned about it?

 

Gas is $3.82 to $3.99 locally, I may just drive out to see this cache, and if there are any signs. It will cost me $6 to find out.

[+DanOCan]

I do not have a problem with urban micros. What I have is a problem with hides that are intentionally designed to expose our activities to muggles. When it is directly in front of the manager's window in a private community, what good can come from it?

 

Agreed. Inevitably whenever anyone questions the placement of an urban cache in a high visibility location, someone else will point out the mobility impaired cacher who cannot do a 5-mile hike. I personally believe there is a middle ground and that the mobility impaired cachers deserve better than a cache in a condo complex.

 

Even if the condo board / manager has given explicit permission, what are the odds all the residents know about it? I don't blame the reviewers since it isn't their fault, I blame the cachers who seem to think that just because a cache meets the guidelines it should be placed.

 

I think of a local example here, where a cache was hidden just outside of a gated community. Sure, outside that gate is public property, but many residents were understandably nervous when strange cars started stopping and people were poking around the bushes. Several cachers were questioned by residents. No good can come from those situations/encounters.

 

Caching guidelines are not a replacement for common sense.

[+Chokecherry]

I do not have a problem with urban micros. What I have is a problem with hides that are intentionally designed to expose our activities to muggles. When it is directly in front of the manager's window in a private community, what good can come from it?

 

Agreed. Inevitably whenever anyone questions the placement of an urban cache in a high visibility location, someone else will point out the mobility impaired cacher who cannot do a 5-mile hike. I personally believe there is a middle ground and that the mobility impaired cachers deserve better than a cache in a condo complex.

 

Even if the condo board / manager has given explicit permission, what are the odds all the residents know about it? I don't blame the reviewers since it isn't their fault, I blame the cachers who seem to think that just because a cache meets the guidelines it should be placed.

 

I think of a local example here, where a cache was hidden just outside of a gated community. Sure, outside that gate is public property, but many residents were understandably nervous when strange cars started stopping and people were poking around the bushes. Several cachers were questioned by residents. No good can come from those situations/encounters.

 

Caching guidelines are not a replacement for common sense.

 

There are lots of nicer places to put caches for people with mobility issues. I cache with my mom who has those issues and can honestly say that we have found a lot of better caches than that in nice little areas that are accessible in towns and even some places out of the urban environment too.

 

Just because a cache can be put somewhere doesn't mean it should.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I do not have a problem with urban micros. What I have is a problem with hides that are intentionally designed to expose our activities to muggles. When it is directly in front of the manager's window in a private community, what good can come from it?

 

How do you know the manager isn't the CO? Or perhaps the CO is a resident of the community, and placed the cache with the knowledge and approval of the manager?

 

Find it, or ignore it... your choice. If you're convinced it violates a guideline, log a Needs Archived on it. But griping about it here isn't going to accomplish anything.

[Mr.Yuck]

Mournful lament about how the sport of geocaching is being ruined by people who don't adhere to my particular standards.

 

Gratuitous swipe at Jeremy and the lackey reviewers for selling out to commercialism instead of upholding the integrity of the game.

 

Vague hint of geocide.

 

Do you and your off-topic pals really still think that's funny like 7 years later?

 

I'll have to agree, no guideline violation, although a hide that is basically an embarrassment to the game. People walking around like crackpots on private property at a condo complex, great image. However Don, you just have to roll with it. As a matter of fact, when there's a really bad hide in my area that I think has a high probability of a law enforcement enounter, I put it on my ignore list and my watchlist!! Yes, you can do this.

 

Hey, you never know. The last one in my area (middle of landscaped cul-de-sac in residential neighborhood) never did generate the expected police call, and ended up being archived after 9 or so months for lack of maintenance.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think most people really enjoy "fishbowl caching", but those caches usually are found by muggles fairly quickly and disappear. The new CO may have to learn from his mistakes. Fish are kind of boring to watch anyhow.

[Mr.Yuck]

I do not have a problem with urban micros. What I have is a problem with hides that are intentionally designed to expose our activities to muggles. When it is directly in front of the manager's window in a private community, what good can come from it?

 

How do you know the manager isn't the CO? Or perhaps the CO is a resident of the community, and placed the cache with the knowledge and approval of the manager?

 

 

A point addressed nicely by DanOcan in post #29, actually. And I agree with his assessment.

[+Colonial Cats]

I've looked at the satellite shot and I've looked at the description.

 

For the life of me I can't tell you what guideline was violated by that cache placement. The only (obvious) possibility is the "adequate permission" guideline and there is no evidence that the CO doesn't have "Adequate Permission".

 

You might argue, as has been argued many times on this board, that the guidelines should be changed but I don't see anything that indicates the reviewer missed anything or is overloaded.

 

It obviously violates the standards of the majority and should not have been published. Groundspeak should institute a peer review program to avoid caches with no favorite votes (although someone has favorited the cache owners hides so he must be doing something right), 1.5s, those that don't require a 5 mile hike to grab the hide, power trails, light posts, etc. Maybe someone could start a class and certification program that we could go to learn the correct way to place a hide.

Pure Democracy is chaos. Having the rules dictated by a simple majority protects the rights of no one. That's why all we need are a few simple rules that reviewers follow. Opinions on the quality of caches should not dictate publication. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one.

[Mr.Yuck]

I've looked at the satellite shot and I've looked at the description.

 

For the life of me I can't tell you what guideline was violated by that cache placement. The only (obvious) possibility is the "adequate permission" guideline and there is no evidence that the CO doesn't have "Adequate Permission".

 

You might argue, as has been argued many times on this board, that the guidelines should be changed but I don't see anything that indicates the reviewer missed anything or is overloaded.

 

It obviously violates the standards of the majority and should not have been published. Groundspeak should institute a peer review program to avoid caches with no favorite votes (although someone has favorited the cache owners hides so he must be doing something right), 1.5s, those that don't require a 5 mile hike to grab the hide, power trails, light posts, etc. Maybe someone could start a class and certification program that we could go to learn the correct way to place a hide.

Pure Democracy is chaos. Having the rules dictated by a simple majority protects the rights of no one. That's why all we need are a few simple rules that reviewers follow. Opinions on the quality of caches should not dictate publication. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one.

 

A nice well-thought out post, but I have a funny feeling Fresgo wasn't serious.

[+Kameharem]

I've looked at the satellite shot and I've looked at the description.

 

For the life of me I can't tell you what guideline was violated by that cache placement. The only (obvious) possibility is the "adequate permission" guideline and there is no evidence that the CO doesn't have "Adequate Permission".

 

You might argue, as has been argued many times on this board, that the guidelines should be changed but I don't see anything that indicates the reviewer missed anything or is overloaded.

 

It obviously violates the standards of the majority and should not have been published. Groundspeak should institute a peer review program to avoid caches with no favorite votes (although someone has favorited the cache owners hides so he must be doing something right), 1.5s, those that don't require a 5 mile hike to grab the hide, power trails, light posts, etc. Maybe someone could start a class and certification program that we could go to learn the correct way to place a hide.

Pure Democracy is chaos. Having the rules dictated by a simple majority protects the rights of no one. That's why all we need are a few simple rules that reviewers follow. Opinions on the quality of caches should not dictate publication. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one.

 

I know someone who doesn't have a belly button so there is an exception to every rule. just saying.

[+larryc43230]

I know someone who doesn't have a belly button so there is an exception to every rule. just saying.

I thought Jeannie (of "I Dream of Jeannie") was the only person ever born without a belly button. Who knew?

 

--Larry

[+Ike 13]

I know someone who doesn't have a belly button so there is an exception to every rule. just saying.

I thought Jeannie (of "I Dream of Jeannie") was the only person ever born without a belly button. Who knew?

 

--Larry

I had to do some research but it appears to be true http://nauthgy.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/who-doesnt-have-a-belly-button/

[+Colonial Cats]

I've looked at the satellite shot and I've looked at the description.

 

For the life of me I can't tell you what guideline was violated by that cache placement. The only (obvious) possibility is the "adequate permission" guideline and there is no evidence that the CO doesn't have "Adequate Permission".

 

You might argue, as has been argued many times on this board, that the guidelines should be changed but I don't see anything that indicates the reviewer missed anything or is overloaded.

 

It obviously violates the standards of the majority and should not have been published. Groundspeak should institute a peer review program to avoid caches with no favorite votes (although someone has favorited the cache owners hides so he must be doing something right), 1.5s, those that don't require a 5 mile hike to grab the hide, power trails, light posts, etc. Maybe someone could start a class and certification program that we could go to learn the correct way to place a hide.

Pure Democracy is chaos. Having the rules dictated by a simple majority protects the rights of no one. That's why all we need are a few simple rules that reviewers follow. Opinions on the quality of caches should not dictate publication. Opinions are like belly buttons. Everybody has one.

 

A nice well-thought out post, but I have a funny feeling Fresgo wasn't serious.

Yeah, you are probably right. I jumped in with both feet.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Here's the most recent cache published in my area. http://coord.info/GC2PQ29

 

You are looking for a small container in a condo complex. There may be "muggles" watching, so look around. There is also a playground near by so watch out.

 

Looking at Google Earth, it is in the middle of a small traffic circle, which handles all traffic from the main street. It seems to be directly in front of what can only be the management building and recreational facilities.

 

I just don't get it. If you are going to hide a run of the mill micro, why not go down the road a 1/4 mile? (Of course I know why, they're playing James Bond, while I'm playing in the mountains.

 

I have other concerns that I would never air on the forums, but lest just say that perhaps the review process is a bit to progressive in So Cal.

 

I'm not sure that I understand what your problem is. Google Maps shows it as a public road. Street View shows a sign that seems to say "Not a through street". (A bit tough to read...) If indeed, it's in the island in a public road, then I do not see any guideline problem. There even looks to be parking available on the street.

Of course, it also looks like a boring cache that I would probably put on 'ignore'. But, if there are no guideline violations, then it is a viable cache. Certainly no reason to call into question the review process in So Cal.