+Web-ling Posted May 20, 2002 Share Posted May 20, 2002 I enjoy seeing how I compare with others, especially others in my local area. It's not so much about "winning" as much as taking pride in my accomplishments, as well as admiring the accomplishments of others. It's been kinda fun being the "Top Dog" in the Dallas/Fort Worth area for a while. It's also been fascinating to watch several newer players hit 100 even faster than I did, as well as watching a few who will soon be passing me. And when someone does pass me, they will be receiving a congratulatory email from me. Competitive? Yes! But mostly, find counts just add to the fun. I think breaking down the counts will be a good thing. It'll make it easier to see what types of caches particular people prefer to hunt, which will just make the whole thing more interesting. I guess I just like statistics. Quote Link to comment
+Crusso Posted May 20, 2002 Share Posted May 20, 2002 Other than a passing interest in seeing who has a couple of hundred caches I really don't care about anyone's numbers. Maybe it's because mine is still low! I would like to see cache finds seperated out by type, maybe even pie charted. I would like that for my own cache finds. Quote Link to comment
+Crusso Posted May 20, 2002 Share Posted May 20, 2002 Other than a passing interest in seeing who has a couple of hundred caches I really don't care about anyone's numbers. Maybe it's because mine is still low! I would like to see cache finds seperated out by type, maybe even pie charted. I would like that for my own cache finds. Quote Link to comment
Forum Posting Privilege Revoked For Doing Nothing More Than Hosting a Civil Conversation. Posted May 20, 2002 Share Posted May 20, 2002 I'm not competetive because almost everyone in my area has more finds then me, but I like to see what the other people are up to. The top bananas put up some impressive numbers, no matter what the cache ratings are. I got nice emails from a couple of them when I found their caches, and I thought that was nice. Quote Link to comment
+The-Wild-N-Wooly-Wieskes Posted May 21, 2002 Share Posted May 21, 2002 My family has really fallen in love with Geocaching. We enjoy finding both traditional caches, and locationless caches. I, for one, would like the cache counts to be seperate though. I would like to know which ones we went to find (traditional), and which ones we found in reverse (locationless). I think both have their place, but I, for one, would like to see the numbers differentiated. Not as a contest, but for my own information. I also would like to find a way to look up locationless caches easily. I have had to hunt for them up to this point, it would be nice to look up all locationless caches and pick from there. There are only a few caches within an hours drive from our house (we are working on changing this fact) and locationless caches give us a reason to go out and explore the world, which, for us, it the purpose behind Geocaching. Don't take your organs to heaven, heaven knows we need them here! Quote Link to comment
+Navdog Posted May 21, 2002 Share Posted May 21, 2002 I made a comment last fall when virtuals were just starting to show up that I would hate to see the site turn into geotravel.com. Now that these locationless caches are spreading like weeds, it seems my fears are coming true. There is a certain amount of skill that separates finding a phsysical cache and a virtual/locationless cache, as well as a better sense of adventure in finding a physical cache. It would be nice to see separate categories, pages, and find counts for each type. The adventures of Navdog, Justdog, and Otterpup Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 Navdog, It should be noted that skills are needed for all cache types, including locationless. Right now, I am trying to track down a structure that existed 150 years ago to log a locationless cache. An internet search was no help. I am now getting out to talk to people in a tiny community to track it down. Just because a person doesn't follow a little arrow to the cache, does not mean that skills were not involved in the find. Quote Link to comment
+Markwell Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 I don't know if I'm too happy with the lumping together of virtual and locationless caches. I don't think they're the same animal at all. I've found 2 locationless caches, and will probably not hunt any more. I've found several virtuals and think they do indeed have a place in Geocaching. Locationless seems like just a way to up your find count (hmmm, I saw a yellow jeep parked next to a school bus, was that Elvis' ghost driving the jeep?) Virtuals are intended to be for really neat places at which it would be inappropriate to place a box. If you have a problem with one or the other, that's fine. You're welcome to your opinion. But lumping them together with the same distaste seems like lumping microcaches and multi-stage caches together. Markwell Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted May 22, 2002 Author Share Posted May 22, 2002 An anteater and an aardvark are two completely different animals, so there is no point to lump them together either. Each person likes certain aspects of certain searches for certain items, so to each his/her own. If there is any lumping together than it's an individual's lump, not the sites. I'm not restricting people to be competitive (which happens regardless of me), I'm just stating the mission of the site is to dismiss the competitive nature of the sport. If people want to boast to each other how many finds they have its their business. And Markwell, your yellow jeep and elvis comment is now irrelevant. The first post in this topic explains that. Jeremy Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Quote Link to comment
