[GeoSTL] Re: locationless caches

For locationless caches, are they talking about things like the covered
bridge, Route 66, bench mark, etc, type caches?  If so, I agree with you.
  -----Original Message-----
  From: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Barramus
  Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:47 AM
  To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  Subject: [GeoSTL] Re: locationless caches


  IMHO I'm glad they are making the restriction.
  I think the locationless caches are detracting from our sport.
  I have logged a couple in the past but will not do any more of them.


  Barramus
  N   38° 25.081'
  W 90° 42.823'


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: GC-RGS
    To: GC-maillist
    Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 8:32 AM
    Subject: [GeoSTL] locationless caches




    I created a locationless cache yesterday (River Ferrys) and it was
rejected because it must have a fixed set of coordinates. I don't completely
agree with the reason this was rejected, but at least some rules are being
put in place.

    http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=22411

           May 13 by erik88l-r (330 found)
          You can [delete] or [encrypt] this log entry.

          I'm sorry but we cannot post your cache.

          Locationless caches are always a gray area but Jeremy has asked
that we post only fixed objects - objects that a subsequent visitor would be
able to visit using the coords posted by the original finder. I realize that
with a stretch you could say that a ferry is generally at one of two
coordinates unless directly between the two, but the intent of the
restriction is to stop the flood of planes, trains, automobiles,
helicopters, boats, fire engines, and so on, and keep locationless caches to
places of a fixed historical or scenic nature.

          Regards,
          geocaching.com admin

Other related posts: