Place a cache to log a cache?

9.4k · September 30, 2002

I'm not going to point to a specific cache, but lately I've seen two caches which have the requirement to place another cache nearby in order to count a find as a find.

Now I can understand the interest, nay, a need to seek out more caches, but forcing people to place a cache to log a cache?

I always hate to add new rules, but this should be discouraged. The short reason is because you're not encouraging people to place good caches, you're stressing quantity over quality.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

September 30, 2002

I agree. As I have mentioned before, I don't mind multiple caches in a single park as long as they are well thought, well placed, and unique. Makes it that much easier when toting kiddos around.

What I don't like is literally seeing one cache from another and those two being the only ones in a hundred-acre park.

---------------

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

1.5k · September 30, 2002

...now I'll sit back and wait for Southwest Oregon to chime in

1.5k · September 30, 2002

...now I'll sit back and wait for Southwest Oregon to chime in

3.1k · September 30, 2002

Yep I've required that on Quid Pro Quo and this is the first whine I've heard about that. You want quality? Give me a break. Another shot at southwestern oregon too. Well guess what kids, it's dying in southwestern oregon right now. Many of us cachers here have hit just about all the caches there are to hit and we'd love just about anything.

Come down and place a quality cache for us Jeremy. Anytime, show us what it takes.

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

5.9k · September 30, 2002

Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:
snip

I always hate to add new rules,

_____________________________________________

GLAD TO HEAR THAT! But seriously, I think we should differentiate between rules that impose additional restrictions and rules that are meant to relieve the burden of individual requirements to log a cache. It should be well known how I feel about additional restrictions. I don’t think a rule change would be detrimental in this case but it’s probably not necessary. If I saw that requirement I would simply disregard the cache, as I would hope most geocachers would. We really don’t need more for the sake of more.

If your house catches afire, and there aint no water around,

If your house catches afire, and there aint no water around,

Throw your jelly out the window; let the dog-gone shack burn down.

**Huddie Ledbetter**

1.5k · September 30, 2002

I don't think it should be a requirement in order to log a cache... if you found it, you should be able to log it. Period.

Now, if you want to add to your description that you really really want people to hide a cache - that could never hurt. I mean, make it painfully obvious to the reader how much your area might need a few more caches - and request that anyone logging that cache please create one of their own in the next month or so. I think that would probably not only get you better caches in the area, but you'd end up with a lot more happy loggers - that may not have wanted to be "forced" into doing anything.

Click the Toe...  and please stop confusing your opinion with fact, ok?

1.5k · September 30, 2002

I don't think it should be a requirement in order to log a cache... if you found it, you should be able to log it. Period.

Now, if you want to add to your description that you really really want people to hide a cache - that could never hurt. I mean, make it painfully obvious to the reader how much your area might need a few more caches - and request that anyone logging that cache please create one of their own in the next month or so. I think that would probably not only get you better caches in the area, but you'd end up with a lot more happy loggers - that may not have wanted to be "forced" into doing anything.

Click the Toe...  and please stop confusing your opinion with fact, ok?

8.9k · September 30, 2002

Expanding on Rubbertoe's idea - why not have the people that place nearby caches (voluntarily, mind you) also submit their cache page. Then with each new cache, you as the cache owner can put a link to these new caches on your cache page url?

Again, though - all this should be voluntary - not a requirement for logging a cache.

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

1.1k · September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:
Another shot at southwestern oregon too.

I wasn't aware of your cache, but it does fit the bill. What spawned the initial post was the first one I saw, listed as a multicache. It was really just one cache with a note indicating that if a cache wasn't placed nearby within 30 days, the log would be deleted.

I don't bust on any particular region. If it seems that way it is a coincidence.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

1.5k · September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):
I don't bust on any particular region. If it seems that way it is a coincidence.

I think they may have been referring to my remark.

There's a name for caches of the lowest quality level: Trash. Is it a coincidence that they are wrapped in black garbage bags?

1.2k · September 30, 2002

...Jeremy is referring to is my Fac_Pac (look it up in seek a cache...I don't have the url at hand).

Originally, I placed two caches in this area and I asked people to place some here so I would have some to go for.

The very first people who found my two placed 3 very nice caches here and I found them.

I then placed a 6th cache (Fac-Pac) and told people they could find it and place a note on the page. They were then told that they could convert the note to a "found" when they had placed and published a cache no closer than .30 miles from my Fac-Pac and no further away than 5.0 miles from Fac-Pac.