+Markwell Posted May 22, 2002 Share Posted May 22, 2002 My post wasn't directed at the origin of this thread. It was, I admit, off topic. I think the new requirements for locationless caches is fine. As I said, I'm not concerned with them as I probably won't hunt them, and have considered editing my "found it" logs to "notes" on those two pages. (BTW - I know my Elvis in a Yellow Jeep was invalid. It was a poor attempt at hyperbole). My off-topic concern was that I have seen on more than one occasion locationless and virtual used in the same breath (keystroke?) as though they are the same thing. I was just trying to make what I thought was a necessary distinction. If that concern is invalid, so be it. Just ignore my post. In no way did I try to imply that Geocaching.com or Groundspeak were lumping these types together. Markwell Quote Link to comment
+rdw Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 These guidelines look good. I have seen a number of crappy (or at least uninspired) locationless caches pop up in recent weeks. Jeremy's rules of thumb will help to weed out the chaff. There are some good ideas out there and probably even better ideas which are yet to be discovered. Hopefully, this will please both the pro- and anti-locationless factions. rdw Quote Link to comment
+Web-ling Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 I'd like to see the current cache types broken into 3 categories: Geocaches: Anything with a box, including traditional, multis, and hybrids. Waypoints: Anything where the coordinates are given, but there is NO box. Includes Virtuals, Events, Webcams, and Locationless caches with mathematically derived coordinates (like the Palindrome cache or Pair of Quintuplets). Scavenger Hunts: Anything where the coordinates are NOT provided and there is NO box. Quote Link to comment
Rentakid Posted May 23, 2002 Share Posted May 23, 2002 Man I can go either way on this. I don't think this is padding!! I really enjoy Locationless caches. I think some are bogus and cheeze. But with the new guide lines, it should be fine. The other day I went looking for a GNS marker. I thought that was cool. First it was not easy to find, second I did not know they even excisted. Isn't that what a caching is all about, going out and finding something that you did not know was there, and using a gps? Am I missing something? I really enjoy my Nav/aid Cache. I get to see places and faces that I never seen before. A cache is a cache even if it is in the reverse order. Why dose anyone care about the count? do we get a prize for having more caches than the next guy? If you have a high count that just meens you have more time or been at it longer. It does not me your better. One cacher has almost 1,000 caches logged. I see logs almost 20 a day from him or them. Does he spend 10hr a day doing a cache every half an hour? I don't think so. Splitting up the two types or caches sound like work for Jeremy. I think he has better things to do, like caching. Whos counting any way? Why do we have a count? quote:Originally posted by Kimrobin: I think before people start levelling accusations of "find padding", there are a few other factors that need to be taken into account. If I were lucky enough to live in certain parts of Washington state I could find that I have 475 caches within 50 miles of my front door. But I live in the north of England and don't have that luxury. There are 75 caches within 50 miles of my house, so there are times when it just isn't practical to go and do a traditional cache. The nearest cache on my home page would take a minimum of two and a half hours to do, so for the last couple of weekends we have been having fun doing locationless caches. Find an American flag on a pole? No problem. Well not for US residents anyway, but try finding one in the UK. Took us two weeks to do that one. So for some people, locationless caches are “find pads”, maybe so. But for plenty of others they are a legitimate substitute for "traditional" caching. Maybe if we are going to get picky about numbers we shouldn't just think of high score. What about averages. Total finds divided by the number of caches available in a local radius. That would sure suit me just fine. I'd be right up there. But for now, I'll stick with the locationless ones and resign myself to the fact that there are those who will see me as a "second class" geocacher. Alex. Good times Quote Link to comment
+The GeoGadgets Team Posted May 24, 2002 Share Posted May 24, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Navdog:I made a comment last fall when virtuals were just starting to show up that I would hate to see the site turn into geotravel.com. Now that these locationless caches are spreading like weeds, it seems my fears are coming true. Really? Popping up like weeds, huh? I certainly don't understand where your fears are based. According to the "About Geocaching" page on this website, there is currently (as I type) 19,072 ACTIVE geocaches distributed around 123 countries. Of those only 107 are listed as locationless. That is a 178-to-1 ratio. Yeah. The frickin' sport is most definitely on a downward spiral. Give me a break! ---------- Lori aka: RedwoodRed KF6VFI "I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations." GeoGadgets Team Website Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite "Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda, Jedi Master from Star Wars - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back Quote Link to comment
+MartyFouts Posted May 25, 2002 Share Posted May 25, 2002 As things now stand, there's no reasonable way to compare the 1/1 cache that took a two hour hike in steep terrain and a bit of risk (someone else broke their arm trying to get it) to the up-a-tree-but-I can't climb 1/1 to the extremely well hidden 50' from the parking lot 1/1 to the found it in two minutes after a 10 minute walk across a level field 2.5/2.5 -- all of those are caches I've tried. You can't compare a multicache that took three trips and a bunch of research at a local library to the five caches all in the same urban park either. "Keeping score" is silly in this hobby, and a lot of work would have to be done to cache stats and scoring rules to make it anything but silly. As to 'tradition', no hobby less than three years old should describe its behavior as having 'tradition' unless tongue is firmly planted in cheek. Quote Link to comment
+MartyFouts Posted May 25, 2002 Share Posted May 25, 2002 I'm confused. Two days ago, completely unaware of this thread, or the debate over locationless caches, which I had only discovered a couple of days earlier, I tried to create two locationless caches, both of which seem to meet the requirements. One (Mission Madness) was approved, while the other (College Credit) was not. Both are permanent objects, both were intended to require GPS/photo documentation, both are moderately rare, both are already subjects of coffee table books. Don't get me wrong -- it's your site and I'll obey whatever rules you want for posting here, but I really want to know what the rules are, so that I can apply them consistently when trying to create a site. Quote Link to comment
iryshe Posted May 31, 2002 Share Posted May 31, 2002 quote:One (Mission Madness) was approved, while the other (College Credit) was not. Both are permanent objects, both were intended to require GPS/photo documentation, both are moderately rare, both are already subjects of coffee table books. Well, first off you can always appeal a "judgement" by bringing it up to vote in these forums whenever you want, but I'll bite on this one. Your college credit locationless cache was to log a College. As the rules listed, it has to be something that is novel. A college, by any stretch of the imagination, is not novel. Historical missions are. And where would you specifically log coordinates for a place like a college? The college entry sign? That would probably be novel enough for a locationless cache. But an entire college? Not likely. Jeremy Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location Quote Link to comment
+Team OUTSID4EVR Posted May 31, 2002 Share Posted May 31, 2002 I know a few "power cachers" who have used locationless caches to pad their numbers. Jeremy is going in the right direction by placing some guidelines regarding locationless caches and separating the counts. I think the novelty of locationless caches will wear off for many people once it becomes clear to the geocaching community which type of cache they have found. The game is evolving. Not necessairily a bad thing, BUT... I would really be disappointed if the traditional cache became a dying breed because people choose to "hide" and find locationless caches. Finding a container in the outdoors is (in my opinion) one of the biggest reasons why people get addicted to geocaching. I second the motion that this should not be a "collectors corner" or "geotravel.com". Make a totally separate section for that type of activity. Quote Link to comment
+Criminal Posted May 31, 2002 Share Posted May 31, 2002 Must be something wrong with me, I don’t see the point of a locationless cache. It seems to me that anyplace you could do a “virtual” cache you could also hide at least some sort of container. Am I not understanding how this works? Quote Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 No, you cannot hide a container in some places. As it states in the "Guide to Creating and Hiding a Cache", "You will be in violation of federal regulation by placing a cache in any area administered by the National Park Service (US)." If you can get expressed written permission, you can place a cache in a NP, but it is hard to come by to be sure. Certain additional State and local areas do not permit physical geocaches either. You can create virtual caches in these areas, though. I live in Georgia and we are just now starting to crack our way back into the GA State Parks, but the container will have to be in the Park office with multi-cache tags permitted throughout the park -- but with the Park Managers permission only and only in certain Parks. (Example: put the container in the park office with a combination lock on it and spread the combination throughout the park on tags so you have to find the combination at three locations.) I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA! Quote Link to comment
+MartyFouts Posted June 1, 2002 Share Posted June 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin): quote:One (Mission Madness) was approved, while the other (College Credit) was not. Both are permanent objects, both were intended to require GPS/photo documentation, both are moderately rare, both are already subjects of coffee table books. Well, first off you can always appeal a "judgement" by bringing it up to vote in these forums whenever you want, but I'll bite on this one. Your college credit locationless cache was to log a College. As the rules listed, it has to be something that is novel. A college, by any stretch of the imagination, is not novel. Historical missions are. And where would you specifically log coordinates for a place like a college? The college entry sign? That would probably be novel enough for a locationless cache. But an entire college? Not likely. Jeremy Jeremy Irish Groundspeak - The Language of Location It seems to me that you're playing at semantics. The rules for the cache clearly stated "Entry must include at least one photograph that clearly identifies the college and the coordinates for that photograph." So that gives what seems to me to be exactly what you've said would make it an acceptable cache: you have to find *1* identifiable thing about the college, such as the entrance sign, and photograph and record its location. Here's the entire text of the cache rules as they now stand in the archived version of the cache "Major colleges have played an important role in the history of the United States. Even people who've never finished high school know about such schools as Stanford and MIT, and have heard of the IVY league. But did you know that Universities also have colleges within them? Find a major university or college, photograph it, tell us something about it. (Extra credit for a URL of a site telling the history of the college.) Please, only one entry per college (but note that colleges within universities count as separate from the university.) Entry must include at least one photograph that clearly identifies the college and the coordinates for that photograph. Extra credit for photos with you and your GPS. The first log entry is an example." It is my opinion that the above both meets the requirements you've put at the begining of this thread and the requirement you mentioned in the post I quoted. If locationless caches are acceptable at all, I believe this one is about as acceptable as they can get. As for how novel the cache is: do you know the answer to this question: Are there more or fewer major colleges than historical missions in the US? (I don't know the absolute answer, but I do know that in Montana, where I grew up, it would be more missions, and in the Silicon Valley, where I now live, it would also be more missions...) What say you all? By the way, where is this 'appeal' process documented? I didn't know anything about it before seeing your post. [This message was edited by Fouts on June 01, 2002 at 09:27 PM.] Quote Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted June 2, 2002 Share Posted June 2, 2002 Marty, you have changed the description part of the cache since it was posted and archived. When it was originally posted you said that you could log anything down to a beauty college. That was archived. You have since changed the description. It would be nice if you could post the original text of the cache page, if you save it. I would say that there are FAR more of the types of colleges that your original cache page specified than historic missions in the US. FYI, there are 54 beauty colleges in the Atlanta area. But to stay with your CURRENT cache page definition, I decided to take your challenge on. I went to www.google.com and did a search on califoria historic misssions. The first listing was for a web page called "California Missions Foundation". That web page states that there are 21 historic missions. The map page shows 22 missions. This should help you with your missions cache page, and you should not have more that 22 logs from California. Your example Santa Clara Mission was the eighth mission in California. I then went to an Internet Yellow Pages Site and search California for Universities and Colleges. The search results gave me 12,783 phone numbers and addresses for California. I figured that there were quite a few less historic missions than that. By the way, based on the broad range of schools that your initial description on your cache page defined (which caused the cache page to be archived), the Internet Yellow Pages page could not list the numbers because there were TOO MANY! In San Jose, which is pretty much Silicon Valley, there are 714 colleges and universities, 30 aircraft instruction schools, 38 art schools, 13 beauty schools, 20 business schools, 6 ceramic schools, 9 cooking schools... shall I go on? I think I have made my point. This also brings me to another point. What is the need for a cache if it is easier to find the locationless cache item in the phone book at your home or with a simple 5-click Internet search? I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA! Quote Link to comment
