Death of Geocaching?

[+LukeTrocity]

Is Geocaching's popularity going to kill it? From my understanding there has been a huge explosion in Geocaching since smart phone cachers (I'm included in that count) have added to our numbers. I started on a cell phone, and I heard about geocaching as something to do while hiking. As Geocaching gains popularity is is going to get to big for its britches???

 

Maybe.Maybe not.

 

Think about the following:

 

- Many state parks have caught on to geocaching and now are required 20+$ fees per cache to place them in parks. Some of those charges are subject to renewal fees as well. Imagine you have 10 caches in a local park and now are required to pay 250$ dollars a year to keep them there!

 

-As Geocaching becomes bigger, more laws and regulations will come into play. The need for regulation will occur as other smaller sites take a more lackadaisical stance on rules and regulations. One to many bomb scares could cause formal laws and regulations to be created for geocaching specifically. Laws could limit most placements, and could also eliminate some most creative hides.

 

-VDOT bans guardrail caches. Well this is kind of a no brainer, but guardrail cachers are dangerous and let's face it almost none of them have permission to be there. But is this a prelude to something bigger? All states banning them? I'm sure most people would be happy about that, but what if it doesn't stop there. What if it spreads to other types of caches as well?

 

Maybe it wouldn't be a death of geocaching, but a lot of changes might have to happen in the near future.

 

What do you think?

 

DISCUSS!!!!

[+t4e]

 

- Many state parks have caught on to geocaching and now are required 20+$ fees per cache to place them in parks. Some of those charges are subject to renewal fees as well. Imagine you have 10 caches in a local park and now are required to pay 250$ dollars a year to keep them there!

 

What do you think?

 

DISCUSS!!!!

 

many parks authorities in Canada allow cache placements FREE, as long as the rules they set are being followed

 

$20 to place a cache makes me think its more their way of saying "we don't want you placing caches here"

[+StarBrand]

I think Snoogans calls it something like the "Main Stream Event Horizon".

 

I first saw a similar topic around 2004. I think this little activity is doing fine now 7 years later.

 

Cache saturation in some areas concerns me a bit and I think that contributes to "guidelines, rules and laws" more than any other factor. I am never too worried about authorities doing what we pay them to do when something suspicious is reported.

 

Some amount of self policing seems the key to keeping the guidelines enforced and the authorities respectful of what we do.

[+TreasureFerret]

With the kind of people I see in the DC/MD area (mostly lazy people who want nothing to do with the outdoors) I'm not too worried about it becoming overly-popular. Now, when I move back to Maine that might be different.

 

As for the guardrail issue, I think we probably will face more state-set rules in the future because so many geocachers don't even follow the basic rules of the sport (no caches on school grounds, etc). If we need the state to set rules for the cachers who aren't following the rules to begin with, then I see no harm in that.

[Clan Riffster]

Those who refuse to police themselves, will likely be policed by others.

But I doubt this spells the end. While Geocaching will likely evolve even more over time, I suspect the game, in some form, still has a healthy shelf life.

[+A & J Tooling]

If it gets too bogged down, people will just start breaking off into their little groups of loyal followers and still support it in one form or another.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Many state parks have caught on to geocaching and now are required 20+$ fees per cache to place them in parks.

 

Please provide name of the state where this is true. Thanks.

[+TreasureFerret]

Many state parks have caught on to geocaching and now are required 20+$ fees per cache to place them in parks.

 

Please provide name of the state where this is true. Thanks.

 

Some names are provided in this thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=269082

[+Ecylram]

It's not the death of Geocaching. The sport is alive, growing and vibrant.

 

Caches are placed in thousands of jurisdictions. It's not surprising that some might issue more restrictive policies. It's going to happen.

 

As geocaching grows, will it experience growing pains? Certainly, but it won't kill geocaching.

[+ArtieD]

Well, according to this person, lame caches are going to be the death of geocaching. We still haven't been informed as to what exactly constitutes a "lame" cache, but we'll be sure to update you when that information is made public.

[+angevine]

It's not the end of geocaching. Everything evolves, everything changes, geocaching is no exception.

