Attention Jeremy and Geocaching.com

August 12, 2003

Hello. I am in my 7th month of caching and still LOVE IT!!!!. I want to do things the right way in what ever I do, even when I have problems. I have been reading Hawk Eyes post in the "Southern Board" concerning his caches being archived. I had a similar problem last month with a virtual on a college campus. I will speak for myself only, NOT Hawk Eye. There needs to be some consistency to the criteria by which the "approvers" approve caches. I really don't think I am alone in this opinion. I have talked with several other cachers and read post on this site that suggest the same. I understand that the "approvers" volunteer and commend them for this. But the fact remains that some of them allow certain types of caches while others do not. Cache A may be archived because of one reason and a cacher can find another cache, almost identical, that was allowed (NOT grandfathered in). Myself, I get sooooo pumped when I get a new cache idea and place one (virtual, or traditional). I spend time thinking about it, making sure it is appropriate. I can accept my cache being archived for legitimate reasons, hey no one but Christ was perfect. My cache was archived because the approver didn't find it "interesting", had never heard of the artist, and that there were lots of artwork around town. Isn't this the opinion of the approver? Is he the only one that will find this cache? What I think is interesting, could others not feel the same? I feel as Hawk Eye does, there needs to be some type of check sheet for caches. If it meets all the requirements, then it is approved. Opinions should NOT enter the decision making process because everyone has a different one. I am,by no means, leaving geocaching because of a few. I love it too much. I just want fairness in an unfair world. The rules should be as close to "black and white" as possible. To me finding caches is half the fun, the other half is hiding some so others may find. If artwork is not a good virtual cache then so be it, but be that way across the board. We found a cache 3 days before we tried to have this one approved (same 100 mile area) that was 4 words on a marble wall with water running over it?????? How is that more interesting than mine. INCONSISTENCY. Please let me know how I can help with this issue in anyway. I was always told "Don't whine about a problem unless you have a way to fix it!" It wasn't my idea but Hawk Eye's, create a more detailed form that addresses all the rules for those who wish to "place" a cache. If it meets all those requirments, it gets approved. I would say 90% of the cachers put lots of thought into a cache before they try to place it. Bursting one's bubble only takes the wind out of our sails. You can't blame people for getting discouraged.

Thanks a TON

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

[This message was edited by Bubba Cache on August 13, 2003 at 08:44 AM.]

9.4k · August 12, 2003

Re: Virtual Caches

If you really want to enter the murky realm of virtual caches, ask first and post second. Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

6.4k · August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bubba Cache:
Cache A may be archived because of one reason and a cacher can find another cache, almost identical, that was allowed (NOT grandfathered in).

<snip>

My cache was archived because the approver didn't find it "interesting", had never heard of the artist, and that there were lots of artwork around town.

<snip>

We found a cache 3 days before we tried to have this one approved (same 100 mile area) that was 4 words on a marble wall with water running over it?????? How is that more interesting than mine. INCONSISTENCY.

Can you tell us what cache the marble wall is? It might help us understand your problem, since all but one of the virtuals you have found seem to be at least from last year, if not older (and therefore, grandfathered).

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

August 12, 2003

I have found that most approvers can be beat into submission with a few misplaced facts and proper english.

Jeremy, is a wild cannon.

9.4k · August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:
Jeremy, is a wild cannon.

I'm wildly sober about this. Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessability of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations. I hate it has to be blunt but that's the fact, Jack.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

August 12, 2003

I must have caught him when he was not sober.

August 12, 2003

just an unsolicited $0.02

When I started geocaching (in May) ... I understood it ... I couldn't figure out (even reading faqs and such) what a virtual or reverse cache was ... I since have and found a few of each, but I digress.

Once I did understand what virtuals were, my first reacation was "how stupid is that?"; I've since tempered slightly, understanding that there are some fun/interesting/worthwhile places where you can't even stick a film cansister, but perhaps that should be a different activity ... call it 'landmarking' or 'fun, silly, tourist trap location marking' ... whatever, but geocaching should be about placing and finding something, a film canister, an ammo can, a tupperware ... whatever, but it shouldn't be visit this spot and email me.

August 12, 2003

Solohiker, LOVEd the beating into submission, but if I did that, I would nevre get one apporved. Jeremy, thanks for the advice man, will do next time, LOL.

The cache I am refering to is:The Good Fight

GCA491

I am not saying can this one, don't get me wrong. I am going by the info that the "grandfathering" were caches before Sept. 2002???

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

August 12, 2003

quote:
This virtual cache is placed with the understanding that the owner will give way in the event that an approvable physical cache is placed within .01 mile

i like that line on the virtuals. a for now thing, to be replaced if need be.

Big Black Oak

A family that Geocaches together... eventually gets wet.

required reading

My first bible

Great Orienteering Site!

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST INSECTS AND OTHER ARTHROPODS OF MILITARY SIGNIFICANCE

August 12, 2003

To be honest with you too, I LOVE traditional ones better. Hey, I can always use the Mctoy for my 18 month old caching buddy. This cahce of mine that was to be virtual, was on a college campus, a well-groomed college campus. and a tubberware dish would prob. be a NO-NO. Lets say I had an idea for a virtual one (gong to try to stick to traditionals but, you never know) who do I run the idea by first?

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

7.2k · August 12, 2003

Hey bubba,

You posted a question regarding the cache in Montevallo in a the general forums already.

Way to appeal???

You got no support from other cachers for the cache, so it appears that it might not be that interesting afterall. The topic died in fact. There are hundreds of thousands of pieces of artwork spread around the globe. That is a lot of potential virtual caches. There is no challenge in most of these anyway since you can usually spot the target from 100 - 200 feet away. I love the idea of making it a multi-cache; then I get to see the sculpture and I get to find a cache.

I think the approver are fairly consistent. We are not perfect and never will be. On virtual caches we are fairly consistent. I, like Mopar, would like to which cache you are talking about to see if the cache is grandfathered. Read the guidelines and if you have a question then post your idea for a cache in the forums. I'm sure you will get lots of opinions about it.

August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bubba Cache:
Solohiker, LOVEd the beating into submission, but if I did that, I would nevre get one apporved. Jeremy, thanks for the advice man, will do next time, LOL.

The cache I am refering to is:The Good Fight

GCA491

I am not saying can this one, don't get me wrong. I am going by the info that the "grandfathering" were caches before Sept. 2002???

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

I disagree. If I am right and they are wrong. They know it.

Just don't be wrong.

7.2k · August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bubba Cache:
Solohiker, LOVEd the beating into submission, but if I did that, I would nevre get one apporved.

Well, solohiker keeps saying he is going to leave the site and hasn't yet. I would bet he is not being as truthful with his comment about beating admins into submission either.

quote:
I am not saying can this one, don't get me wrong. I am going by the info that the "grandfathering" were caches before Sept. 2002???

It was November 2002.

August 12, 2003

Mtn-man, your reading my mind!!! Unless I told you before. Working on a multi with that statue in mind. If I am thinking about a virtual, do I run it by you first?

And hey, a 20 foot hand in the middle of the cowboy town of Montevalle is unique, LOL.

"so it appears that it might not be that interesting afterall." Man does that sound like a POO POO

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

August 12, 2003

And solohiker, don't beat Mtn-Man into submission, no one would be there to approve man!!!

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

7.2k · August 12, 2003

Yeah, you can email me Bubba Cache. You can post it here too. I will be happy to look at your idea and run it past other admins too. That happens all the time.

4.7k · August 12, 2003

i WILL not apoplogze for liking virts, which are ery unstylish. i'll hunt anything. i love to toss a quick virt into my caching day- it breaks things up a little, gives me a little cookie for all my hard searching.

this weekend i saw an amazing one. it was satisfying enough that i went away without even hunting the two nearby boxes.

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

August 12, 2003

Is mtn-man an approver?

7.2k · August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:
Is mtn-man an approver?

With your smart, witty emails to me and comments, you did not know? Do you read the forums?

August 12, 2003

Solohiker said : “ I have found that most approvers can be beat into submission with a few misplaced facts and proper english.

Look at his post on Aug 9th and yea he’s been beating me up alright,

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=2416058331&m=86460267

Yep I would say it working. TG

7.2k · August 12, 2003

flask, I like virtuals too. I like the good targets but I just don't need to see every statue on the planet as a virtual cache. I did some in Austin where I just walked away scratching my head wondering why I was brought there by a cacher. I do like the good ones indeed, but being an approver I look at them when I do them and I see that many could have been multi-caches or could have had traditionals very close to the virtual target. I still do them though, and I don't avoid them unless they just look really uninteresting.

August 12, 2003

Well this explains mtn-man's completely inappropriate comments on the geocaching responsibility thread.

I was right and you were wrong. Obviously

*******

Tennessee Geocacher, thanks for approving all my caches. You still owe me an apology for calling me a liar. I have made it a point to keep all my emails after I found out you tend to lose them.

My complaints to contact@geocaching.com went unanswered of course, but I still have copies of the emails.

Love you guys.

August 12, 2003

OK, MINE was a statue, butthat is really missing the point. I was just wondering why depending on what approver you get, the same cache may be approved, may not. Let's get off the "statue thing". I have gotten 5 e-mails in the last hour from people who do back me Mtn-Man, so I am not alone. Don't ask me why they don't post. Just because we disagree with each other doesn't mean we don't respect each other.

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

6.4k · August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:

My complaints to contact@geocaching.com went unanswered of course, but I still have copies of the emails.

Uhhh, would those be the e-mails you addressed to conNOSPAMtact@geocaching.com?

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

2.6k · August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:
Uhhh, would those be the e-mails you addressed to conNOSPAMtact@geocaching.com?

ROTFLMAO

POWDER!!!!!!

Mokita!

August 12, 2003

Lemme guess....

MoPark is an approver too?

I have always been a Ford man.

7.2k · August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bubba Cache:
Just because we disagree with each other doesn't mean we don't respect each other.

Oh yeah, Bubba, we had some good emails. I totally respect you and your opinions. I hope someday soon that you guys get a meeting over there. I will stop by!

2.7k · August 12, 2003

I like Virtuals!!!

Tahosa - Dweller of Mountain Tops.

August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

quote:
Originally posted by solohiker:

My complaints to contact@geocaching.com went unanswered of course, but I still have copies of the emails.

Uhhh, would those be the e-mails you addressed to conNOSPAMtact@geocaching.com?

Well the net result is the same. At least this time I got a BOT response.

Maybe I will frame it :=(

Good night fellas, some of us have real jobs :-)

6.4k · August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by solohick:
Lemme guess....

MoPark is an approver too?

No, just good at remembering funny threads

quote:
Originally posted by solohick:
I have always been a Ford man.

That explains a lot. Sorry.

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

38.2k · August 12, 2003

Anybody who's been geocaching for any amount of time knows that the virtual cache situation was getting out of hand. People were making virtuals out of flagpoles in parks, abandoned vehicles and every roadside marker in existence.

Another issue was that as we worked with land managers to get them to accept geocaching, they would find out about virtuals and point to them as an acceptable alternative. Well to many of us, they are not. The point of this sport is to find CACHES and goal of this website is to list CACHES and not just become another version of Waypoint.org

I applaud the admin's cracking down on virtuals. Their current guideline is pretty straightforward. A virtul has to be something of significant interest AND there must be no way to place a real cache.

Many people know of a place of interest that they think will make a great virtual and are upset when its turned down. Instead of whining, try to think of a way to incorporate a real cache. Use your imagination. An offset using numbers on a plaque that point to a nearby real cache, a micro, or something similar.

As an example, I discovered an historic bridge that I thought was an interesting spot. A year ago, I simply would have made a virtual out of it. Instead, I figured out a way to place a real cache there. And you know what, it's been received quite well by the local geocaching community (and has ticked off more than a few).

Here is the cache page and if you would like details about the hide itself, I can send photos (provided you aren't a NY/NJ area geocacher ).

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

2.1k · August 12, 2003

I can see Bubba Caches viewpoint about inconsistency. Even though I've only been around for a couple months at this and only, what, 35 finds, I have seen a couple of virtuals listed which I would say do not fit in the guidelines. One being a virtual of a cell phone antenna that looks like a tree. To me, that's not unusual. I've seen several of them before. Can a traditional cache be placed there? I have no idea. But on the basis of something different or unusual, then I would say it does not meet those requirements. That's my opinion and not necessarily others. Grandfathered? No, it was placed in the last 2 months.

Then there's one right smack dab in the middle of a military installation. The little map on the cache page even says so. The description on the cache page says so as well. Actually it looks like a multi-virtual according to the description. By going what the guidelines state, no caches are to be placed on or near military installations. Grandfathered in? Unless there was a change since January(when it was placed) of this year, then no.

Those 2 examples may be by different approvers and more than likely they are. Does it bother me that they are there? No, I welcome all caches. I just simply agree that there are some inconsistencies and probably some opinions make the decisions on what gets approved. I personally have no opinion about virtuals. If they are there and I have the time, then I will do them. But I do not seek them out. As i've never seeked out multi's or puzzle caches and just did a few and they were a blast. Just as some virtuals are probably lame, so are some traditionals. 2 new ones I did today, were amongst garbage, car parts and the like. Not a pleasant experience. I wondered what the heck someone was thinking putting a cache there. But then I figured they just wanted to put one out to have their name on them and they were easy to do as well. One even had the decrypted hint down as "bring a garbage bag with you". Ok, i'm no spring chicken here, but why decrypt that part? Why not put that in bold letters. Actually a garbage bag wouldn't of sufficed. You would of needed a truck. (I emailed the cache owner and suggested of putting what they had in the hint as in the decsription and put something in the description that gave it away immediately, as the hint. Maybe it was just a mistake.

My .02 is over, you can flame me now.

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

3.8k · August 12, 2003

I didn't think I liked virtuals either. Until I visited Something About Space Buffalos? in Downtown Indianapolis. Real simple, way cool, and, when I left, I felt I had learned something.

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

.

2.1k · August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

quote:
Originally posted by solohick:
Lemme guess....

MoPark is an approver too?

No, just good at remembering http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=85460386&r=31160486#31160486

quote:
Originally posted by solohick:
I have always been a Ford man.

That explains a lot. Sorry.

+ _"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy _

I caught that one Mopar...lol

Brian

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

August 12, 2003

I think virtuals are OK...as long as they are unique. I won't drive 50 miles to look at a statue or plaque but I will if it's close. It’s sorta cool to learn about local history! Yes they can be lame at times but on the whole, I've enjoyed them. (I'm a history buff so I'm a bit prejudiced).

Here is a prime example of a cool virtual that I've driven by at least 400 billion times and never knew it was there!

Cache

2.6k · August 12, 2003

I get tired of these threads getting weak arguments that "virts are ok because I learned something interesting".

That's not an acceptable argument for virts. It's been shot down again and again.

There is no acceptable or logical reason that a virtual can not be part of a multi-cache.

This cache has a very informative historical virtual stage.

So come on folks. Lets drop this pathetic appeal for virtuals.

quote:
I'm wildly sober about this. Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessibility of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations. I hate it has to be blunt but that's the fact, Jack.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

POWDER!!!!!!

Mokita!

8.4k · August 12, 2003

Whoops wrong thread.

August 12, 2003

Actually, this thread's topic isn't virtuals - it's about consistency in approving all caches. And, if I can figure out how to make this artist's statue a multi-cache I will, which I already said. However, this is in the middle of the highest traffic part of a college campus and there are no benches or the like to put something under.

As for liking or disliking virtuals, to each his own. Some of us like them though. Also, think of this - many caches aren't handicapped accessible so virtuals might be the only caches a handicapped cacher can get to. I'm just saying there are many ways to look at it. Plus, if virtual caches are part of the whole "geocaching" sport - then it really doesn't matter who likes them and who doesn't.

Sooooo... Like I said before, let's move past the statue topic and back to the main topic which is the consistency in approval issue.

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Bubba Cache:
Actually, this thread's topic isn't virtuals - it's about consistency in approving all caches. And, if I can figure out how to make this artist's statue a multi-cache I will, which I already said. However, this is in the middle of the highest traffic part of a college campus and there are no benches or the like to put something under.

As for liking or disliking virtuals, to each his own. Some of us like them though. Also, think of this - many caches aren't handicapped accessible so virtuals might be the only caches a handicapped cacher can get to. I'm just saying there are many ways to look at it. Plus, if virtual caches are part of the whole "geocaching" sport - then it really doesn't matter who likes them and who doesn't.

Sooooo... Like I said before, let's move past the statue topic and back to the main topic which is the consistency in approval issue.

God bless you and your family,

Team Bubba Cache

You're right Bubba...lets get back on topic! Sorry...

August 12, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:
Re: Virtual Caches

If you really want to enter the murky realm of virtual caches, ask first and post second. Consider that your virtual cache will most likely not get listed. That way you are prepared for disappointment.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Before beating a dead horse, has any Groundspeak rep actually exactly WHY virtuals are frowned upon? I've seen this topic debated at the local level, and there seem to be better ways to solve any problems that virtuals may cause than an outright ban.

What is worse than even an outright ban is the way that they are currently being approved - with the subjective "Wow" factor or with a "Could a traditional be placed here?" test. Anytime you work subjectivity into an approval process, you are going to bump into problems and unhappiness all around.

The smart thing to do is to reject ALL subjective factors entirely in the approval process. Hiders will be happier because they won't waste their efforts working on a cache placement that gets rejected. They can check the OBJECTIVE rules beforehand to see if they can get their cache to fit. Approvers will also be happier because they will not continually face the wrath of hiders that disagree with their judgment call. Everyone is happy. Woo hoo!

1.6k · August 12, 2003

As I understand it, the objective rule is to disallow subjective cache placements, and especially virtuals and locationless caches.

It seems the owners of the site desire definition as opposed to ambiguity, and as a result (and as Jeremy expressed), approvals for non-physical caches will be an EXCEPTION to the norm.

1.6k · August 12, 2003

I entirely agree with the concept of PHYSICAL caches being the basis for this site, however irrelevant that may be.

What someone ought to do if they feel so inclined, is start their own site for virtuals and/or locationless caches. It's a different thing altogether than about 97% of the caches on this site. And I'm sure that there are a lot of creative ideas that folks could come up with to make that venture worth pursuing.

Consider it an opportunity.

August 12, 2003

What about puzzle caches Zuuk? ;p

1.6k · August 13, 2003

Det er et svart hull for de typene

vi faller de av ansiktet av jorden, sammen med Deres dum kode

6.4k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by canadazuuk:
I entirely agree with the concept of PHYSICAL caches being the basis for this site, however irrelevant that may be.

What someone ought to do if they feel so inclined, is start their own site for virtuals and/or locationless caches. It's a different thing altogether than about 97% of the caches on this site. And I'm sure that there are a lot of creative ideas that folks could come up with to make that venture worth pursuing.

Consider it an opportunity.

www.waypoint.org

www.ecoscavenger.com

"(Mopar is) good to have around and kick. Like an ugly puppy" - Jeremy

1.7k · August 13, 2003

Your link for ecoscavenger doesn't work. I was a bit interested in checking it out too.

Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes

On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:

"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --

"Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"

Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898

3k · August 13, 2003

quote:
... As an example, I discovered an historic bridge that I thought was an interesting spot.

I'm guessing it wasn't the same bridge you made a virtual cache out of smack in the middle of my multi-virtual cache tour of a certain county seat?

August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy:

I'm wildly sober about this. Physical caches are the basis of the activity. Virtual caches were created due to the inaccessability of caching in areas that discourage it. If you must create a virtual cache its best to bring the idea up before doing the research. Expect a no first and a yes in extraordinary situations. I hate it has to be blunt but that's the fact, Jack.

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

If "that's the fact, Jack," then why aren't the Virtual Cache Guidelines precisely that blunt? The way it's stated, it seems to be left up to the waypointer to judge whether the location is appropriate for a "real cache", micro or otherwise. If the approver is allowed to override the waypointer's judgement in this matter, then just SAY SO. If you are more than likely to be turned down, because some approver that is 800 miles away can override my judgement on the appropriateness of a real cache, then SAY SO.

Better yet, rather than have thousands of virtual caches archived that I and many others would have enjoyed, I would rather see them put off in a separate place, like Benchmarks. The quest for waypointed historically significant places in my area has sparked an interest in my state's history that I never had, even in school. History was torture for me, and now I'm actually interested in the lives of those people. It's given me a new connection to my state and the people who live here, and it's given me a new connection with my husband, who has always been a history buff.

I would like to see locationless caches come back, too ... in a separate location if need be. I follow many of them because I would eventually like to see some of the unique locations that have been waypointed by those who log finds.

I grieves me that, because the basis of this activity was in waypointing a container for people to find, the activity itself is placed in a container that restricts its growth and development. It's obvious that many geocachers like to find and waypoint virtual caches or this never would have become an issue. Why, then, do the people who like to box-hunt exclusively get to say that we can't? If you don't want to "count" them the same, fine. Put them on a separate page but for Pete's sake, let me choose to do them along with "real ones" if I wish!

Happy Trails to you, 'til we meet again!

quote:
... I can quit any time I like ... really, I CAN!!

Candy (Moosiegirl)http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CentralTexasGeocachers/

[This message was edited by Moosiegirl on August 13, 2003 at 07:04 AM.]

24.7k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Theole34:

quote:
This virtual cache is placed with the understanding that the owner will give way in the event that an approvable physical cache is placed within .01 mile

That line flat out sucks. Anyone who actually gets a virtual approved today should have a full approval. Not a wishy washy excuse.

24.7k · August 13, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:
...There is no acceptable or logical reason that a virtual can not be part of a multi-cache...

Sure there is. The cache owner doesn't want to do a mulit cache. That same logic applies to traditionla caches. "There is no acceptable or logical reason that a traditional cache can not be part of a multi"

Bottom line this site likes traditionals, but there are times and places that a virtual is more appropriate. If that case can be made (and we know it's not an easy case to make) then the virtual can and should stand on it's own merit. Not as part of a lame multi cache with a suprise twist ending.

Attention Jeremy and Geocaching.com

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