Standards are slipping..

[+baack40]

This topic brought something to mind. I think I will set up a powertrail by looking at Google Maps and determining a stretch of road that I can use. Figure out where the 528' spacing would be. Record the coordinates and publish. Place two buckets of film canisters, one at each end of the trail. Then put the "Help with maintenance........" in the description. Now as people go to search for the caches along the trail they will set the trail up and I won't have to waste gas placing the containers. The FTF's will have that chore. What do you think?

 

LOL It is almost getting to that point.

[+Team Microdot]

I think the notion of the geocaching community exists, but not as a global hive mind that all look at geocaching in the same way. The geocaching population is made up of many disparate communities.

 

I think that's a fair analysis.

 

Given the degree of disparity I've experienced though, I struggle to map the concept of community as a group of people with common interests onto any particular subset of individuals. In fact I have to wonder if disparity and community aren't mutually exclusive?

 

I think that it is fine to have different views on caching, but a community SHOULD exist which advocates the general hobby. If anyone pushes their own personal agenda at the expense of other's enjoyment and (for example) invokes a ban on a certain aspect of caching, then that is wrong. Hopefully community pressure and a general want for geocaching to persist will win out.

 

I would say that every active member of the 'community', such as it is, already advocates the general hobby? Active cachers trying to derail the game sounds counter-intuitive (to me at least).

 

And I struggle with the idea that certain aspects of caching shouldn't be banned (speaking of course of those aspects of caching which contravene the guidelines or otherwise harm the game by, for example, causing damage to the environment or to property or danger / harm to individuals.

 

I used to look at Groundspeak as stewards of geocaching - at least for those geocaches which are listed on their site, but it seems to me that they actively shun that role and instead expect the 'community' to be entirely self regulating. In other words - it has become very much all about the numbers.

 

Given that 'community' members who strive for higher standards (or even minimum standards of complance with the guidelines) are often subjected to highly negative responses from other 'community' members - it seems inevitable that 'standards' will only continue to slide, as nobody cares enough to keep the bar high.

[+edscott]

This topic brought something to mind. I think I will set up a powertrail by looking at Google Maps and determining a stretch of road that I can use. Figure out where the 528' spacing would be. Record the coordinates and publish. Place two buckets of film canisters, one at each end of the trail. Then put the "Help with maintenance........" in the description. Now as people go to search for the caches along the trail they will set the trail up and I won't have to waste gas placing the containers. The FTF's will have that chore. What do you think?

 

LOL It is almost getting to that point.

 

Why not drive down the road and have a friend throw them out the window every 529.3 feet. (gotta spread them out a bit over the minimum just in case) Let them log a string of FTFs as well.

[+Maingray]

 

And I struggle with the idea that certain aspects of caching shouldn't be banned (speaking of course of those aspects of caching which contravene the guidelines or otherwise harm the game by, for example, causing damage to the environment or to property or danger / harm to individuals.

 

I used to look at Groundspeak as stewards of geocaching - at least for those geocaches which are listed on their site, but it seems to me that they actively shun that role and instead expect the 'community' to be entirely self regulating. In other words - it has become very much all about the numbers.

 

..and you only see caches published as the result of review, where such things are considered and the guidelines evolve. You have no clue what things are pushed back and never listed which do harm the environment, are in areas which are clearly offlimits, areas that would otherwise be far too cache dense and environmentally damaging, or line highways (now oflfimits), or need permits... nor are these cases discussed publicly in respect to the CO. There is a LOT of stewardship that you simply never get to see. The review process is a great asset that we can offer to land managers.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Maingray

[+kunarion]

Given that 'community' members who strive for higher standards (or even minimum standards of complance with the guidelines) are often subjected to highly negative responses from other 'community' members - it seems inevitable that 'standards' will only continue to slide, as nobody cares enough to keep the bar high.

I've recently placed caches I'd love to find (some in styles that I can't find ), not at all a throw-down style, some that I've been working on (on and off) for years to find just the right spot and just the right cache design. Other people have a huge string of pill bottles. Several of mine certainly aren't Park and Grabs, there aren't a lot of finds. But mine are likely to still be in place years from now, same container, the spot looking even cooler.

 

If I were to pronounce that placing a mass of low quality micro containers is a bad idea, I don't know that it would be a useful thing to point out. I think the Cache Owner will figure that out. I've wondered what such a CO will do as many of those containers begin failing. Maybe they have a replacement plan (maybe it's “just drop another one”, who knows). Those caches are much more popular than mine. Maybe it's a problem for “Geocaching” as a hobby, I don't know, but is it a problem for me? I hide what I enjoy, and that I hope people will love to find. My standards aren't slipping. I carefully select the ones I hunt. But I don't require people to avoid finding nor hiding “slipped standard” caches, and I hope I'm not supposed to.

Edited September 19, 2013 by kunarion

[+edscott]

Given that 'community' members who strive for higher standards (or even minimum standards of complance with the guidelines) are often subjected to highly negative responses from other 'community' members - it seems inevitable that 'standards' will only continue to slide, as nobody cares enough to keep the bar high.

I've recently placed caches I'd love to find (some in styles that I can't find ), not at all a throw-down style, some that I've been working on (on and off) for years to find just the right spot and just the right cache design. Other people have a huge string of pill bottles. Several of mine certainly aren't Park and Grabs, there aren't a lot of finds. But mine are likely to still be in place years from now, same container, the spot looking even cooler.

 

If I were to pronounce that placing a mass of low quality micro containers is a bad idea, I don't know that it would be a useful thing to point out. I think the Cache Owner will figure that out. I've wondered what such a CO will do as many of those containers begin failing. Maybe they have a replacement plan (maybe it's “just drop another one”, who knows). Those caches are much more popular than mine. Maybe it's a problem for “Geocaching” as a hobby, I don't know, but is it a problem for me? I hide what I enjoy, and that I hope people will love to find. My standards aren't slipping. I carefully select the ones I hunt. But I don't require people to avoid finding nor hiding “slipped standard” caches, and I hope I'm not supposed to.

 

Maintaining past standards and providing quality hides is all we can do, but I see fewer and fewer visitors to my caches. A quarter mile from the car seems to be the new limit. My 34 hidden caches average about .05 visits per day.

[+nthacker66]

 

And I struggle with the idea that certain aspects of caching shouldn't be banned (speaking of course of those aspects of caching which contravene the guidelines or otherwise harm the game by, for example, causing damage to the environment or to property or danger / harm to individuals.

 

I used to look at Groundspeak as stewards of geocaching - at least for those geocaches which are listed on their site, but it seems to me that they actively shun that role and instead expect the 'community' to be entirely self regulating. In other words - it has become very much all about the numbers.

 

..and you only see caches published as the result of review, where such things are considered and the guidelines evolve. You have no clue what things are pushed back and never listed which do harm the environment, are in areas which are clearly offlimits, areas that would otherwise be far too cache dense and environmentally damaging, or line highways (now oflfimits), or need permits... nor are these cases discussed publicly in respect to the CO. There is a LOT of stewardship that you simply never get to see. The review process is a great asset that we can offer to land managers.

 

And yet many reviewers are not entirely sure of land management guidelines. If I need to provide an example, I gladly will.

[+Maingray]

 

And yet many reviewers are not entirely sure of land management guidelines. If I need to provide an example, I gladly will.

 

Not really, cases like that should be managed locally, not in a thread about caching in general. I'm sure every Reviewer tries their best, but they are human. I was replying to Microdot who took the global view that Groundspeak doesn't steward the game.

[+fascinationyacht]

There is a rather nice geotrail near here. I don't want to say powertrail, as the hides are all unique, even though it does have identical descriptions on each page. The other day I received an e-mail from a cache on my watchlist that was not on the trail, but near it.

 

Replaced Quite a few missing Containers.

There shouldn't be any DNF's on this trail because you are asked to replace any missing caches. we replaced quite a few today ,some of them are just a log in a pill bag under a rock.

 

I checked and it does say something to that effect on the pages now, although I don't think it did when I did part of it. However, I don't think its such a good idea to be replacing containers on geotrails that do not have identical hides. And I don't think leaving a pill bag under a rock is a good idea for any cache. The next finder, and several others would report that it needs maintenance. Then the cache is found right where it should be, and in fine shape.

 

If you are going to leave a throwdown, how about using an actual container? And keep it limited to the geotrail? With the copy and paste logs, nobody can tell which ones, or how many were "replaced" this way. The finders probably do not remember either.

 

</rant>

 

Hi there

 

I do not understand the concept......

If you do not find it, you are asked to put one down...OK....I assume you log it as DNF

Because, if you log it as found the owner and other cachers think that all is well....so, now there are two caches.

The next cacher that comes along could /should find two caches! or worse still.... not find either and add a third cache himself. You can see where this is going, can't you.........

 

I thought the ethics were simple:- if you do not find it, you log it as such. After two or three DNF logs the owner is alerted and replaces it. Thats what 'Owners' do! Isn't it?

 

Kindest Regards Fascinationyacht

Edited September 19, 2013 by fascinationyacht

[+Team Microdot]

..and you only see caches published as the result of review, where such things are considered and the guidelines evolve. You have no clue what things are pushed back and never listed which do harm the environment, are in areas which are clearly offlimits, areas that would otherwise be far too cache dense and environmentally damaging, or line highways (now oflfimits), or need permits... nor are these cases discussed publicly in respect to the CO. There is a LOT of stewardship that you simply never get to see. The review process is a great asset that we can offer to land managers.

 

And I can only respond to those aspects of the game I can see - not being a member of the inner sanctum and all - privy to all that goes on under the hood.

 

And based on what I can see, the general trend under whatever stewardship might exist is increasingly downward - which is the opposite of what I would expect active stewardship to deliver

[+Maingray]

 

And I can only respond to those aspects of the game I can see - not being a member of the inner sanctum and all - privy to all that goes on under the hood.

 

And based on what I can see, the general trend under whatever stewardship might exist is increasingly downward - which is the opposite of what I would expect active stewardship to deliver

 

Inner Sanctum ? The Guidelines aren't hidden from view.

[+briansnat]

This topic brought something to mind. I think I will set up a powertrail by looking at Google Maps and determining a stretch of road that I can use. Figure out where the 528' spacing would be. Record the coordinates and publish. Place two buckets of film canisters, one at each end of the trail. Then put the "Help with maintenance........" in the description. Now as people go to search for the caches along the trail they will set the trail up and I won't have to waste gas placing the containers. The FTF's will have that chore. What do you think?

 

LOL It is almost getting to that point.

 

Why not drive down the road and have a friend throw them out the window every 529.3 feet. (gotta spread them out a bit over the minimum just in case) Let them log a string of FTFs as well.

 

You can set up a small catapult with an autofeed system and odometer attached. Set the odometer to launch a film canister every .1 mile.

 

Don't dismiss it. Some years ago during a discussion about power trails I mentioned a possible scenario where someone would drive down a highway and place hundreds of caches every .1 mile. My argument was dismissed as hyperbole and absurd. I admit I was being absurd, or so I thought at the time.

[+nthacker66]

 

And I can only respond to those aspects of the game I can see - not being a member of the inner sanctum and all - privy to all that goes on under the hood.

 

And based on what I can see, the general trend under whatever stewardship might exist is increasingly downward - which is the opposite of what I would expect active stewardship to deliver

 

Inner Sanctum ? The Guidelines aren't hidden from view.

 

huh? didmt you just say 4 or 5 posts up that we dont see how much goes on behind the scenes?

 

i am confused..the process is not opened to all when defneding it, but it is open to all when not defending it?

[+nthacker66]

 

And yet many reviewers are not entirely sure of land management guidelines. If I need to provide an example, I gladly will.

 

Not really, cases like that should be managed locally, not in a thread about caching in general. I'm sure every Reviewer tries their best, but they are human. I was replying to Microdot who took the global view that Groundspeak doesn't steward the game.

 

and that is the problem. Groundspeak has more resources and expertise (or can hire the expertise) to be partners in land stewardship, but instead play possum when something bad goes down and takes credit for the good things that happens.

 

reviewers are human but they also are representative of Groundspeak whether they like it or not - and a comment made by keystone yesterday in another thread was dreadfully unprofessional and downright immature. holding 5 year long grudges against entities that have worked tirelessly to protect natural resources and even in the face of an updated policy continues to stomp their feet and fold their arms like a child, in my opinion, is not high standards.

 

this isnt a game like it was 10 or even 5 years ago. volunteers are not always the appropriate folks to handle land management laison issues on a large scale. even if their intentions are pure and good. it makes me wonder, had Groundspeak been involved as a business, in virginia, they would still allow some form of road side caching. as i continue to say - this game is one major issue away from being banned on a large scale because Groundspeak for whatever reason, isnt more involved with land management.

[+nthacker66]

please dont misresd me - overall, i applaud the job the reviewers do. it isnt easy to juggle between whiney folks like me and groundspeaks ever sliding guidelines plus trying to figure out what land managers are thinking (trust me, when i was on some older rails to trals projects and oother trail conservancy projects, i know what a pain land managers can be.)

 

i just still think Groundspeak needs to help reviewers out in this sense, especially since this game is growing so large and rapidly. above all, the last thing we need is someone fighting these types of entities.

Edited September 19, 2013 by nthacker66

[+Maingray]

huh? didmt you just say 4 or 5 posts up that we dont see how much goes on behind the scenes?

 

i am confused..the process is not opened to all when defneding it, but it is open to all when not defending it?

 

No... I didn't say that, I said that reviewers review according to the guidelines and current land policies. You don't see what isn't published as, well, it isn't published.

 

My point was that there is a lot of active stewardship going on before it's listed. If things are missed, then the community can help by pointing issues out, or even "vote with their feet" and find / place things only they would like to find.

 

No black helicopters.

[+Maingray]

this isnt a game like it was 10 or even 5 years ago. volunteers are not always the appropriate folks to handle land management laison issues on a large scale. even if their intentions are pure and good. it makes me wonder, had Groundspeak been involved as a business, in virginia, they would still allow some form of road side caching. as i continue to say - this game is one major issue away from being banned on a large scale because Groundspeak for whatever reason, isnt more involved with land management.

 

Agreed. However, a state wide organization..community... can do this. I'd rather it was handled by local cachers than a Washington-based company.

 

To your example, I would argue that had VA a state organization with a mandate to act quickly and verbalize the issues to the VA DOT there might have been some compromise. I don't think a company based across the country would have helped.

 

Groundspeak sets and evolves the global guidelines; reviewers filter on these; the local community then facilitates and sets it's own quality.

Edited September 19, 2013 by Maingray

[+nthacker66]

huh? didmt you just say 4 or 5 posts up that we dont see how much goes on behind the scenes?

 

i am confused..the process is not opened to all when defneding it, but it is open to all when not defending it?

 

No... I didn't say that, I said that reviewers review according to the guidelines and current land policies. You don't see what isn't published as, well, it isn't published.

 

My point was that there is a lot of active stewardship going on before it's listed. If things are missed, then the community can help by pointing issues out, or even "vote with their feet" and find / place things only they would like to find.

 

No black helicopters.

 

i am not sure about microdot, but i hardly think there were black helis and men in black vans lol. there has to be involvement for that to happen. I think Groundspeak could do so much more and refine those guidelines if they just had more involvement with land managing entities at federal and state levels.

 

honestly, it is har to point things out, as you say, when one gets dismissed. i tried to point out that the old way the ATC handled the "at purge of 2008" was not only wrong, but their policy has changed and in fact, they are a lot more open and accepting to cachers. instead, i was insulted.

[+Maingray]

i tried to point out that the old way the ATC handled the "at purge of 2008" was not only wrong, but their policy has changed and in fact, they are a lot more open and accepting to cachers. instead, i was insulted.

 

I agree, and this needs to be revisited. But again, I place this at the feet of local cachers rather than directly with Groundspeak.

[+nthacker66]

this isnt a game like it was 10 or even 5 years ago. volunteers are not always the appropriate folks to handle land management laison issues on a large scale. even if their intentions are pure and good. it makes me wonder, had Groundspeak been involved as a business, in virginia, they would still allow some form of road side caching. as i continue to say - this game is one major issue away from being banned on a large scale because Groundspeak for whatever reason, isnt more involved with land management.

 

Agreed. However, a state wide organization..community... can do this. I'd rather it was handled by local cachers than a Washington-based company.

 

To your example, I would argue that had VA a state organization with a mandate to act quickly and verbalize the issues to the VA DOT there might have been some compromise. I don't think a company based across the country would have helped.

 

Groundspeak sets and evolves the global guidelines; reviewers filter on these; the local community then facilitates and sets it's own quality.

please read again...i didnt say Groundspeak should handle it all...i said they can partner with state/local organizations, or even individuals. instead, when one of their most vocal and longest tenured volunteer publically bashes a entity like appalachian trial association, this doesnt bode well for fostering good relationships. and that is exactly what this game needs. good, long lasting partnerships between the flagship listing service, state/local caching groups and land managers. yes, it is happening, but at a very slow pace and the only press you ever really see is local news reports of bomb squads.

there is just so much potential Groundspeak can bring to the table of land conservancy and land use (i still say, cachers are the cleanest people i know when it comes to leave no trace) - take advantage of it.

 

there is no reason for this to be a clandestine activity anymore....2 million plus caches, geotrails sponsered by stage entities - its time for Groundspeak to really be a player with all of these entities via partnerships.

[+nthacker66]

i tried to point out that the old way the ATC handled the "at purge of 2008" was not only wrong, but their policy has changed and in fact, they are a lot more open and accepting to cachers. instead, i was insulted.

 

I agree, and this needs to be revisited. But again, I place this at the feet of local cachers rather than directly with Groundspeak.

 

i am trying via a good gesture of cleaning up dragons tooth first...

[+nthacker66]

also with the work ranger fox and markcase have done in the uwharrie, i think nc is making great progress with the nps forestry people....making those kinds of connections is wonderful.

[Clan Riffster]

You can set up a small catapult with an autofeed system and odometer attached.

Set the odometer to launch a film canister every .1 mile.

A catapult requires charging before each launch. The energy has to come from somewhere. This could be somewhat automated, though the end result might be overly complex. My solution was to design a PVC 'tater gun, with a barrel sized to accept film cans. With just a couple pressure controlled switches, some tubing and an electric valve, you could have an automated fueling and firing process, run off your odometer. All you'd need to do is hit the "Mark" button on your GPSr every time it fires, and drop in another film can. Heck, you could even make the film can loading automated with a gravity feed system.

 

Let the FTF give corrected coords.

 

Instant power trail!

 

Back when I first suggested this method, there were folks who thought it a great idea.

 

Maybe we need a sarcasm emoticon?

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

You can set up a small catapult with an autofeed system and odometer attached.

Set the odometer to launch a film canister every .1 mile.

A catapult requires charging before each launch. The energy has to come from somewhere. This could be somewhat automated, though the end result might be overly complex. My solution was to design a PVC 'tater gun, with a barrel sized to accept film cans. With just a couple pressure controlled switches, some tubing and an electric valve, you could have an automated fueling and firing process, run off your odometer. All you'd need to do is hit the "Mark" button on your GPSr every time it fires, and drop in another film can. Heck, you could even make the film can loading automated with a gravity feed system.

 

Let the FTF give corrected coords.

 

Instant power trail!

 

Back when I first suggested this method, there were folks who thought it a great idea.

 

Maybe we need a sarcasm emoticon?

 

I think a cannon is overkill. Just a tube stuck out the window pointed down towards the drainage ditch should suffice.

[+Poker70]

Compressed air, from a portable air compressor powered by a suitable power inverter. The mechanism for chambering and propelling the film cans would be a simple takeoff of John Browning's gas powered auto loading shotgun principle. The triggering mechanism would be an Arduino board with a GPS interface. Every 528', easy breezy. It could be easily mounted in the back seat or the trunk and used wherever one drove. Imagine taking the kids for ice cream and setting out 20 caches!

[Clan Riffster]

I think a cannon is overkill.

But... But... But...

Dude!

Cannons are kewl!

[+wimseyguy]

also with the work ranger fox and markcase have done in the uwharrie, i think nc is making great progress with the nps forestry people....making those kinds of connections is wonderful.

 

Don't confuse National Forests with NPS; two different entities and government agencies. The US Forest Service is part of the USDA, and for the most part has been cache friendly. The National Park Service is part of the Department of the Interior, and isn't quite as cache friendly. This is changing in some places, but we haven't made any significant progress in NC yet.

 

RF and mc have done a nice job clarifying the separation between the Wilderness Area and the rest of the NF property in the Uwharrie National Forest and working with that ranger this past summer. They have placed some interesting caches out there that appear to be well received by those who have found them.

 

But good relations between the NCGO and the National Forests in NC is nothing new. A somewhat relaxed yet official policy was developed jointly over three years ago that averted a imminent ban on all geocaches placed in NC National Forests. The trigger was a poorly placed ammo can in the Bent Creek section of Nahantahala NF that resulted in a bomb squad call out.

 

Maingray, the NCGO president at that time, worked tirelessly with the NF representatives to craft that cache friendly policy and saved thousands of great forest hides. Today the reviewers routinely publish caches in the approved sections of our four National Forests after the CO confirms that they have permission from a ranger. I am told that most caches are granted permission quickly and without any unnecessary paperwork. It's a win win situation.

 

As far as slipping standards, it might be the case as the percentage of non 'hike in the woods' caches seems to be on the rise. But there are still plenty of acres in NC National Forests to place your old school hike in the woods caches. You just need permission now.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I think a cannon is overkill.

But... But... But...

Dude!

Cannons are kewl!

 

Agreed...but I'd rather be shooting potatoes or tennis balls or anything but film cans.

[+Glenn]

Maybe we could suggest that Groundspeak institute some kind of wow factor when it comes to placing caches.

Whoa! Thanks for the flashback to 2004.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Glenn

[+JohnnyVegas]

There is a rather nice geotrail near here. I don't want to say powertrail, as the hides are all unique, even though it does have identical descriptions on each page. The other day I received an e-mail from a cache on my watchlist that was not on the trail, but near it.

 

Replaced Quite a few missing Containers.

There shouldn't be any DNF's on this trail because you are asked to replace any missing caches. we replaced quite a few today ,some of them are just a log in a pill bag under a rock.

 

I checked and it does say something to that effect on the pages now, although I don't think it did when I did part of it. However, I don't think its such a good idea to be replacing containers on geotrails that do not have identical hides. And I don't think leaving a pill bag under a rock is a good idea for any cache. The next finder, and several others would report that it needs maintenance. Then the cache is found right where it should be, and in fine shape.

 

If you are going to leave a throwdown, how about using an actual container? And keep it limited to the geotrail? With the copy and paste logs, nobody can tell which ones, or how many were "replaced" this way. The finders probably do not remember either.

 

</rant>

I have been kicking around an idea for a geotrail along a bike trail and every couple of miles having an ammo can with logsheets, baggies, and some pill bottles so that if cachers want to, they can stock up and replace as needed. I am a little less sure about the pill bottles just because they take up so much room.

The problem with letting cachers place caches when they "think" the cache is missing creates extra caches and the CO that makes this request does not want to and has to intention of maintaining the caches he has place (as is required in the guidelines). Maybe these hides should be archived!

[4wheelin_fool]

You can set up a small catapult with an autofeed system and odometer attached.

Set the odometer to launch a film canister every .1 mile.

A catapult requires charging before each launch. The energy has to come from somewhere. This could be somewhat automated, though the end result might be overly complex. My solution was to design a PVC 'tater gun, with a barrel sized to accept film cans. With just a couple pressure controlled switches, some tubing and an electric valve, you could have an automated fueling and firing process, run off your odometer. All you'd need to do is hit the "Mark" button on your GPSr every time it fires, and drop in another film can. Heck, you could even make the film can loading automated with a gravity feed system.

 

Let the FTF give corrected coords.

 

Instant power trail!

 

Back when I first suggested this method, there were folks who thought it a great idea.

 

Maybe we need a sarcasm emoticon?

 

I think a cannon is overkill. Just a tube stuck out the window pointed down towards the drainage ditch should suffice.

 

It would be a lot easier to use a crop duster at a few hundred feet to sprinkle the filmcans out, along with leaflets telling the puritans to surrender.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

You can set up a small catapult with an autofeed system and odometer attached.

Set the odometer to launch a film canister every .1 mile.

A catapult requires charging before each launch. The energy has to come from somewhere. This could be somewhat automated, though the end result might be overly complex. My solution was to design a PVC 'tater gun, with a barrel sized to accept film cans. With just a couple pressure controlled switches, some tubing and an electric valve, you could have an automated fueling and firing process, run off your odometer. All you'd need to do is hit the "Mark" button on your GPSr every time it fires, and drop in another film can. Heck, you could even make the film can loading automated with a gravity feed system.

 

Let the FTF give corrected coords.

 

Instant power trail!

 

Back when I first suggested this method, there were folks who thought it a great idea.

 

Maybe we need a sarcasm emoticon?

 

I think a cannon is overkill. Just a tube stuck out the window pointed down towards the drainage ditch should suffice.

 

It would be a lot easier to use a crop duster at a few hundred feet to sprinkle the filmcans out, along with leaflets telling the puritans to surrender.

 

That also has the advantage of producing geoart, sort of like throwing a bucket of paint on a canvas and calling it art.

 

 

[4wheelin_fool]

You can set up a small catapult with an autofeed system and odometer attached.

Set the odometer to launch a film canister every .1 mile.

A catapult requires charging before each launch. The energy has to come from somewhere. This could be somewhat automated, though the end result might be overly complex. My solution was to design a PVC 'tater gun, with a barrel sized to accept film cans. With just a couple pressure controlled switches, some tubing and an electric valve, you could have an automated fueling and firing process, run off your odometer. All you'd need to do is hit the "Mark" button on your GPSr every time it fires, and drop in another film can. Heck, you could even make the film can loading automated with a gravity feed system.

 

Let the FTF give corrected coords.

 

Instant power trail!

 

Back when I first suggested this method, there were folks who thought it a great idea.

 

Maybe we need a sarcasm emoticon?

 

I think a cannon is overkill. Just a tube stuck out the window pointed down towards the drainage ditch should suffice.

 

It would be a lot easier to use a crop duster at a few hundred feet to sprinkle the filmcans out, along with leaflets telling the puritans to surrender.

 

That also has the advantage of producing geoart, sort of like throwing a bucket of paint on a canvas and calling it art.

 

Update-

 

The verbiage asking for maintenance assistance on each page was removed. Several, but not all, were archived and subsequently relisted as geoart. Some still had the old logsheets inside.