do the rules of geocaching change daily?

February 25, 2003

i asked a question about a "legitimate" cache yesterday because my microcache did not have a logbook, only requiring a code to be emailed to the owner. so, after alot of discussion, i finally put a log book in the cache and now is asking me why i am having the cachers email me the code when i have a log book? do the rules of geocaching change daily or are the rules made up by someone who can't make up their mind? i find it very difficult to believe that after all the discussion about having a log book in a cache with a code to be emailed to the owner, now there is a question of why is there a log book when an email is required.

is there a conflict here or do all newbies have this hard of a time posting their first caches?

[This message was edited by billybob2 on February 26, 2003 at 11:50 AM.]

2.6k · February 25, 2003

I'm sure Jon is trying to determine if you are making a Virtual(e-mail a code) or a traditional(log book).

Your switching gears is a red flag. A log book is required. Sounds like you had no intention to include a log book. Now that you included a log book, you can't ask cachers to include a code in an e-mail. Assuming you might delete their log if they don't.

Either your cache is a Virtual or a Traditional.

Do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

38.2k · February 26, 2003

Some admins do interpret rules differently. I find it to be a lot easier if you submit caches that fall within the generally accepted norms.

A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away. -Barry Goldwater

3k · February 26, 2003

I've done many traditional caches, especially micro caches, that don't have logbooks and require the e-mailing of a code or some other bit of information ... in fact, I've been planning on placing one myself.

I don't think Leatherman is correct ... as the cache owner, you can pretty much set whatever verification rules you want.

1.6k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
I don't think Leatherman is correct ... as the cache owner, you can pretty much set whatever verification rules you want.

What? So basically we can let the rules deteriorate to allowing one to throw down a piece of trash, take and post a waypoint, and just let the finder describe what the piece of trash looks like? That's where this is going.

I, too, would question why an owner would require one to email a 15 digit code if there's a log in the cache.

Look, the whole concept of having a logbook is the verification. It's an age old tradition of bragging rights. You get there, find the cache, and sign your name. You get to see others who have found it, as well. Email verification can be faked as a buddy can give you the code or challenge word. There's no doubt of who found it with a logbook because of their John Handcock.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if every one of those "email me the code" type of caches was required to change the type to unknown or virtual, because it sure isn't a traditional.

...and all of those off-set caches, and any other cache type that is not at the actuall listed coordinates, need to be listed as something other than a traditional, as well.

The rules are there. Follow them.

CR

February 26, 2003

If you place a cache container (even a micro), don't include a log, and ask for people to email you a code, you are pretty much announcing that you don't intend on checking on your cache, and that you only plan to perform maintenance on it if someone emails you that it needs repair.

Otherwise, why not have the log, since you'll be going out to check on your cache once in a while anyway?

2.6k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I don't think Leatherman is correct ... as the cache owner, you can pretty much set whatever verification rules you want.

I don't know... I think it's either one or the other. Signing the log book is enough. Or providing the code is enough. What's the point of both?

george

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

February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
I've done many traditional caches, especially micro caches, that don't have logbooks and require the e-mailing of a code or some other bit of information ... in fact, I've been planning on placing one myself.

Why? Why not just tuck a little log sheet into the microcache?

February 26, 2003

to give a little history, i place the microcache with a code to be emailed to the owner without a log book, then i was required to place a log book, so i did, now Jon the approver, says, why do you have a log and a email verification.

the point is what do i need to do get this cache approved? i don't know, if i follow the instructions of jon, he comes back and required additional things which weren't required before. so now i have taken out the email verification and only have a log book. cachers can trade items if they want too. does this sound like a traditional cache?

i wouldn't hold by breath, there's probably some new requirements which are being made up today which i don't know about yet.

7.4k · February 26, 2003

What I did was email you back when you said you had added the logbook, and ask why you were including redundant methods of verification. I'm sure that most of the cachers will agree that having both requirements is unnecessary and annoying. Furthermore, as leatherman suggests in his post above, your actions sent up a "red flag".

Instead of simply trying to understand why I might have asked you that question, you instead responded with abusive email to me and with this thread in the forums. If you spent half as much time trying to learn how the game is played as you have flaming me in the past 12 hours, then your cache would be posted by now.