If people are being irresponsible, perhaps this will help call them on it. And perhaps we'll start seeing more and more creative caches --- that wouldn't be so bad!

 

Jeannette

(who wrote the book on geocaching: Open Your Heart with Geocaching, available online and at bookstores everywhere)

[knowschad]

With the kind of people I see in the DC/MD area (mostly lazy people who want nothing to do with the outdoors) I'm not too worried about it becoming overly-popular. Now, when I move back to Maine that might be different.

 

As for the guardrail issue, I think we probably will face more state-set rules in the future because so many geocachers don't even follow the basic rules of the sport (no caches on school grounds, etc). If we need the state to set rules for the cachers who aren't following the rules to begin with, then I see no harm in that.

 

If you happen to know of a cache on school grounds that does not have explicit permission, be sure to make the reviewer aware of it. I am not aware of any. You make it sound commonplace. It is not, in fact, it would be extremely rare.

 

I'm not in the habit of calling out poster's find count, but unless you have been in this activity for longer than your profile would indicate, I think that four finds and less than a month of geocaching hardly gives you the experience to make such stong claims of of irresponsible hiding practices. You may be getting that idea from some of the forum posts, but please don't base your opinions on that... you will quickly find out that reality is quite different.

[knowschad]

Many state parks have caught on to geocaching and now are required 20+$ fees per cache to place them in parks.

 

Please provide name of the state where this is true. Thanks.

 

Some names are provided in this thread: http://forums.Ground...howtopic=269082

 

Isn't Pennsylvania the only state named in that thread as charging? Some others require permits and/or registration, but I don't know of any others that charge for hiding a cache.

Edited April 15, 2011 by knowschad

[+Aptly.Matched]

At this point, if geocaching died right now, there are 1,347,255 active caches left in the world for me to find. I do believe that I'll manage to occupy my time somehow. It's not as if the imposition of restrictions with the requirement of permits or laws is going to get rid of that many.

 

Parks are a great place to hide caches, but at the risk of generalizing, it is the state forests, state parks, and other large entities that are starting to have set guidelines, strict or not. There are plenty of parks that are more relaxed about the whole process. In Cincinnati, the Hamilton County Parks has guidelines for placing geocaches in their parks, but require no money to be spent, only that the individual register the cache (done online at that), and renew the registration every year by January 31st so they can track if the caches are still there. This is one small example in the grand scheme of things, but too many people focus on the negative reactions to everything.

[+roziecakes]

Yes, Geocaching will change, I agree; it will not end. Eventually some will be weeded out; those who can't handle change, those who lose interest, those who piss too many people off, etc.

 

As in every hobby, game, sport, there is always that person who "Takes his ball and goes home" because he doesn't want to deal with how things evolve, or how other people have fun; and ultimiately that person is the one who will lose. Those of us who can always find something fun to find, and who continue to find joy in the hobby and who are flexible and adaptable are the ones who will stay.

 

As with any hobby, if you don't enjoy it, why do it? If you do enjoy it, great! Keep on trucking!

[+spdrbob]

I would suspect the ones in the parks and woods would be OK still regardless , less and less people seems to be venturing out in the woods to parks and reserves. I can't tell you how many times I've been hiking in a park and had or heard people say how nice it was to see kids out in the woods. Sad but true. I would think the park managers would be OK with anything that brought people to the park as long as the rules of the park are followed.

[+TreasureFerret]

With the kind of people I see in the DC/MD area (mostly lazy people who want nothing to do with the outdoors) I'm not too worried about it becoming overly-popular. Now, when I move back to Maine that might be different.

 

As for the guardrail issue, I think we probably will face more state-set rules in the future because so many geocachers don't even follow the basic rules of the sport (no caches on school grounds, etc). If we need the state to set rules for the cachers who aren't following the rules to begin with, then I see no harm in that.

 

If you happen to know of a cache on school grounds that does not have explicit permission, be sure to make the reviewer aware of it. I am not aware of any. You make it sound commonplace. It is not, in fact, it would be extremely rare.

