Jump to content

South Carolina Senate Activity


Recommended Posts

Is anyone familiar with this Jennifer Holland of AP? I haven't checked the State or the Charleston papers to see if this or any other article has run in them.

I spoke with her. She seems to be trying to get to all sides of the question in a balanced manner, or at least that was my impression of her. We offered to take her geocaching this summer when the legislative session ends. Hope she'll take us up on it.

Jon

Link to comment

I mentioned much of the misinformation that was used to push this bill through the house, she choose not to quote me on that.

 

But I do feel Jennifer did a decent job of trying to show our side in a positive light.

Link to comment

I just pulled this off the www.thestate.com website on round up of what went on in the state house. So who lives in Scott's area so someone can clear up his misunderstood information?

 

GEOCACHE TREND: The House approved a bill Thursday targeting people who play a new high-tech game in graveyards and other areas. Strangers caught trekking into South Carolina graveyards or historical sites could earn time in jail playing the modern scavenger hunt known as geocaching. The game relies on following instructions and coordinates using Global Positioning Satellite system devices. "I don't find it funny when someone comes to my relative's grave site and puts little trinkets on it," said Rep. John Scott, D-Columbia.
Link to comment
I mentioned much of the misinformation that was used to push this bill through the house, she choose not to quote me on that.

 

But I do feel Jennifer did a decent job of trying to show our side in a positive light.

Just depends on where you read the article. Print version here in Greenville News only had one quote per you and Jon.

Link to comment

I have a real issue with the article for the sheer fact that a good reporter would have taken accusations and allowed the accused an opportunity to respond. In no way did this reporter ask Hydee to respond to the accusations that people were going to the bathroom on or defacing markers.

 

This is the log referencing a bathroom event. However you'll notice that the person (who is a police officer for South Carolina) was just referencing the nearby gas station he walked to. Yes it has been edited in April but probably do to the fact that it was misunderstood. However there was nothing but praise for the cemetary.

 

As for defacing, time and again it has been brought up that the container itself had UV reflective paint. In no way were tombstones marked in this case and we as general geocachers denounce this kind of activity.

 

It irks me enough about the lies and misrepresentations that go on but the press should be even and balanced. I disagree that this was fair.

Edited by Jeremy
Link to comment
This is the log referencing a bathroom event. However you'll notice that the person (who is a police officer for South Carolina) was just referencing the nearby gas station he walked to. Yes it has been edited in April but probably do to the fact that it was misunderstood. However there was nothing but praise for the cemetary.

This is why we should all contact

Senator Jake Knotts. He is a past law enforcement officer and is on the Judicary Commettee.

Link to comment

Well, the Greenville News isn't going to help us one bit. This was published on their opinion page in Saturday's paper...

 

Thumbs Down to geocachers, those high-tech game players who hunt for hidden treasure in graveyards. The S.C. House approved a bill this week to make geocaching a crime under some circumstances. It's certainly an insensitive and intrusive game where people hide trinkets in cemeteries, caves or forests, and then give coordinates so others can find the treasure using a Global Positioning System device. People with enough money to buy such toys should have enough sense not to use a graveyard as part of a game. It shouldn't take a law to teach people basic manners.

 

The link is http://greenvilleonline.com/news/opinion/2...05051464405.htm

 

I think it's time for a few letters to the editor of the Greenville News. I'll work on one this week.

Link to comment
So any word on if they are meeting this week to talk about this bill?

It would appear (based on this site) they're not going to discuss it this week.

 

<Edit>

 

Specifically, check out the agenda for their 3:00 Tuesday Meeting here.

 

I have not yet contacted anyone to see when it will be discussed, though.

 

Has anybody?

Edited by RandLD
Link to comment
I just pulled this off the www.thestate.com website on round up of what went on in the state house. So who lives in Scott's area so someone can clear up his misunderstood information?

 

GEOCACHE TREND: The House approved a bill Thursday targeting people who play a new high-tech game in graveyards and other areas. Strangers caught trekking into South Carolina graveyards or historical sites could earn time in jail playing the modern scavenger hunt known as geocaching. The game relies on following instructions and coordinates using Global Positioning Satellite system devices. "I don't find it funny when someone comes to my relative's grave site and puts little trinkets on it," said Rep. John Scott, D-Columbia.

Replace the word game with activity, then they can give a thumbs down to jogging, walking, biking, reading, eating, tours, and other things blessed.