The cache also contains a table which indicates area cachers who would be interested in the cache and it tells how many caches they have found, how many of MY caches they have found, and how many caches they have placed.

It is a members only cache, and all these people are pretty much avid cachers. No one has gone for it yet, but it has drawn interest (audit log) from the area locals and from some people further away since it got mentioned in a geocaching chat area.

*****************

I see nothing wrong with this cache in a number of ways. First of all...as in many discussions...if someone doesn't want to go for this, they don't have to. Isn't America wonderful!

Secondly, they can find 2 other of my caches (and 3 by another cacher) in the same 3 miles area. Additonally, a zip code search for this area shows about 1000 available caches, and only a handful are members only.

What do you think?

Ron (413 found/107 placed...only 6 or so archived in 1.5 years)

I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

September 30, 2002

I am strongly opposed to the idea of placing a cache purely for the sake of placing a cache, and I must admit that seeing that people are encouraging others to do just that is, well, offensive.

Every cache should have a reason for existing, beyond merely being a cache, and just so the placer could get credit for logging another cache isn't good enough, in my not-so-humble opinion.

I can understand how someone might be frusterated with having found all of the available caches in their home area, and want to encourage more people to place caches, but that's not the way to do it.

One thought that comes to mind (and I don't have any such specific experiences, so I'm just hypothesizing here) is that maybe people in certain areas have been over pressured to place new caches by other cachers, and have therefore, silently boycotted placing any new caches. I know for a fact that if someone started trying to guilt trip me into placing another cache, I'd politely tell them to shove an ammo can up their #@$^@ #$%^ #$%^ ^%$ #$%^ ^% #$ $%^% ^%#$%^^ ^%$, and buzz the heck off.

At any rate, back to the topic. I don't like the idea of having Jeremy create a new rule on the subject, but I like the idea of this kind of condition to log a cache far, far less.

---------------------------------------

Missoula Organization Of Geocachers (MOOG)

MOOG; Unarguably, the coolest geocaching club acronym to date.

---------------------------------------

September 30, 2002

I am strongly opposed to the idea of placing a cache purely for the sake of placing a cache, and I must admit that seeing that people are encouraging others to do just that is, well, offensive.

Every cache should have a reason for existing, beyond merely being a cache, and just so the placer could get credit for logging another cache isn't good enough, in my not-so-humble opinion.

I can understand how someone might be frusterated with having found all of the available caches in their home area, and want to encourage more people to place caches, but that's not the way to do it.

One thought that comes to mind (and I don't have any such specific experiences, so I'm just hypothesizing here) is that maybe people in certain areas have been over pressured to place new caches by other cachers, and have therefore, silently boycotted placing any new caches. I know for a fact that if someone started trying to guilt trip me into placing another cache, I'd politely tell them to shove an ammo can up their #@$^@ #$%^ #$%^ ^%$ #$%^ ^% #$ $%^% ^%#$%^^ ^%$, and buzz the heck off.

At any rate, back to the topic. I don't like the idea of having Jeremy create a new rule on the subject, but I like the idea of this kind of condition to log a cache far, far less.

---------------------------------------

Missoula Organization Of Geocachers (MOOG)

MOOG; Unarguably, the coolest geocaching club acronym to date.

---------------------------------------

6.5k · September 30, 2002

to shorten this up (my computer ate the first copy)

caches that require you place another cache are a bad idea because at some point the cache's quality is going degrade as all the "good" spots are used up.

September 30, 2002

To me, this seems to be a selfish idea and borders on being a whine. "I can't find enough caches so I'll make people put them out there."

Oh, puleeze!

1.2k · September 30, 2002

....and others.

You all seem to have missed the line in my original post here....

That indicates No one needs to go for this cache if they don't want to. No one can *make* you do something you don't want to. I am not holding a gun to these people's heads.

As I mentioned (re-read the original post), two of my caches are there for the finding...you DO have to walk to them a way unless you have a boat; and there are three other caches there too !

Good grief people ! Did you also miss the fact that in the zipcode for this lake there are 1,000 or more available caches! That should be enough for the people to find who DON'T want to place a cache.

Sorry, I don't see the issue. I've stated in two posts now what I feel are the valid issues here.

Oh, the cache finders/placers in the table (on the page listing) are not the kind of people who would place garbage caches here or anywhere else.