 

I'm not in the habit of calling out poster's find count, but unless you have been in this activity for longer than your profile would indicate, I think that four finds and less than a month of geocaching hardly gives you the experience to make such stong claims of of irresponsible hiding practices. You may be getting that idea from some of the forum posts, but please don't base your opinions on that... you will quickly find out that reality is quite different.

 

Yes I am new to the sport, thanks for pointing that out I'm clearly not talking about caches I have found, I am talking about caches friends of mine (who have been in the sport much longer than me) have found or seen posted. I was merely making a point that there are cachers who do not follow the basic rules, and they might be the ones who cause states to make more rules regarding the sport. Even if it isn't common, if an official sees an issue just once or twice and feels stongly enough about it then that could be enough to prompt them to do something about it.

[+Spraginator]

Well, according to this person, lame caches are going to be the death of geocaching. We still haven't been informed as to what exactly constitutes a "lame" cache, but we'll be sure to update you when that information is made public.

 

This just in! A lame cache has been officially defined as an LPC! We all know there are way too many of those.

[+GeoGeeBee]

You may be getting that idea from some of the forum posts, but please don't base your opinions on that... you will quickly find out that reality is quite different.

 

Indeed, another poster has a signature line that is very appropriate here. I'll paraphrase, because I'm too lazy to do a search: confusing the forums with the geocaching community is like confusing society with talk radio.

[+fizzymagic]

I knew I remembered another thread with this title. Why on earth would you start a new thread with the same title?

 

For somebody who has been a member for less than I year, such speculation seems a little premature.

Edited April 15, 2011 by fizzymagic

[+John Locke'N'Locke]

 

Some amount of self policing seems the key to keeping the guidelines enforced and the authorities respectful of what we do.

 

I agree, if the geocaching community does not police itself, it will result in the policing of the geocaching community by non-geocachers (i.e. muggles), probably not the way we want to go.

[+Michaelcycle]

With the kind of people I see in the DC/MD area (mostly lazy people who want nothing to do with the outdoors) I'm not too worried about it becoming overly-popular. Now, when I move back to Maine that might be different.

 

As for the guardrail issue, I think we probably will face more state-set rules in the future because so many geocachers don't even follow the basic rules of the sport (no caches on school grounds, etc). If we need the state to set rules for the cachers who aren't following the rules to begin with, then I see no harm in that.

 

Have you looked at the number of caches in the greater DC area? Have you noticed the very active geocaching clubs nearby? Have you gone to the C&O Canal towpath, the Capital Crescent Trail, the Mt Vernon Trail and seen all the cyclists, joggers and walkers? Have you checked out the traffic on I-70 headed to the mountains every Friday? Have you been at the Mall at O-dark-thirty and joined the many people exercising before work? There are many, many active vibrant people in the area (many in the military) and quite a few active geocachers.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Okay, so the original post reads:

 

Many state parks have caught on to geocaching and now are required 20+$ fees per cache to place them in parks. Some of those charges are subject to renewal fees as well.

 

And the reality seems to be that there's a $25 fee for a 3 year permit in a single state park system, Pennsylvania.

 

Just doing my bit to confuse the issue with some facts.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Isonzo Karst

[knowschad]

With the kind of people I see in the DC/MD area (mostly lazy people who want nothing to do with the outdoors) I'm not too worried about it becoming overly-popular. Now, when I move back to Maine that might be different.

 

As for the guardrail issue, I think we probably will face more state-set rules in the future because so many geocachers don't even follow the basic rules of the sport (no caches on school grounds, etc). If we need the state to set rules for the cachers who aren't following the rules to begin with, then I see no harm in that.

 

If you happen to know of a cache on school grounds that does not have explicit permission, be sure to make the reviewer aware of it. I am not aware of any. You make it sound commonplace. It is not, in fact, it would be extremely rare.

 

I'm not in the habit of calling out poster's find count, but unless you have been in this activity for longer than your profile would indicate, I think that four finds and less than a month of geocaching hardly gives you the experience to make such stong claims of of irresponsible hiding practices. You may be getting that idea from some of the forum posts, but please don't base your opinions on that... you will quickly find out that reality is quite different.

 

Yes I am new to the sport, thanks for pointing that out I'm clearly not talking about caches I have found, I am talking about caches friends of mine (who have been in the sport much longer than me) have found or seen posted. I was merely making a point that there are cachers who do not follow the basic rules, and they might be the ones who cause states to make more rules regarding the sport. Even if it isn't common, if an official sees an issue just once or twice and feels stongly enough about it then that could be enough to prompt them to do something about it.

 

In the case of Minnesota State Parks, they originally banned geocaching. It wasn't based upon any bad behavior on the part of cachers, as far as I know... they just felt we were leaving junk laying around. But once they got wind that they could bring a significant number of new people into the parks (hence: make lots of money from geocaching) they not only allowed it, but are encouraging it with special geocaching programs.

[+dcrep]

Well, according to this person, lame caches are going to be the death of geocaching. We still haven't been informed as to what exactly constitutes a "lame" cache, but we'll be sure to update you when that information is made public.

 

Your fixation on that particular cacher is quite strange (he's the only one who thinks there are too many lame caches?). I'd be inclined to agree with him, and wish there was a meaningful rating system to weed out lame caches. I define meaningful rating system as one that allows negative feedback to be left.

[+GrateBear]

A sizeable number of those jumping on the bandwagon now, are going to jump off at some point in time. I've posted NA logs for 3 local caches whose owners were very active two years ago, but now, nothing in months and even over a year. Makes me wonder how many GPS units are sitting unused in drawers somewhere, that someone would be happy to buy for a reasonable price.

[+Chokecherry]

I know some folks who got a gps for hunting or fishing, tried geocaching and quit because it wasn't their thing.

 

I think people will cycle in and out like any hobby. People still collect beanie babies years after they stopped being the "it" toy. People still play Dungeons and Dragons etc.

 

Around here this hasn't caught on as a hobby. I talk to people about it and many have heard of it. Some have even thought about trying it but over all just a really small handful of people here do it and stuck with it.

[+t4e]

I knew I remembered another thread with this title. Why on earth would you start a new thread with the same title?

 

 

huh? the threads are from two different people

[+LukeTrocity]

Okay, so the original post reads:

 

Many state parks have caught on to geocaching and now are required 20+$ fees per cache to place them in parks. Some of those charges are subject to renewal fees as well.

 

And the reality seems to be that there's a $25 fee for a 3 year permit in a single state park system, Pennsylvania.

 

Just doing my bit to confuse the issue with some facts.

 

I have read other places beside PA doing this. Northern Virginia I think was one of the areas where they said it was a 59$ fee. All the info I found on this forum if you'd like to keep looking.

[+LukeTrocity]

I knew I remembered another thread with this title. Why on earth would you start a new thread with the same title?

 

For somebody who has been a member for less than I year, such speculation seems a little premature.

 

It's just observations, I was hoping to see some debate which I do. These are all questions which have passed my mind and so I am posting it on a forum.

[knowschad]

Okay, so the original post reads:

 

Many state parks have caught on to geocaching and now are required 20+$ fees per cache to place them in parks. Some of those charges are subject to renewal fees as well.

 

And the reality seems to be that there's a $25 fee for a 3 year permit in a single state park system, Pennsylvania.

 

Just doing my bit to confuse the issue with some facts.

 

I have read other places beside PA doing this. Northern Virginia I think was one of the areas where they said it was a 59$ fee. All the info I found on this forum if you'd like to keep looking.

 

State Forest (or was it National Forest?). Not a State Park. And neither has anything at all to do with bad hides. Both have to do with attempts to raise funds.

[+JL_HSTRE]

As geocaching becomes more popular, it will draw more people into it which will include more trouble-causing types, particularly those engaging in careless and unsafe behavior in their cache retrieval and/or placement.

 

But as it is more widely known it will be also be more widely understood. The popularity also encourages parks systems to allow caches because they bring more visitors and thus more funding to the parks, including increasing the number of people who will send angry messages to their congressmen demanding parks not be shut down.

 

Admittedly, I come to this with the perspective of less than 1 1/2 years of caching. But I do come to with with the perspective of other hobbies where the sky kept falling, but the game kept going.

 

NDOT cracking down on the ET PT and VDOT cracking down on GRIMs may start a trend of DOTs wanting to keep caches away from roads for safety reasons. I've heard things have or will get a little stricter on some LPCs; I would be surprised to see them become a thing of the past one day.

 

A likely future is one where cache placement is simply stricter: permission is more often required to be clearly given rather than assumed and certain types of hides, especially in urban areas - that are currently allowed may not be in the future or will require explicit permission.

 

Learn, think, educate, and be a little more careful - and encourage your fellow cachers to do the same thing. I don't think this hobby is going away.

 

And even if geocaching did go away then Waymarking would finally get it's time to shine.

[+Student Camper]

 

Some amount of self policing seems the key to keeping the guidelines enforced and the authorities respectful of what we do.

 

Finally, someone said the magic words, SELF POLICING.

I know, it's too much to ask.

[+lazydawg]

Here the Park District has some restrictions but no fees and is very easy to work with. The Forest Preserve District on the other hand has restrictions, charges a $10.00 fee and when they decided to do this they had a cacher(friend of preserve employee) from a neighboring community come in and remove all the caches in the Preserves. There were no notices given and nothing returned.( I suspect the cacher friend gained quite a few nice containers and swag since the district office said they had no idea what happened to them after the removal)This was in 2005 and really pissed me off, this year was the first time I bought a permit because the preserves are pretty empty of caches but the public parks are loaded.

Edited April 16, 2011 by lazydawg

[+fizzymagic]

I knew I remembered another thread with this title. Why on earth would you start a new thread with the same title?

 

For somebody who has been a member for less than I year, such speculation seems a little premature.

 

It's just observations, I was hoping to see some debate which I do. These are all questions which have passed my mind and so I am posting it on a forum.

 

The genesis of my somewhat snarky note is that these same questions were being discussed in 2002, with people concerned about the imminent demise of geocaching.

 

This topic, or a variant of it, has come up again and again and again on the forums. Geocaching is no closer to being banned now than it was in 2002. Perhaps phrasing the questions in a more constructive way would have made them less annoying.

[+rav_bunneh]

I think the idea of more people and cell phones are not the death by any means. That said every activity gets all kinds of people, good and bad. However it seems to me to be as much folly as saying "With all these people into soccer around the world, and getting stats and video on their cell phones... do you think soccer will end? Maybe FIFA will stop having the World Cup." Having people interested in something does not make it a failure. Technology doesn't ruin it either, unless they make as GPS that will take you directly to the cache container and every cache then becomes a zero difficulty.

 

:3

[+Isonzo Karst]

other places beside PA doing this. Northern Virginia I think was one of the areas where they said it was a 59$ fee.

 

National Forests Region 8 have had a manual statement since 2006 that geocaching placements might fall into a permit type that would require a $59 fee.

To date, no fees have been charged in any National Forests in region 8. This may be change, but it hasn't happened yet, as far as I know.

 

Again, just looking to confuse the issue with some facts.

 

Or per fizzymagic, "phrasing the questions in a more constructive way would have made them less annoying." It's tough to have a debate when you open with false premises.

[+dfx]

It's tough to have a debate when you open with false premises.

 

I think somebody's just trying out their new spoon...

[+Snoogans]

I think Snoogans calls it something like the "Main Stream Event Horizon".

 

I first saw a similar topic around 2004. I think this little activity is doing fine now 7 years later.

 

Cache saturation in some areas concerns me a bit and I think that contributes to "guidelines, rules and laws" more than any other factor. I am never too worried about authorities doing what we pay them to do when something suspicious is reported.

 

Some amount of self policing seems the key to keeping the guidelines enforced and the authorities respectful of what we do.

 

Yep. We can just call it MEH, for short...

 

Besides, everyone that has been around awhile KNOWS the prophecy that I will be the one who finally destroys geocaching. I will love it and love it and pet and stroke it.... Till it don't move no more.