Buddy11 Posted June 2, 2002 Share Posted June 2, 2002 Ya know what jeremy. I think it would be best to take off locationless caches because I thought geocaching was for hicking and not taking pictures of things because lately, people have like 500 finds and 300 of them are locationless. GO SENS GO!!! Quote Link to comment
Buddy11 Posted June 2, 2002 Share Posted June 2, 2002 Ya know what jeremy. I think it would be best to take off locationless caches because I thought geocaching was for hicking and not taking pictures of things because lately, people have like 500 finds and 300 of them are locationless. GO SENS GO!!! Quote Link to comment
+The GeoGadgets Team Posted June 2, 2002 Share Posted June 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Buddy11:Ya know what jeremy. I think it would be best to take off locationless caches because I thought geocaching was for hicking and not taking pictures of things because lately, people have like 500 finds and 300 of them are locationless. I would really appreciate it if you could give an example instead of just making broad generalizations. Currently there aren't 300 locationless caches listed on GC.com, so I'm curious as to what you are referring. ---------- Lori aka: RedwoodRed KF6VFI "I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations." GeoGadgets Team Website Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite "Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda, Jedi Master from Star Wars - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back Quote Link to comment
+The GeoGadgets Team Posted June 2, 2002 Share Posted June 2, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Buddy11:Ya know what jeremy. I think it would be best to take off locationless caches because I thought geocaching was for hicking and not taking pictures of things because lately, people have like 500 finds and 300 of them are locationless. I would really appreciate it if you could give an example instead of just making broad generalizations. Currently there aren't 300 locationless caches listed on GC.com, so I'm curious as to what you are referring. ---------- Lori aka: RedwoodRed KF6VFI "I don't get lost, I investigate alternative destinations." GeoGadgets Team Website Comics, Video Games and Movie Fansite "Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is." - Yoda, Jedi Master from Star Wars - Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back Quote Link to comment
+planetrobert Posted June 2, 2002 Share Posted June 2, 2002 Higher than Eagles Fly... in Oregon is a locationless cache that I posted. It isn't easy, and it definatly takes a while to do. Now if I was to go to one of the locations on this locationless should I log it, or would I even be allowed to? I don't want to do it to pad a score but I was thinking of logging it as a find if I put out the day's effort to do it (it takes most of your day). Can I? Should I? Is this even allowed? Now where did I set my GPS??? planetrobert.net Quote Link to comment
Zuckerruebensirup Posted June 3, 2002 Share Posted June 3, 2002 quote:Originally posted by SirRalanN: Can I? Should I? Is this even allowed? It's not disallowed. But it does seem to be generally frowned upon...probably because you're already getting 'credit' for the hide. I know a lot of people say that 'find counts' don't matter...but many people still seem to get really worked up over what other people are counting as finds. Another poster recently asked the same question: quote:Originally posted by Jolly B Good: Is it appropriate to post/log my own cache? There are several local gamestores I'd like to log but I'm wasn't sure if it's considered tacky to log your own virtual cache. You can read here to see the responses he got. ------- "I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" Quote Link to comment