Ron

I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

September 30, 2002

This is a bit different than most requirements for a cache. Take a pic, make a log entry, find a certain location, etc., are all good ways of ensuring that a seeker has found the cache.

But this concept requires that a cacher outlay money and time to score the find. (Yeah, the average cacher expends both on a regular cache, but this requires over and above the norm.) The cacher has to prepare a cache box, place it, post it to the site, and then the can log the find. The cacher then has to do periodic maintenance until it gets plundered or he/she gets discouraged and then archives the cache. If that happens, do you delete their log?

I understand the concept. Don't like it, and would never in a thousand years seek it even if it were in my front yard. Ever hear of a pyramid scheme? Want to make money? Get others to join.

September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Streeter:

Good grief people ! Did you also miss the fact that in the zipcode for this lake there are 1,000 or more available caches! That should be enough for the people to find who DON'T want to place a cache.

Ron

If there are already 1,000 or more available caches in that zipcode, doesn't it seem like a lot of the really good spots are probably taken? With that many caches, why do people need to be encouraged to place more? If you really want to encourage people to place more, why not do as was suggested, and encourage people on your cache page?

Personally, my take on Geocaching is that if I find it I can log it. While I would really hate for Jeremy to make a rule that outlaws this type of "place a cache to log" cache, I think it's a really bad idea.

Sure, people can just skip the cache, but there are lots of other types of caches people can skip that don't encourage the placement of haphazard caches that aren't going to be maintained well. This seems like the worst of both worlds.

Shannah

1.5k · September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Streeter:
I see nothing wrong with this cache in a number of ways. First of all...as in many discussions...if someone doesn't want to go for this, they don't have to. Isn't America wonderful!

This is true... but - when someone locates a cache, they come to the web site and the options are FOUND IT / DIDN'T FIND IT. And even though you have other requirements... the people did find your cache, so it'd be hard for you to justify deleting their "found" logs.

I just think that allowing "conditional logs" is a bad idea. We can't have everyone suddenly requiring different things before they will allow you to log their cache. People requiring you leave certain items, or requiring that you do certain tasks. It will end up causing confusion in the long run... the more caches there are, and the more conditions that people have to remember would eventually lead to people arguing and getting upset, I think.

I'd only hunt one like that if I were already planning to place a cache soon... but I'm sure there are folks who download cache locations by the bunch - and they might not read what you want before they hunt your cache. And they'd be cheesed off if you take away their "find" just because they chose not to place a cache.

My humble .02

Click the Toe...  and please stop confusing your opinion with fact, ok?

1.5k · September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Streeter:
I see nothing wrong with this cache in a number of ways. First of all...as in many discussions...if someone doesn't want to go for this, they don't have to. Isn't America wonderful!

This is true... but - when someone locates a cache, they come to the web site and the options are FOUND IT / DIDN'T FIND IT. And even though you have other requirements... the people did find your cache, so it'd be hard for you to justify deleting their "found" logs.

I just think that allowing "conditional logs" is a bad idea. We can't have everyone suddenly requiring different things before they will allow you to log their cache. People requiring you leave certain items, or requiring that you do certain tasks. It will end up causing confusion in the long run... the more caches there are, and the more conditions that people have to remember would eventually lead to people arguing and getting upset, I think.

I'd only hunt one like that if I were already planning to place a cache soon... but I'm sure there are folks who download cache locations by the bunch - and they might not read what you want before they hunt your cache. And they'd be cheesed off if you take away their "find" just because they chose not to place a cache.

My humble .02

Click the Toe...  and please stop confusing your opinion with fact, ok?

1.2k · September 30, 2002

Off Topic, perhaps.

I find it amazing that Jeremy takes the time to bring questions to the group. I do not think that If I were in his place I would be able to NOT do the "quick fix" and just make a rule. He must possess the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job'. That or he was a kindergarten teacher in a past life to be able to put up with some of the stupid rants we all get into and still come back to ask us again.

Jeremy, no sarcasm intended, you do an amazing job. Thanks

Lapaglia

"Muga Muchu" (forget yourself, focus).

1.2k · September 30, 2002

Off Topic, perhaps.

I find it amazing that Jeremy takes the time to bring questions to the group. I do not think that If I were in his place I would be able to NOT do the "quick fix" and just make a rule. He must possess the wisdom of Solomon and the patience of Job'. That or he was a kindergarten teacher in a past life to be able to put up with some of the stupid rants we all get into and still come back to ask us again.

Jeremy, no sarcasm intended, you do an amazing job. Thanks

Lapaglia

"Muga Muchu" (forget yourself, focus).

September 30, 2002

Teachers Pet! Teachers Pet!

Just kidding.

I would be tempted to leave a new cache in the cache requiring me to leave a cache to log the cache.

LOL... Read that fast three times!

September 30, 2002

As I read all of your post's I dont see what the big deal is. Fac-Pac sounds like a fun cache and I plan on doing it. Like Ron said if you DONT like it DONT!! do it. It's that simple. There is alot of Math caches around my area, I dont like them SO I DONT DO THEM. I dont ***** about it I simply dont do them. Give the cache some time to get played and let people decide AFTER they did the cache. Mike

I REMEMBER WHEN SEX WAS SAFE AND FLYING WAS DANGEROUS

3.1k · September 30, 2002

quote:
There's a name for caches of the lowest quality level: Trash. Is it a coincidence that they are wrapped in black garbage bags?

Then you don't have to grab a single cache down here. Keep your superior attitude up in Bend where you belong.

The idiots on this website are really getting to me. So it's the container that makes a cache quality? No wonder we've chased so many people away from caching lately. Lots of them get started caching and then morons start it up with this "quality" crap and away they go to enjoy something where they won't be judged.

Snazz I made a cache just for people like you it's called Black Plastic Bag but sorry, it's not wrapped in a solid gold container so it must be garbage.

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

1.2k · September 30, 2002

....also known as .... much ado about nothing.

I know and cache with almost all the people in the table on my cache page.

Some of them live just far enough away that they wouldn't come for the cache no matter what/if any conditions were attached to it.

Sorry guys...this is my last thought on the subject.

Ron

I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

1.2k · September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:
Teachers Pet! Teachers Pet!

Just kidding.

Lapaglia

"Muga Muchu" (forget yourself, focus).

1.2k · September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:
Teachers Pet! Teachers Pet!

Just kidding.

Lapaglia

"Muga Muchu" (forget yourself, focus).

2.6k · September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:
Another shot at southwestern oregon too. Well guess what kids, it's dying in southwestern oregon right now. Many of us cachers here have hit just about all the caches there are to hit and we'd love just about anything.

Come down and place a quality cache for us Jeremy. Anytime, show us what it takes.

Never Squat With Yer Spurs On

By looking at the map it looks like a road trip to Oregon might be worth while. It's beautiful country and it's full of caches. Hmmmmm.

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

1.5k · September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:
Snazz I made a cache just for people like you it's called http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=26522 but sorry, it's not wrapped in a solid gold container so it must be garbage.

Ouch. I'm really hurt. I'm quitting geocaching forever! Boo hoo hoo!

1.5k · September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:
Snazz I made a cache just for people like you it's called http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=26522 but sorry, it's not wrapped in a solid gold container so it must be garbage.

Ouch. I'm really hurt. I'm quitting geocaching forever! Boo hoo hoo!

4.5k · September 30, 2002

Rubbertoe's said:

quote:
This is true... but - when someone locates a cache, they come to the web site and the options are FOUND IT / DIDN'T FIND IT. And even though you have other requirements... the people did find your cache, so it'd be hard for you to justify deleting their "found" logs.

I just think that allowing "conditional logs" is a bad idea. We can't have everyone suddenly requiring different things before they will allow you to log their cache. People requiring you leave certain items, or requiring that you do certain tasks. It will end up causing confusion in the long run... the more caches there are, and the more conditions that people have to remember would eventually lead to people arguing and getting upset, I think.

DITTO!

Its great that we can design and come up with interesting, challenging, and well thought out caches. Add all the difficult puzzles and challenges you want for solving and finding a cache, but after doing all this legwork and finding the cache, its a FIND!!!

5k · September 30, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:
Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

Off-topic... George.. reminds me of a quote I read from some big-time cyclist. He said his favorite part of a race is when he starts to hurt. When he can't push any more. It's then that he knows the other guys are hurting too, and then he puts the pedal down to leave them behind. Sounds like Lance, but I dont think it was. I try to think like that when I ride.

Jamie

7.2k · October 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite:

Keep your superior attitude up in Bend where you belong.