5.9k · February 26, 2003

I'm a little dismayed that you used an actual name in your post. Please go back and edit that out. I don't have a problem with the cache as you described it. That being said, I know the approver of which you speak, and I trust his experience and judgment. I think there must be an element missing in your description. It may not be as big a deal as you’re making it, could it possibly be a misunderstanding, cache classification, or other minor problem?

EDIT: seems like my post was a bit late.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

February 26, 2003

If he wants to post a cache with "annoying" verification requirements, how does that hurt Geocaching in general? It doesn't.

Yes, it's a little redundant. So what? If someone reads the cache page and finds the verification requirements annoying enough, they simply won't bother logging that cache. Those who don't have a problem jotting down a number will log it. It's simple, and no one feels like they have to jump through hoops just to post a cache.

I really think, as I mentioned in another thread, that the approvers should refrain from disapproving caches on subjective criteria. If the cache isn't dangerous, isn't illegal, and doesn't harm anyone, I think it should be approved, regardless of what opinion the approver has of it.

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

5.9k · February 26, 2003

Hello? Where does it say the cache was ever disapproved? The approver was seeking clarification. That does not equate to disapproval.

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

6.5k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
... as the cache owner, you can pretty much set whatever verification rules you want.

That has been my understanding too. The owner can pretty much require you to do whatever they would like before allowing you a 'find'. Do I have it wrong?

I think having finders verify in multiple ways is usually a pointless waste of time, but I thought it was left to the owner to decide.

7.2k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ScottJ:
I really think, as I mentioned in another thread, that the approvers should refrain from disapproving caches on subjective criteria. If the cache isn't dangerous, isn't illegal, and doesn't harm anyone, I think it should be approved, regardless of what opinion the approver has of it.

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

I also covered this in that same topic you are referring to.

7.4k · February 26, 2003

The cache was initially disapproved.

ScottJ, I'm sorry that you feel that the admins are being too regulatory, but we are having to restrict physical caches that do not include logbooks. We are being flooded with them and while some are well thought out, others are just containers tossed out with random contents, or in some case no contents. All of these caches require the hunter to email the hider and describe the contents in order to claim a find.

The problem is that there truly is little to distinguish these caches from litter in many cases. It's a huge gray area, and these caches sit squarely between the physical and virtual classification. In order to keep the overall quality high and yet remain as objective as possible, we are simply asking that physical caches include logbooks.

There would have been no problem here if billybob2 had simply added the logbook. What he did was add the logbook, but keep the requirement for email verification. As leatherman suggests in his post, that sent up a red flag. I merely emailed him asking why he was requiring redundant forms of verification, as it was clear that he wasn't understanding what verification is all about. That's when he decided to get abusive in email and post this thread.

2.6k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by welch:

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
... as the cache owner, you can pretty much set whatever verification rules you want.

That has been my understanding too. The owner can pretty much require you to do whatever they would like before allowing you a 'find'. Do I have it wrong?

I don't think we really want to agree to this. What if a cache owner wanted you to donate to a charity and show a receipt to claim a find?

What if a cache owner said you have to sign the log, with a specific color ink?

What if the cache owner wanted you to sign the log, and then hide another cache in the same area before you could log the find?

What if the cache owner wanted you to sign the log with your name AND home address?

george

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

2.6k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
The cache _was_ initially disapproved.

ScottJ, I'm sorry that you feel that the admins are being too regulatory, but we are having to restrict physical caches that do not include logbooks. We are being flooded with them and while some are well thought out, others are just containers tossed out with random contents, or in some case no contents.

If these micros don't have more than a few trinkets then what happens if a muggle finds them? You need a geonote in there to show that it's not abandoned property and is in fact a part of a worldwide game.

If you can fit a geonote, you can fit a log.

george

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

February 26, 2003

where can i read the rule that says, if i have a traditional/ regular/ unknown/secret cache with a log book i cannot require email verification of a code? did this rule get made up today or was it written down before i ever attempted this? i cannot be the first person to ever try this, as demonstrated in the "legitimate" discussion thread and this discussion thread. so where is it that i have deviated from what has already been done before and from some mystical rule book that i don't have access to.

7.2k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:
If these micros don't have more than a few trinkets then what happens if a muggle finds them? You need a geonote in there to show that it's not abandoned property and is in fact a part of a worldwide game.

If you can fit a geonote, you can fit a log.

george

That is a great point.

9.2k · February 26, 2003

You should make it difficult to find the cache, not log the cache. That's kinda the whole idea.

You've never bothered to explain to answer the question of why you're requiring the email. Perhaps they should be required to sign the log while standing on one foot, and photographic evidence of this must also be submitted, along with, of course, that beloved 15 digit code.

February 26, 2003

i did put a log book in the cache and i could put a geonote, the issue here is that now i can't require email verification with a code because now i have a logbook. but i can't put out a cache without a logbook so that means that email verification of a code or verification at all by any other means is now prohibited because a log book MUST accompany every cache.

i have a feeling this is not a written rule, but rather a subjective thought for the day. there are many other cachers who will continue to stash caches and require some form of verification other than a logbook. i haven't done anything different than what has already been done many times before, but for some reason this new rule has been created. is this only for my caches in idaho or does this apply to all of geocaching?

February 26, 2003

quote:
ScottJ, I'm sorry that you feel that the admins are being too regulatory, but we are having to restrict physical caches that do not include logbooks.

I have no problem with that at all.

I must have misunderstood. I thought that billybob had included a logbook and the cache still wasn't approved because he wanted to use e-mail verification as well.

Thanks for clearing that up, I'm glad the cache is being approved.

--

Scott Johnson (ScottJ)

6.5k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:
I don't think we really want to agree to this. What if a cache owner wanted you to donate to a charity and show a receipt to claim a find?

Im not asking if anyone agrees, Im asking Isn't this how it IS?

quote:
What if a cache owner said you have to sign the log, with a specific color ink?

What if the cache owner wanted you to sign the log, and then hide another cache in the same area before you could log the find?

What if the cache owner wanted you to sign the log with your name AND home address?

george

Then I probly wouldn't do their cache, or at least wouldn't be able to claim a find.

7.4k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by billybob2:
where can i read the rule that says, if i have a traditional/ regular/ unknown/secret cache with a log book i cannot require email verification of a code?

Where did I ever say that I wouldn't accept your cache because you were requiring two forms of verification? I merely emailed you about the redundancy after you informed me that you had added the logbook. You then flipped out and decided to flame me. Please excuse me if I didn't exactly bend over backwards at that point to accomodate you and your cache.

1.4k · February 26, 2003

I have no problem with the guidelines changing as the game evolves. Rule changes are necessary to address the everchanging nature of the game.

What I've objected to is the fact that not all of the guidelines are listed on the guidelines page, and that much of what is listed is ambiguous. There is now a "checklist" for creating locationless caches. Why not have a "checklist" for the other cache types as well? Then, as the guidelines evolve, the "checklist" can be edited to reflect the current guidelines. This would eliminate much of the subjectivity in the approval process as well as reducing the number of non-qualifying caches that are submitted. I also think the link to the submission page should REQUIRE passing through the guidelines page. Many cache placers apparently never read the guidelines.

1.5k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
Please excuse me if I didn't exactly bend over backwards at that point to accomodate you and your cache.

This is a bit off-topic, but does anybody understand the expression "bend over backwards"? I've used it, I think most of us have said it at least once, but... I don't really understand it. Wouldn't you want to, you know, bend over... forwards? If you're trying to, uh, "accomodate" somebody?

February 26, 2003

You know what, i could really care less if I have to sign a logbook, send an email, sign in red pen, call the owner, whatever. Im doin it to find the cache. If I read the details and it says "you must sign in red pen", Ill bring a red pen. If it doesnt specify and I get there and dont have the required color pen or what not, personally I dont care, I wont get mad. I found the cache. As for some that are bringing up letting people throw any old cache out of their car and get a waypoint, or letting people distinguish the cache as a cache and not litter. ok. i agree, but I dont think that has anything to do with this thread. by having to send an email, or have a logbook, or have to do both, does it really matter? if someone says you have to sign the logbook, then you'll sign it right? you are there. if it says in the details you have to send an email, you'll do it right? well if you'll do one that it requires, it takes only 2 secs to do the other. I can see where both would be required or desired. Im not gonna go to my cache every weekend. probably only like once a month. In that month, there could be 20 people see it. Id want to give them props when they do it, not wait 30-40 days later and then say 'you remember my cache, nice work!' you know? to me it doesnt really matter. but this thread doesnt really have any importance to me, so if you reall want to respond to my personal post, make a new thread and label it max2extreme or something. HAPPY CACHING! would it be wrong to have you send whatever you take out of my cache to me via ups, so I can verify it really is from my cache?? jk.

February 26, 2003

HAHA....well the way i understand it. you want me to do something right? well id bend over forwards for you if thats what it takes, but you know, if i have to try and bend over backwards...it better be one heck of a good reason cuz i cant do that very easily.

1.6k · February 26, 2003

If there is a logbook in the cache, my question would be why would you be requiring people to email you the code?

CR

7.4k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Web-ling:

Why not have a "checklist" for the other cache types as well? Then, as the guidelines evolve, the "checklist" can be edited to reflect the current guidelines. This would eliminate much of the subjectivity in the approval process as well as reducing the number of non-qualifying caches that are submitted. I also think the link to the submission page should REQUIRE passing through the guidelines page. Many cache placers apparently never read the guidelines.

Web-ling, these are some great ideas. Jeremy is currently revamping the web site, and maybe we can ask that he include these suggestions. It would certainly make the admins' jobs easier.

Part of the problem is that the guidelines always lag behind what is happening out there currently in the real world. These logbook-less physical caches are one example.

7.4k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

This is a bit off-topic, but does anybody understand the expression "bend over backwards"? I've used it, I think most of us have said it at least once, but... I don't really _understand_ it. Wouldn't you want to, you know, bend over... forwards? If you're trying to, uh, "accomodate" somebody?

Er...yes?

Looks like you caught me in a typo, too - "accommodate".

February 26, 2003

oh and sorry, didnt want anyone to think i was attacking them or anything (with me bringing up the posts about people mentioning litter). I was just sayin how i feel bout it. ok...my last post. haha. later.

max

1.6k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:
You should make it difficult to _find_ the cache, not _log_ the cache. That's kinda the whole idea.

Exactly. Logging the find is only that, a claim that you've found the cache. Emailing anyone is only proof that you've actually found it. So is the logbook. Requiring to hear back from someone before logging the find is wrong, IMHO, because basically if you ignore the email, they don't get the find.

In fact, I wouldn't even require someone to email me the challenge word if I knew they kept a personal logbook and could produce proof they were there at any time in the future. I mean, "proof" of finds are so lax with geocaching as it is that requiring emailed proof is really laughable.

CR

February 26, 2003

criminal, the name has been removed.

February 26, 2003

i've read alot about cachers complaining about caches that require more than just showing up. it's all in the description of the cache. if you can read, and the cache is to hard, don't do it. no one is forcing cachers to go out on the hunt, ohhhhh, it's toooo hard. i can't handle it..... well then if you whimpy cachers can read, you don't have to do the hard ones. leave it to the real cachers to do the difficult caches, you wimps can stick to the 1/1 caches that might require signing a log, so be careful, you might have to lift an arm and sign something, and it still might be to hard. i thought cachers were go getters and people that get things done, people that make things happen. if you can read, then all cacher KNOW what is required of them before they hunt for the cache, if they don't like it, then they can CHOOSE not to do it. no one is forcing cachers to do this game, so why complain that some are too hard??

February 26, 2003

Why do people take everything on message boards and on the internet in general so seriously? Not every disagreement or rebuttal is a personal attack. Everybody just needs to learn to chill. 95% of these "discussions" could be avoided if people didn't over-react and actually made an attempt to clear up misunderstandings.

-Cody

February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by billybob2:
i've read alot about cachers complaining about caches that require more than just showing up. it's all in the description of the cache. if you can read, and the cache is to hard, don't do it. no one is forcing cachers to go out on the hunt, ohhhhh, it's toooo hard. i can't handle it..... well then if you whimpy cachers can read, you don't have to do the hard ones. leave it to the real cachers to do the difficult caches, you wimps can stick to the 1/1 caches that might require signing a log, so be careful, you might have to lift an arm and sign something, and it still might be to hard. i thought cachers were go getters and people that get things done, people that make things happen. if you can read, then all cacher KNOW what is required of them before they hunt for the cache, if they don't like it, then they can CHOOSE not to do it. no one is forcing cachers to do this game, so why complain that some are too hard??

Mr. 11 finds is getting a big, fat attitude.

I'd favor a rule or a guideline suggesting that a hider must find 30 caches or more before he hides one. He'd get a better sense of the game and what's fun and what isn't. It would probably cut down on low-quality caches.

Mickey

Max Entropy

More than just a name, a lifestyle.

24.7k · February 26, 2003

Ive found a mini micro in the past that had a rolled up question in it. You had to go online and figure out the answer to the question and send that to verify your find.

With micro caches, a log book is problimatic. They are cut, pasted, hacked, and otherwie force fitted into containers that are not shaped to hold a log anyway. Plus if they include a 1/2" pencil it's rather hard to write with it.

I don't see a problem with an alternate means of verification for a find. Especially on a micro-cache.

If anyone is the king of inane cache rules in my state it's me. I've not had a problem with getting mandatory trades and the like approved. It's all been a means to keep things creative. To add a little spice to a box in the woods, or a micro in yet another park.

Wherever you go there you are.

6.5k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MaxEntropy:
I'd favor a rule or a guideline suggesting that a hider must find 30 caches or more before he hides one.

At the risk of sounding like Criminal, We Dont Need No More Rules!

24.7k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by MaxEntropy:
Mr. 11 finds is getting a big, fat attitude.

Mickey

Max Entropy

More than just a name, a lifestyle.

Mr. MaxEntropy is getting a big, fat attitude. I think someone with only 4 hides,should not slam the newbie who was having difficluty being creative and still getting a cache approved.

The problem as stated was simple.

The cache was rejected because it didn't have a log, even though it did require an email code to verify.

So he added a log but still required the code and it was rejected again.

Thus a little confusion crept in.

Now it's approved with just a log, but its a much less interesting cache because now it doesn't really fit the theme he was trying to do. He may figure out how to write up a new desription that meets his original intent, or maybe not.

All in all he was attempting to be a good cacher and play along with a larger theme while having a good time. This goes hand in hand with what makes geocaching fun and what geocaching is about.

Your post seemed to miss some of those finer points and worse didn't help him in the least.

Wherever you go there you are.

February 26, 2003

Funny, just as a learn of new ways to make cahces, they get shot down.

I think hiding/looking for a tiny cache (which doesn't have room for a logbook)hidden somewhere would be fun.

I like the idea of a code, password, etc.

The great question...which I have not been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is "What does a woman want?" --Freud

7.4k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Rygel:

I think hiding/looking for a tiny cache (which doesn't have room for a logbook)hidden somewhere would be fun.

I have yet to see a container too small for a logbook. You just have to be creative:

3k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

What? So basically we can let the rules deteriorate to allowing one to throw down a piece of trash, take and post a waypoint, and just let the finder describe what the piece of trash looks like? That's where this is going.

I said no such thing. There have been crappy caches like the infamous "Sneaker Cache" dating back as long (or longer than) my involvement in geocaching. You apparently think arbitrary rules applied unevenly guarantees good caches. I disagree.

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
I, too, would question why an owner would require one to email a 15 digit code if there's a log in the cache.

What's the big deal? How many thousands of times have we read in these forums that "the cache owner decides the rules."

I cache I recently did fits this example perfectly: It was a "traditional" cache with a twist ... the cache page stated that as part of the find, the finder must e-mail the cache's owner the color of the container lid and the code word found inside. The cache also contained a standard log book. Surely, if one really visited the cache, jotting down that information to e-mail the owner wouldn't require any extraordinary effort.

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Look, the whole concept of having a logbook is the verification. It's an age old tradition of bragging rights.

Baloney. It is rare enough that cache owners revisit their caches for maintenance; to state they revisit their caches in order to verify the validity of online logs borders on the ridiculous ... especially in these days of "vacation caches" and cache owners with hundreds of hides.

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Email verification can be faked as a buddy can give you the code or challenge word. There's no doubt of who found it with a logbook because of their John Handcock.

I agree with you that people inclined to cheat will find a way to cheat ... and that could also involve someone having his buddy write their name in the logbook.

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
Personally, I wouldn't mind if every one of those "email me the code" type of caches was required to change the type to unknown or virtual, because it sure isn't a traditional.

Just don't do them if you don't like them.

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:
The rules are there. Follow them.

I thought they were guidelines.

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on February 26, 2003 at 02:29 PM.]

7.4k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

So he added a log but still required the code and it was rejected again.

Sorry, RK, but that is not correct. The cache was acceptable at that point, but as has been discussed repeatedly, the fact that he was asking for redundant verification sent up red flags. He either didn't comprehend the purpose of verification, or he hadn't actually added the logbook. To clear things up, I emailed him, and that's when he went ballistic.

quote:
Now it's approved with just a log, but its a much less interesting cache because now it doesn't really fit the theme he was trying to do. He may figure out how to write up a new desription that meets his original intent, or maybe not.

No one said that posting and maintaining a cache doesn't require some effort on the part of the hider.

quote:
All in all he was attempting to be a good cacher and play along with a larger theme while having a good time.

I'll leave it to others who have read this thread to determine on their own if he was indeed "attempting to be a good cacher and play along."

3k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by georgeandmary:

I don't think we really want to agree to this. What if a cache owner wanted you to donate to a charity and show a receipt to claim a find?

What if a cache owner said you have to sign the log, with a specific color ink?

What if the cache owner wanted you to sign the log, and then hide another cache in the same area before you could log the find?

What if the cache owner wanted you to sign the log with your name AND home address?

Well, since the some of the approvers apparently have a problem with reasonable verification items, I don't suppose they would be inclined to approve caches with unreasonable requests ... but even if one slipped through, you would be under no obligation to seek such a cache.

Or did I miss a "rule" that said you were?

February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

quote:
Originally posted by Rygel:

I think hiding/looking for a tiny cache (which doesn't have room for a logbook)hidden somewhere would be fun.

I have yet to see a container too small for a logbook. You just have to be creative:

http://www.switchbacks.com/files/Geocaching/Microscapsule.jpg

http://geocachingwa.org

What is that thing?

The great question...which I have not been able to answer, despite my thirty years of research into the feminine soul, is "What does a woman want?" --Freud

February 26, 2003

quote:
A log book is required.

since when has a log book been required! there are good micro caches out there that require one to emial some info (i.e. the amount and denomination of U.S. currency). since when is this not allowed?

Lets also suppose i want to bring a historical item to the attention of a cacher, like a virtual cache. yet, since i can place a real cache at the site i must do so. can i not require the finder to not only log the cache but also email me verification of the site in order to claim a find?

i thought that it was the "rules" of the cache placer that governed this!

SR and dboggny.

7.4k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Rygel:

What is that thing?

A Bison microcapsule

3k · February 26, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:
... we are having to restrict physical caches that do not include logbooks. We are being flooded with them and while some are well thought out, others are just containers tossed out with random contents, or in some case no contents.

I respect and appreciate the hard work and efforts by the admins, but that is one of the loopiest things I've read ... a log book is going to guarantee the quality of a cache? Hardly. It's the uninteresting location and lack of a challenge in locating the cache that makes a cache lame.

Gee, I guess it won't be too long before new "traditional" cache placements will be restricted to preassembled caches purchased from Groundspeak.com. ($10 for micro, $25 for regular, $50 for large. Free geocaching T-shirt if your purchase totals $200. We'll probably also finally see the official designation of a "mini" cache ... $17.50. And in the "Mother of All Ironies," a logbook and pencil won't be included in the preassembled caches.)

do the rules of geocaching change daily?

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