 

The one thing geocaching isn't is a game. Yes it's fun but without the container you cant tell geocaching from anything else that people do and which is 100% legitimate. We WALK into the cemetery. We LOOK for something. We LEARN some of our history. We APPRECIATE our surroundings. We RESPECT the world we live in. This Jihad is misplaced. Thumbs down for them telling me what is and isn't appropriate for an area that I pay tax to preserve as well as have an interest in.

 

I don't find it funny when someone is insulted over something they only imagined but expect me to pay the price for their imaginary problems. We have enough real ones to worry about. I don’t find it funny that they are worrying about trinkets that would be thrown away by the grounds crew making short work of any game that actually did do such a thing. If this were a real problem and not just a test of the emergency law making system they would discover that fact.

Link to comment
Thumbs Down to geocachers, those high-tech game players who hunt for hidden treasure in graveyards. The S.C. House approved a bill this week to make geocaching a crime under some circumstances. It's certainly an insensitive and intrusive game where people hide trinkets in cemeteries, caves or forests, and then give coordinates so others can find the treasure using a Global Positioning System device. People with enough money to buy such toys should have enough sense not to use a graveyard as part of a game. It shouldn't take a law to teach people basic manners.

 

...I think it's time for a few letters to the editor of the Greenville News...

This is truely sophomoric.

 

Often times in the past, I have defended journalists; I still believe, that in most cases, journalists strive to be accurate. This article can be disclaimed as opinion; it's unfortunate that the opinion is based on fiction. :o

 

Yes, write letters (short and concise). :D

Link to comment
Replace the word game with activity, then they can give a thumbs down to jogging, walking, biking, reading, eating, tours, and other things blessed....SNIP...The one thing geocaching isn't is a game. Yes it's fun but without the container you cant tell geocaching from anything else that people do and which is 100% legitimate.

 

This "game" thing seems to be a real sticking point with the legislators. Several years ago I questioned the wisdom of calling it a game. I thought it made our sport sound frivolous.

 

When I heard these legislators constantly call it a game in their debate I had a feeling we were going down.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Thumbs Down to geocachers, those high-tech game players who hunt for hidden treasure in graveyards. The S.C. House approved a bill this week to make geocaching a crime under some circumstances. It's certainly an insensitive and intrusive game where people hide trinkets in cemeteries, caves or forests, and then give coordinates so others can find the treasure using a Global Positioning System device. People with enough money to buy such toys should have enough sense not to use a graveyard as part of a game. It shouldn't take a law to teach people basic manners.

 

...I think it's time for a few letters to the editor of the Greenville News...

This is truely sophomoric.

 

Often times in the past, I have defended journalists; I still believe, that in most cases, journalists strive to be accurate. This article can be disclaimed as opinion; it's unfortunate that the opinion is based on fiction. :o

 

Yes, write letters (short and concise). :D

I agree with Beowulf83 and others. While you may not agree with the opinion, everyone has one. I will say in looking at the newpaper article it does seem balanced and the reporter went to some lengths to ensure that "Opinions" from both sides were represented.

 

I do have and idea, why not contact the reporter that wrote the article and suggest that she write one on how a bill like this becomes law. Through missinformation, distortion, and opinions becoming facts. Some of the live feeds and portions of the side comments, behaviors etc. Cavalier attitudes displayed etc. Along with the Facts displayed along side the information represented by the legistators would make for very entertaining reading etc. She might go for it.

 

I would also hope that the folks in SC would please, please, please seriously consider hiring a profesional lobbiest who know how things work (Inside the state house) and can gain access we can not. It is money well spent.

As I have indicated before just tell me where to send the check.

 

VaraceMan.

Link to comment

Isn't it ironic that if you place a container under this law and take care of it, you can go to jail, but if you throw your bag of McDonalds garbage in the cemetary you just get fined?

 

Perhaps jail time for littering should be passed, eh?

Link to comment
OK, the records of the session from Wednesday show that the historic sites part had been removed, but it's still in the bill on the website. Anyone know why?

To the best of my knowledge, the "historical" site portion was removed by one amendment and then reinstated by another. So I believe the version we have a link for is correct.

Link to comment
OK, the records of the session from Wednesday show that the historic sites part had been removed, but it's still in the bill on the website. Anyone know why?

To the best of my knowledge, the "historical" site portion was removed by one amendment and then reinstated by another. So I believe the version we have a link for is correct.

That is correct.

Link to comment

I am an educator in this fine state. I was appalled after reading about the bill that has been passed to the Senate. I started geocaching less than a year ago. When I first heard of geocaching, I was thrilled that technology could actually get people off of the couch and into the great outdoors. I am currently planning to be using geocaching in the classroom next year to encourage my students to get out and see the historical and natural sites of this great state. I am contacting Thomas Alexander, my local Senator.

Link to comment

I haven't read everything posted on here and just happened to come across this. But I read the "bill" that SissynCr have linked and it doesn't say that geocaching is outlawed or anything. It just says that in order to do it on historic sites, archaelogical sites and cemeteries that you have to have permission before doing so. That's not too far off from what gc.com requires is it? They want you to make sure you have permission first of all. Sounds fair to me. Or have I missed something?

Link to comment
I haven't read everything posted on here and just happened to come across this. But I read the "bill" that SissynCr have linked and it doesn't say that geocaching is outlawed or anything. It just says that in order to do it on historic sites, archaelogical sites and cemeteries that you have to have permission before doing so. That's not too far off from what gc.com requires is it? They want you to make sure you have permission first of all. Sounds fair to me. Or have I missed something?

You have missed some. Go back and read the closed thread (looong) dealing with the bill when it was in the House. That will give you tons of information.

 

A big part of the problem is that Historic areas in SC can cover entire towns, cities or parts of counties etc. That makes it a very broad bill. Plus criminalizing caching at a statewide legislative level is unprecedented.

Link to comment
I haven't read everything posted on here and just happened to come across this. But I read the "bill" that SissynCr have linked and it doesn't say that geocaching is outlawed or anything. It just says that in order to do it on historic sites, archaelogical sites and cemeteries that you have to have permission before doing so. That's not too far off from what gc.com requires is it? They want you to make sure you have permission first of all. Sounds fair to me. Or have I missed something?

Here's a nice summary of the 28-page thread.

Link to comment

You have missed some. Go back and read the closed thread (looong) dealing with the bill when it was in the House. That will give you tons of information.

 

A big part of the problem is that Historic areas in SC can cover entire towns, cities or parts of counties etc. That makes it a very broad bill. Plus criminalizing caching at a statewide legislative level is unprecedented.

Ok, the bill said that the archaelogical or historic site has to be "publicly identified by an historical marker". So if there is a marker saying that it's a historical area, then don't put a physical cache. Perhaps a virtual would work?

 

Criminalizing it, yes I agree. It's something that we all talked about that might could happen eventually. Looks like it is starting. I guess it's just pointing it out directly rather than putting it under an umbrella of something else.

Link to comment

You have missed some. Go back and read the closed thread (looong) dealing with the bill when it was in the House. That will give you tons of information.

 

A big part of the problem is that Historic areas in SC can cover entire towns, cities or parts of counties etc. That makes it a very broad bill. Plus criminalizing caching at a statewide legislative level is unprecedented.

Ok, the bill said that the archaelogical or historic site has to be "publicly identified by an historical marker". So if there is a marker saying that it's a historical area, then don't put a physical cache. Perhaps a virtual would work?

 

Criminalizing it, yes I agree. It's something that we all talked about that might could happen eventually. Looks like it is starting. I guess it's just pointing it out directly rather than putting it under an umbrella of something else.

Actually, it says, "in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker ..."

 

As carleenp has stated earlier, that "or" makes a big difference. It blocks historical and archaeological sites AND those with some sort of marker.

 

Poorly written, but that's what it says in its current form ...

Link to comment

The implications of the way the bill reads right now is actually quite boggling.

 

I'm hesitant to go discuss it further as the other camp reads this, but let's just say if it passes in its present form, the joke is on them. I don't want to discuss what this means as I don't really want them to fix the problem with their bill. Suffice it to say it doesn't accomplish any of their stated goals.

Link to comment

Hi Woodsters! Long time no see! :o

 

Yes, the extra "or" is the problem. The thing is very poorly drafted, which makes it rather broad in coverage.

 

Archeological areas also have issues because people may not know where they are and according to House debate, some are temporary.

Link to comment
I guess it's just pointing it out directly rather than putting it under an umbrella of something else.

 

Which is part of the point. There is no evidence of geocachers doing anything wrong. We are being singled out because of a perceived (wrongly) lack of respect for these sites. Is it really the place of our government to legislate respect?

 

If a geocacher tresspasses on, or vandalizes a cemetery or historic site, arrest and prosecute him under existing laws.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Hi Woodsters! Long time no see! :o

 

Archeological areas also have issues because people may not know where they are and according to House debate, some are temporary.

Yes long time no see or vent for that matter...hehe

 

I read it a couple of times. I can see where it might say one thing and then another. I email my opinion to Mrs Ceips. Basically that I think there should be some compromise as far as protecting those areas but not to criminalize it. Also to the point that geocaching is pointed out exclusively(along with letterboxing). I would rather see a bill say that it's illegal to damage those areas nad then place a punishment on it. I also told her that I would not visit SC for leisure anymore (which is a shame because I'm just a couple miles away) and would rather put my money elsewhere that will promote me getting outside and enjoying things. I also said that it could put a small dent in their tourism. I forgot to mention, but I won't be buying any SC lottery tickets either! Maybe if she reads this or one her colleagues, that they know the impact that it could have.

Link to comment
There is no evidence of geocachers doing anything wrong. We are being singled out because of a perceived (wrongly) lack of respect for these sites. Is it really the place of our government to legislate respect?

 

If a geocacher tresspasses on, or vandalizes a cemetery or historic site, arrest and prosecute him under existing laws.

Your first comments are a poor way to think about the legislation. Simply placing a geocache in some cemeteries has offended some cemetery managers and is considered a lack of respect of sanctity in their cemetery. Whether we perceive it to be a lack of respect or can rationalize it as a sign of respect is immaterial, because it is their cemetery and they find it off-putting. I'm not discussing the distortions and lies brought up in debate in the House, but just placing a geocache there at all. As for the legislation of respect, these laws exist for very good reasons. We use law to maintain civility and we require that everyone adhere to certain tenets of respect for others' property and domain. This is why it would not be wholly unreasonable if this law simply legislated a need of permission for cemeteries for physical caches (a distressing development, but not an unreasonable one). But it goes well beyond that to include virtual/offset information and historical marker sites as being improper which is as absurd as saying "don't look at that sign I put up". It'd actually be a comical Catch-22 to place a virtual geocache at a historical marker if this legislation in its current form were adopted (i.e. to know it is a site you can't geocache, you need to see the historical marker...which you need to look at to geocache).

 

But more to the point of this legislation in its current form, I still agree with your second statement. Prosecution under current laws protects these places. In my legal searches, I have yet to find the private/public loophole, commented on by Mrs. Ceips, on trespassing or vandalism that allows you to trash certain cemeteries and not others.

Link to comment

See this is what gets me, everyone is talking about how they wont tour in SC and spend money their money here. Frankly you think the Gov here in SC cares...NO

 

You seem the up in arms when the NAACP mentioned their boycott??? not really. I just do not see anyone actually going "no we must not support this bill we will lose millions in tour dollars if we support it"

 

Cause no one will, sorry to disappoint anyone

Link to comment

It really has nothing to do with damaging cemeteries. She's already admitted publicly she couldn't find any evidence of damage.

 

No, the problem was we were there in the first place. There is no law that addresses that "issue." Of course, this one won't either.

Link to comment

Woodster the added issue with this bill is not only do you have to have written permission to hide a cache from the land manager, you also have to written permission from the land manager to FIND the cache.

 

Hope the house is coming along well.

Edited by magellan315
Link to comment

In the meantime, I think this bill needs more exposure for SC cachers that are not in these forums regularly or even a part of SCGA.

 

CR, you may want to create a page with something like RK's issues with the bill and other info about contacting Senators on the committee, etc. Then send out the HTML code to put a linked image to that page at SCGA to cache owners in the SC area (especially those caches that would be immeadiately impacted by this becoming law). Ask the owners to put them on their cache pages to inform the cache page readers and get the word out better and faster to the entire community.

 

Need help on something like this, let me know.

Link to comment
Woodster the added issue with this bill is not only do you have to have written permission to hide a cache from the land manager, you also have to written permission from the land manager to FIND the cache.

It would be argued that issue is easily addressed with a bit of extra wording in the permission. Something like "...permission to geocache owner and associates to locate said geocache..." Considering "locate" in the bill is being used as both placing and finding, so should the permission. The owner would be locating (placing) the cache and associates would be locating (finding) the cache. Of course, INAL, but I think that would cover it.

 

Frankly, if they had wanted each and every individual to have written permission, they sure didn't word it effectively.

Link to comment

PLEASE READ AND RESPOND. I WANT TO SEND THIS TO THE EDITOR OF A COUPLE OF LOCAL PAPERS. THANKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

 

X

 

 

Recently a bill was passed through your House of Representatives that, if made into law, will make the sport of geocaching illegal in cemeteries, archeological sites, and historical sites marked as such in the state of South Carolina. This bill made it through the House on a platform of half-truths and deception.

 

What are geocaches you ask? Good question. This is not one that several of the people you elected to the House seemed to ask. Here is geocaching in a nutshell:

 

What is Geocaching?

Geocaching is an entertaining adventure game for GPS users. Participating in a cache hunt is a good way to take advantage of the wonderful features and capability of a GPS unit. The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the Internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. Once found, a cache may provide the visitor with a wide variety of rewards. All the visitor is asked to do is if they get something they should try to leave something for the cache.

 

Sounds great doesn’t it? Folks getting out and back to nature, making new friends, kids not sitting inside watching TV all day. I am a cacher and really enjoy it. I have seen things that you wouldn’t ever think you’d see in this great state and a few others. This sport takes me to views of the mountains that many people would never see unless taken to that point by the search for a geocache. I’ve seen places long forgotten by the general public, because of geocaching. I’m talking about cemeteries that don’t get visited anymore because the family has either long since passed on altogether or moved to another part of the country. Historical sites? We visit them all the time. Hey folks there’s a reason for those silver and black signs along the highways and byways of this great nation! We find these spots and we learn. We take our families. We take our friends. We take our time and help clean up lots of places these folks in the House who support this bill are trying to “protect”.

 

CITO:

 

Cache In Trash Out.

It is what it sounds like. When we look for a cache we pick up trash. Does this sound destructive or disrespectful? For the most part we are a well-behaved, good-hearted group of folks. Do we have our problem members? Sure we do. The same could be said for any group. But we try to police our own. If we are asked to remove a cache from a spot we do. It is quickly archived from an active search online and then physically taken out. We don’t tread on others property rights.

 

How many of you have been to Hanging Rock lately? One of my plans was to have a CITO event there. The rocks aren’t very pretty right now are they? If I can have that event there we just may be able to get the place cleaned up and useable again. This is a property on the National Register of Historic Places and a state owned site. It’s also a disgrace to the men that died there because of what people have done to it.

 

 

Couldn’t Forty Acre Rock use a little TLC? It could be said for dozens if not hundreds of sites across the state.

 

 

We are a community of folks that just get out there and explore. Most people don’t realize the wealth of history around us. WE DO! We put money into the state parks, local businesses like stores, restaurants and gas stations. We love the land and take care of it. Below are a few links. Check them out online. Then contact your state Senator. At least you’ll be informed.

 

Scott Seegars

 

www.geocaching.com

 

www.geocacher-u.com

 

www.todayscacher.com

Link to comment
PLEASE READ AND RESPOND. I WANT TO SEND THIS TO THE EDITOR OF A COUPLE OF LOCAL PAPERS. THANKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

 

X

 

 

Recently a bill was passed through your House of Representatives that, if made into law, will make the sport of geocaching illegal in cemeteries, archeological sites, and historical sites marked as such in the state of South Carolina. This bill made it through the House on a platform of half-truths and deception.

 

Nice letter. :lol: I am going to pick slightly on the part quoted.

 

Because the bill as amended has too many uses of the word "or" it does not limit it to "marked" areas. Instead it ADDS marked areas because the word "or" is used in the conjunctive/additive. So it is overbroad and includes all historic areas, marked or not, which can be entire towns cities and counties etc. (I think at least one county has most of it under historic designation from watching debate). From watching the house debate I don't think that was the intent of the amendment. It was meant to limit it to marked areas, but the plain language does not do that. Without getting into tons of legal detail, I will just say that courts when interpreting a statute will normally look to plain language and go with that and will only look to legislative history for intent when plain language does not answer the question.

 

So I suggest re-wording to state that it bans historic and archeological areas, whether marked or not. You might also want to go more into the bill being overbroad, but if not comfortable with that, then I say simply do a re-word as I suggested.

 

Edit: I particularly like your CITO section. :lol:

Edited by carleenp
Link to comment
PLEASE READ AND RESPOND. I WANT TO SEND THIS TO THE EDITOR OF A COUPLE OF LOCAL PAPERS. THANKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

 

X

 

 

Recently a bill was passed through your House of Representatives that, if made into law, will make the sport of geocaching illegal in cemeteries, archeological sites, and historical sites marked as such in the state of South Carolina. This bill made it through the House on a platform of half-truths and deception.

 

Nice letter. :lol: I am going to pick slightly on the part quoted.

 

Because the bill as amended has too many uses of the word "or" it does not limit it to "marked" areas. Instead it ADDS marked areas because the word "or" is used in the conjunctive/additive. So it is overbroad and includes all historic areas, marked or not, which can be entire towns cities and counties etc. (I think at least one county has most of it under historic designation from watching debate). From watching the house debate I don't think that was the intent of the amendment. It was meant to limit it to marked areas, but the plain language does not do that. Without getting into tons of legal detail, I will just say that courts when interpreting a statute will normally look to plain language and go with that and will only look to legislative history for intent when plain language does not answer the question.

 

So I suggest re-wording to state that it bans historic and archeological areas, whether marked or not. You might also want to go more into the bill being overbroad, but if not comfortable with that, then I say simply do a re-word as I suggested.

 

Edit: I particularly like your CITO section. :lol:

Thanks for the help. I was wondering about that very thing a few posts up the thread.

 

X

Link to comment

The letter is great, except that it may be too long. I know it is easier said than done, but if you could make the same point in fewer words, the letter will stand a greater chance of being published. This thought comes from my experience on both sides of the table (I have worked many years around newspapers, and I have written my share of letters to the editor). :lol::lol:

Edited by sept1c_tank
Link to comment
Being that Cieps is a Repbulican, The Greenville News is very much a anti-liberal paper. So it does not shock me they edited everything good for us bad for her out of it.

 

Now if anyone wants to e-mail the reporter, you can

jmholland@ap.org

There have been several remarks about people not visiting or spending money in SC because of this. While that will make us feel better about our visit should we find ourselves in the state for some reason, I think that approach will have little if any impact on a decision as the bill moves forward.

 

Here are a few ideas, I'm not sure if any have been entertained yet.

 

1. Since it is now a political issue, and if it can be determined that there is clear partisanship favoring the bill, then one approach would be to have someone who is well spoken, preferably a celebrity or high profile type person, speak before the legislature with a spin to make it look like the bill supporters are acting like their political opponents. (Wow, that was a long sentence!) Then direct the discussion toward the next two points.

 

2. The biggest problem with the bill is that they are trying to fix a problem in the wrong way. This is not something that the state government should be handling anyway. It is a local law enforcement issue. Find local law enforcement that supports that game and have them testify to this effect. Surely there are bigger and more important issues in the state of South Carolina than this - especially considering the trumped up evidence.

 

3. Surely in the state there are land managers who have benefited and appreciate geocaching. I know if I had to fight this battle in Tennessee I could find several police officers, a TVA government official, and a county executive who would gladly testify to the positive impact that geocachers have had in their respective areas. These type of people need to be brought to testify. This will have much greater impact than just saying, "If you pass this bill I won't visit you again."

Link to comment
PLEASE READ AND RESPOND. I WANT TO SEND THIS TO THE EDITOR OF A COUPLE OF LOCAL PAPERS. THANKS FOR THE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

 

X

 

 

What is Geocaching?

Geocaching is an entertaining adventure game for GPS users. Participating in a cache hunt is a good way to take advantage of the wonderful features and capability of a GPS unit. The basic idea is to have individuals and organizations set up caches all over the world and share the locations of these caches on the Internet. GPS users can then use the location coordinates to find the caches. Once found, a cache may provide the visitor with a wide variety of rewards. All the visitor is asked to do is if they get something they should try to leave something for the cache.

Telling the unitiated that you are tracking through cemeteries, historic, and archaeological sites for the sake of a "game" which offers "rewards" will illicit nothing but unsympathetic responses. They have no idea that the only reason you're going there is to get information from a plaque or tombstone. They think that a cache is likely buried and hallowed ground is being disturbed by technogeeks looking for treasure.

 

Your description of geocaching does nothing to dissuade them from this belief. So, I suggest rewording that part. Maybe try out your description on some coworkers or anyone else who is uninformed before you attempt to get it published. Once you get the right reaction, then your ready to go.

 

Also, I would tone down the "C'mon Folks!" attitude. Again, you're talking to an uninformed, unsympathetic audience that you need to win over. Agressive pleading won't do it.

 

-Team J&J

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...