The idiots on this website are really getting to me. So it's the container that makes a cache quality? No wonder we've chased so many people away from caching lately. Lots of them get started caching and then morons start it up with this "quality" crap and away they go to enjoy something where they won't be judged.

Snazz I made a cache just for people like you it's called http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=26522 but sorry, it's not wrapped in a solid gold container so it must be garbage.

Sad, pretty sad.

I thought this was Jeremy's site? Hmmmm.

At least Ron is presenting an argument instead of just insulting people. Sad that you resort once again to judging people yourself as you call people idiots and morons. In true form, I am sure you will now call me an idiot and insult me.

I get both sides, but it is Jeremy's site. It sounded like a well said request, and Ron gave a good argument. Being a member's only cache by Ron, you would think that unique and well thought out caches would be created. But, since the cache was "found" you should be able to log it. I would hope that the comment to create a cache would be a request, not a requirement, with his cache as an example of how to create a good cache.

3k · October 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Streeter:
No one can *make* you do something you don't want to.

I pay my taxes, do jury duty, etc. every year. I never realized I wanted to. Thanks.

3k · October 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Streeter:
No one can *make* you do something you don't want to.

I pay my taxes, do jury duty, etc. every year. I never realized I wanted to. Thanks.

October 1, 2002

Jeremy, how about just changing the words "Found it" and "Didn't find it" to "Met Requirements" and "Didn't meet requirements".

Just kidding.

I feel that Jeremy has the right to restrict what he feels would be harmful to the activity. If Ron doesn't like it, I would *respectfully* suggest that he post that cache on another site (ya know, talk about those 'other' sites have been quiet lately...).

Ron truly made a good argument. Member's only, distance requirements, don't have to if you don't want to, etc. It should now be simply up to Jeremy what he wants to do and Ron can then graciously accept his ruling.

---------------

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

October 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Irish:
...

Now I can understand the interest, nay, a need to seek out more caches, but forcing people to place a cache to log a cache?

I always hate to add new rules, but this should be discouraged. ...

I think the concept is discouraging enough without having to add a rule. I would not be at all interested in searching a cache that requires me to place a cache in the area. I would also be very reluctant to search for any new caches in the vicinity that appeared to have been placed merely to meet a requirement of scoring another find. (My guess is such caches would be just as lame).

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

October 1, 2002

I think before you make reference to a cache being lame, maybe you should find it. As far as

Ron's caches being lame, I would have to say that I have personally found about twenty of his caches and not a single one has been lame. Ron takes great pride and time in placing a cache, he does alot of research to where he places them. You will see some very beautiful places when you look for his placements.

My wife says put a coordinate on it and I'll find it.

October 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Streeter:
No one can *make* you do something you don't want to.

I pay my taxes, do jury duty, etc. every year. I never realized I wanted to. Thanks.

OH COME ON!!! There is no comparison Here. The Government makes you do those thing's NOT GEOCACHING! The Government doesnt make you geocache.We do it because we want to(geocaching) If you dont like a cache you have the right NOT to do it.

Yes it sucks that the Government makes us pay taxes do jury duty ect. BUT REMEMBER!!! THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MAKE YOU GEOCACHE!!

Mike

I REMEMBER WHEN SEX WAS SAFE AND FLYING WAS DANGEROUS

October 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Streeter:
No one can *make* you do something you don't want to.

I pay my taxes, do jury duty, etc. every year. I never realized I wanted to. Thanks.

OH COME ON!!! There is no comparison Here. The Government makes you do those thing's NOT GEOCACHING! The Government doesnt make you geocache.We do it because we want to(geocaching) If you dont like a cache you have the right NOT to do it.

Yes it sucks that the Government makes us pay taxes do jury duty ect. BUT REMEMBER!!! THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MAKE YOU GEOCACHE!!

Mike

I REMEMBER WHEN SEX WAS SAFE AND FLYING WAS DANGEROUS

October 1, 2002

Anyone thinking that Ron is trying to get quantity over quality has NEVER gone after his caches. They are consistently unique, and he does a great job on them. Also, making it members only makes a BIG difference in this situation.

We have 2 cachers in our area that both place OUTSTANDING caches, and they both have around 100. I can't imaging the caching wasteland our area would be if it weren't for them (and others as well). A BIG reason I got into caching was the quality of caches in our area when I first checked this hobby out.

The arguments might make sense if they were directed at a newbie, who didn't "get it" yet. But they make no sense directed at Ron.