+BrownMule & Jackrabbit Posted June 3, 2002 Share Posted June 3, 2002 I am all for a little spice in the game. I love the variations such as multi-caches and I even enjoy an occasional virtual cache if they provide something of interest. Locationless caches are not my bag. I play this game mostly because of its connection with the GPS and compass. I personally think that these other games need their own place outside of "Geocaching" and be totally separate. Let's not try to provide everthing to everybody on this site. Just my opinion. Have fun Yall. ENJOY THE OUTDOORS Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted June 3, 2002 Share Posted June 3, 2002 I think Jeremy has done a very good job of balancing the desires of many cachers to have locationless caches against the risk of these same caches becoming too lame. The recent guidelines regarding this type of cache give cache owners and approvers necessary guidance. If anyone disputes the disapproval of a cache, they should first discuss the concerns with the individual who denied it. If they are still not satisfied they can appeal to Jeremy or post in the forums for other cachers' opinions. It should be noted that since the guidelines came out, the number of locationless caches have grown very slowly. There is currently 112 locationless caches split out. There may be as many as twenty or so (WAG) that are still in the general population. So basically we're talking about less than 150 caches out of 20,000. There is no risk in this type of cache 'taking over'. Also, since the number of locationless caches are so small, they are not very useful for serious 'padding' of the numbers. For instance, I like locationless caches. They often give me a mental challenge that regular caches don't. I have 256 finds. Of these, 32 were locationless. Of the 32, I'd guess that half were of something I knew the location of and just had to log before someone else did. The other half, I had to research to find. Of the non-locationless caches, I'd guess that nearly half were very easy. Therefore, locationless are not necessarily 'easier' finds than 'regular' caches. Conversely, If I lived in or took more trips out west, I could easily double my numbers with drive-bys alone. So the question is, 'If I hunt locationless caches, am I padding my numbers?' In my opinion, the answer is no. This is because I am caching for enjoyment, not to boost my 'find' count. Quote Link to comment
The 2 Dogs Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 I have a virtual cache going that requires the finder to go out and and log trig stations. Most GPS owners some who have done hundreds of physical caches, don't even seem to know what a trig station is. You can find some these in the most remote and difficult places on the Australian landscape. Many cachers have spent hours tracking through the bush, climbing mountains and studying topographic maps to find them. This activity is every bit a part of the sport as simple tracking to a given co-ordinates and find the box. In fact, it teaches finders map reading and navigation skills along the way. To make a blanket statemant that virtuals are just number padding and require less effort is just absurd. Jeremy. By subtracting the virtual caches count from the total number counts you will be taking away finds from people that have made great efforts such as I have described above. That does not seem to be very fair by my thinking. Perhaps the problem has been created by allowing any virtuals at all. Therefore the fairest solution is obvious, just don't allow any more to be set up. Hounddog Quote Link to comment
Rentakid Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 Well spoken Hounddog. a find is a find.. Good times Quote Link to comment
+georgeandmary Posted June 5, 2002 Share Posted June 5, 2002 The biggest problem I have with locationless, (and I have posted two) is that you cannot log the same find more than once. Isn't that one of geocaching's biggest things? Many people can go back and enjoy the same spot. I've changed my locationless caches so that other people can go back, using the posted coordinates, and find the same spot to log it for themselves. As an example, I have the Natural Arches locationless. If someone were to find a natural arch in your area. You could go out to the same arch, using the previous finders coordinates, and log the same find. All you would need is a new photo. I think it should be a requirement that you can find a locationless item more than once. george Remember: Half the people you meet are below average. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 In my opinion, whether cachers are allowed to relog a found location should be the cache owners decision. That being said, I prefer that each location be only logged once. This requirement adds a bit of excitement to locationless caches. You have to log the location before anyone else. If you fail to do so, you have to find another location that to log. Quote Link to comment
+georgeandmary Posted June 6, 2002 Share Posted June 6, 2002 quote:Originally posted by sbell111: In my opinion, whether cachers are allowed to relog a found location should be the cache owners decision. That being said, I prefer that each location be only logged once. This requirement adds a bit of excitement to locationless caches. You have to log the location before anyone else. If you fail to do so, you have to find another location that to log. A cache like "State Capitol Buildings", "Let Freedom Ring" don't really fall into that category. Only one person in all of California can claim the building or bell cache. The same with the missions cache, only 23 people can find those. It's not like an airport that are a dime a dozzen. If you allow repeat visits, the essence of the game is still preserved. Following coordinates to a specific point. george Remember: Half the people you meet are below average. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.