 

[+edscott]

Many state parks have caught on to geocaching and now are required 20+$ fees per cache to place them in parks.

 

Please provide name of the state where this is true. Thanks.

 

1. Pennsylvania for one. I'm sure there are more

[knowschad]

Many state parks have caught on to geocaching and now are required 20+$ fees per cache to place them in parks.

 

Please provide name of the state where this is true. Thanks.

 

1. Pennsylvania for one. I'm sure there are more

 

As far as I know, its just Pennsylvania for one. (<--- that's a period.)

[knowschad]

Incidentally, PA State Parks actively encourage geocaching (or, at least believe they do. IMO, charging a fee for hiding a cache is counter to that goal)

 

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/geocaching.aspx

 

The Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) encourages responsible geocaching as a great way to explore and experience the outdoors.

 

Responsible geocaching is using common sense and common courtesy while geocaching, so that what is available today will be here to enjoy tomorrow. See the links below that include “Best Practices” and the “Other geo-info” links for more information.

 

 

(I found it mildly interesting to see that they are using the official Groundspeak geocaching logo on their site, BTW)

 

And from the DCNR Permit Process link on that page:

The Bureau of State Parks charges a $25.00 fee for placing a geocache on State Park lands. Sponsoring a CITO event or other volunteer effort can often be arranged with the park manager in lieu of this fee. Varies from park to park.

[+edscott]

The fact remains that there is a fee which was the question asked and answered. The option to do volunteer work in lieu of a monetary payment doesn't really give us free access. Note that the justification given for the fee is to cover the cost to assess the potential for environmental damage caused by the cache. Sort of fits right in with where the OP was going.

Edited April 16, 2011 by edscott

[+jacob501]

If geocaching died...I would die!

[+wimseyguy]

You may be getting that idea from some of the forum posts, but please don't base your opinions on that... you will quickly find out that reality is quite different.

 

Indeed, another poster has a signature line that is very appropriate here. I'll paraphrase, because I'm too lazy to do a search: confusing the forums with the geocaching community is like confusing society with talk radio.

 

Ohh Ohh pick me pick me!!

Alas, even that isn't an original thought, but a quote from another active participant on this board.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Yes I am new to the sport, thanks for pointing that out I'm clearly not talking about caches I have found, I am talking about caches friends of mine (who have been in the sport much longer than me) have found or seen posted. I was merely making a point that there are cachers who do not follow the basic rules, and they might be the ones who cause states to make more rules regarding the sport. Even if it isn't common, if an official sees an issue just once or twice and feels stongly enough about it then that could be enough to prompt them to do something about it.

There has always been an issue with some people placing caches that are inappropriate or that may cause trouble for geocachers and geocaching. At a very early stage, Geocaching.com introduce a review process and guidelines for publishing caches. The guidelines and the review process itself have been adjusted many times over the years to keep up with new issues as they arise. Geocachers should be aware of the guidelines not only follow them when placing caches but also when hunting. If you find caches that may be in violation of the guidelines feel free to inform a reviewer either by sending them a private note through the website or by posting a needs archive on the cache page.

 

On the other hand we also have a number of players who want to anticipate problems before they occur. They will post needs archive or complain on the forums about caches they think are unsafe or most likely placed without adequate permission or that they simply don't personally enjoy looking for. This bogs down the reviewers a bit investigating these caches to determine that they do meet the guidelines. Occasionally it will turn out that some land owner or agency will eventually indicate that some of these caches don't have adequate permission and the people who complained about them earlier will adopt an "I told you so" attitude.

 

In the end Geocaching is going to do OK, so long as land owners and agencies are aware that we have a process that deals with problem caches (and cachers). If an agency like VDOT decides it doesn't want to have caches on guardrails it maintains, they can let the reviewers know this. They can even ask for existing caches in these locations to be archived. In many cases, the reviewers will not know which caches are hidden in guardrails. They will depend on cachers pointing these out.

 

You should remember that there are still plenty of places to hide caches even when an agency decides to remove permission. There are even plenty of guardrails in the Commonwealth (I almost said State) of Virginia that are not VDOT guardrails where you can still hide a cache. As geocaching increases in popularity, we are also seeing agencies that once banned geocaches, beginning to allow some. It works both ways.

 

I knew I remembered another thread with this title. Why on earth would you start a new thread with the same title?

 

 

huh? the threads are from two different people

That other thread said the death of geocaching was going to be due to new satellites that would make GPS so accurate that caching would not longer be challenging. Quite a different premise.

 

But fizzymagic is right that concern about the growth of geocaching leading to more incidents and more awareness by the authorities would lead to regulations and some bans that would not be good. Death of geocaching is a bit of an exaggeration. There are plenty of locations where geoaching is still allowed and even welcomed.

[+LukeTrocity]

I knew I remembered another thread with this title. Why on earth would you start a new thread with the same title?

 

For somebody who has been a member for less than I year, such speculation seems a little premature.

 

It's just observations, I was hoping to see some debate which I do. These are all questions which have passed my mind and so I am posting it on a forum.

 

The genesis of my somewhat snarky note is that these same questions were being discussed in 2002, with people concerned about the imminent demise of geocaching.

 

This topic, or a variant of it, has come up again and again and again on the forums. Geocaching is no closer to being banned now than it was in 2002. Perhaps phrasing the questions in a more constructive way would have made them less annoying.

Its ok I don't take offense! You're not the first person I've run into with "internet muscles" and you won't be the last I'm sure.

 

@knowschad I was more concerned about people paying the fees, not presuming bad hides caused them. Just hypothetical situations.

[+myotis]

Well, according to this person, lame caches are going to be the death of geocaching. We still haven't been informed as to what exactly constitutes a "lame" cache, but we'll be sure to update you when that information is made public.

 

Your fixation on that particular cacher is quite strange (he's the only one who thinks there are too many lame caches?). I'd be inclined to agree with him, and wish there was a meaningful rating system to weed out lame caches. I define meaningful rating system as one that allows negative feedback to be left.

 

He is just a creepy stalker. He just cannot stand that I do not worship numbers. He thinks I am eveil because I would like to be able to filter out lame caches. I thnk most cachers can understand the difference between lame and easy, but some cannot seem to grasp concepts as simple as this.

[knowschad]

Well, according to this person, lame caches are going to be the death of geocaching. We still haven't been informed as to what exactly constitutes a "lame" cache, but we'll be sure to update you when that information is made public.

 

Your fixation on that particular cacher is quite strange (he's the only one who thinks there are too many lame caches?). I'd be inclined to agree with him, and wish there was a meaningful rating system to weed out lame caches. I define meaningful rating system as one that allows negative feedback to be left.

 

He is just a creepy stalker. He just cannot stand that I do not worship numbers. He thinks I am eveil because I would like to be able to filter out lame caches. I thnk most cachers can understand the difference between lame and easy, but some cannot seem to grasp concepts as simple as this.

 

Ahem!!!

[+ArtieD]

Well, according to this person, lame caches are going to be the death of geocaching. We still haven't been informed as to what exactly constitutes a "lame" cache, but we'll be sure to update you when that information is made public.

 

Your fixation on that particular cacher is quite strange (he's the only one who thinks there are too many lame caches?). I'd be inclined to agree with him, and wish there was a meaningful rating system to weed out lame caches. I define meaningful rating system as one that allows negative feedback to be left.

 

He is just a creepy stalker. He just cannot stand that I do not worship numbers. He thinks I am eveil because I would like to be able to filter out lame caches. I thnk most cachers can understand the difference between lame and easy, but some cannot seem to grasp concepts as simple as this.

 

Ahem!!!

 

Careful with the accusations there, myotis...you may not worship numbers, but it seems you don't mind "cheating" when it suits your needs. It seems you've emailed certain local cachers to simply give you coordinates to certain puzzle caches placed for a certain event because you don't want to work for them like the rest of us. Kinda sad, after you made a whole thread decrying the cheating going on at certain events.

 

Those in glass houses...remember?

Edited April 17, 2011 by Arthur & Trillian