1k · October 1, 2002

Thanks for asking for our opinions. My sentiments are essentially the same as expressed by Rubbertoe and Mudfrog. There has been much previous discussion regarding what constitutes a "find" for both virtual and physical caches. If memory serves correctly, the consensus has been:

1. The cache must actually be "found", i.e. one must physically arrive at the coordinates and "find" the object of the search.

2. Any additional requirements for logging a "found it!" were strictly to ensure/verify the finder had actually met the first requirement.

I don't see this situation as one in which you have to add a new rule; rather, it appears those who have begun putting additional requirements for logging "found it!" have inappropriately deviated from the accepted norm. Because of that, I would recommend all such caches be archived unless the owners remove the inappropriate requirements.

The opinions expressed above are strictly my own and given in answer to Jeremy's request. They concern CACHES, not the PEOPLE who placed them.

Worldtraveler

October 1, 2002

You know, I think it's a bad idea for all the reasons mentioned above. I can see an empty water bottle chucked in a ditch becoming a "cache". Complete with a note on the "new" cache page "Can the first finder bring a log book? I forgot to leave one". etc. That kind of stuff is most likely going to get you some pretty lame caches.

But hey, it's their cache. As for these "requirements", I'd let the cachers who log the thing(or don't) do the talking.

While we're at it I also hate cache pages where the first line in the description threatens to delete your log if you don't fully comply.

"No Find for You!" Delete!

October 1, 2002

So what does anyone think about placing a cache to FIND a cache, not just to log it? Same difference? Maybe not. Would like your opinions on our Oregon's Rank cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=24876

This one has not been visited by a ton of cachers to date, but I know that the caches that have been placed to meet the requirements have been good ones!

CJ

1.2k · October 1, 2002

I've never been lost. Fearsome confused sometimes, but never lost.

October 1, 2002

I think that if you take the time to hunt and find some of Ron Streeter's 100+ caches, you would find lots of quality caches in areas that make one get off the freeway and stop and smell the roses. Isn't that what caching is all about? Personally, I think that Ron has a great deal of thought and imagination in the design of his caches. If everyone put a 10th of what he does into the sport, it would be pretty darned incredible. He is well thought of, not only in the Central Valley, CA, but in the Bay Area as well. I have never had the opportunity to meet him, but I would consider it a pleasure if ever given the chance. THREE CHEERS to Ron Streeter for all he has given to the sport. I, for one, really appreciate all of his efforts on our behalf, even if I have to place a cache to log just one of his more than 100. Seems like a good carrot on a stick before this cacher!

Bowsprite

[This message was edited by Katche4Lee Gang on October 01, 2002 at 07:30 PM.]

October 1, 2002

I think that if you take the time to hunt and find some of Ron Streeter's 100+ caches, you would find lots of quality caches in areas that make one get off the freeway and stop and smell the roses. Isn't that what caching is all about? Personally, I think that Ron has a great deal of thought and imagination in the design of his caches. If everyone put a 10th of what he does into the sport, it would be pretty darned incredible. He is well thought of, not only in the Central Valley, CA, but in the Bay Area as well. I have never had the opportunity to meet him, but I would consider it a pleasure if ever given the chance. THREE CHEERS to Ron Streeter for all he has given to the sport. I, for one, really appreciate all of his efforts on our behalf, even if I have to place a cache to log just one of his more than 100. Seems like a good carrot on a stick before this cacher!

Bowsprite

[This message was edited by Katche4Lee Gang on October 01, 2002 at 07:30 PM.]

October 1, 2002

I think that if you take the time to hunt and find some of Ron Streeter's 100+ caches, you would find lots of quality caches in areas that make one get off the freeway and stop and smell the roses. Isn't that what caching is all about? Personally, I think that Ron has a great deal of thought and imagination in the design of his caches. If everyone put a 10th of what he does into the sport, it would be pretty darned incredible. He is well thought of, not only in the Central Valley, CA, but in the Bay Area as well. I have never had the opportunity to meet him, but I would consider it a pleasure if ever given the chance. THREE CHEERS to Ron Streeter for all he has given to the sport. I, for one, really appreciate all of his efforts on our behalf, even if I have to place a cache to log just one of his more than 100. Seems like a good carrot on a stick before this cacher!

Bowsprite

[This message was edited by Katche4Lee Gang on October 01, 2002 at 07:30 PM.]

Place a cache to log a cache?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment