[GeoStL] Re: Additional Waypoints on Cache pages---Comments (probably controversial)
- From: <joelk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2006 18:27:26 -0500
-
I'm in KC away from my computer and I've been telling my brother, Battleskunk,
about this email list I just discovered a week or so ago.
I found it through a link, but I can't seem to go to freelists.org and find
this list.
Can anyone help me?
---- Glenn <GLNash@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> -
> why do we want to do away with multi caches again? Because of Dan's
> misunderstanding of the guidelines? Oh yea so we can have multi
> caches where we can log each step. Neat idea. Use the signs, just sign
> your name on the back of the sign. (no don't do that one)
>
> Dan is fixed up, multi's are back in the game.
>
>
>
> Tim and Pam wrote:
> > -
> > Maybe do away with multi caches and instead set up a series so each WP is a
> > cache. That would rule out using signs etc... Because there would not be a
> > log book; unless a log book was hidden on or near the sign.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Griffin
> > Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 7:32 AM
> > To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Additional Waypoints on Cache pages---Comments
> > (probably controversial)
> >
> > -
> > Dan, I agree a lot with what you say.. I was going to start a cache at a
> > trailhead in Lost Valley but the starting WP is too close to another
> > starting point, which happens to be a small tag, so I couldn't do it. It
> > would have been 200 feet from that tag but, my starting point would have
> > been a micro. That bummed me out.
> >
> > On the other hand, It would be a nightmare for Glenn to try and keep up with
> >
> > WPs if they were a tag or a box or a sign, etc.... With the rule now, he can
> >
> > simply say it is too close regardless of what the WP is.
> >
> > Maybe they can introduce locationless, virtualized, WPs. Or... Better
> > yet.... Have a waymark that leads to a real cache?!?!?!
> > Could you do that and not follow the .10 rule? Hmmmm.... Possibilities...
> >
> >
> > Mike
> > "Guys, the red thingy is heading for the green thingy. I think we're the
> > green thingy."
> > - Guy, from Galaxy Quest...
> >
> > Tired of Spam??
> > Here's your solution..
> > See: http://www.spamarrest.com/affl?4001050
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Henke" <thunder_monk@xxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:48 PM
> > Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Additional Waypoints on Cache pages---Comments
> > (probably controversial)
> >
> >
> > -
> > I just can't help myself here ...I know that I will be opening another can
> > of worms and maybe start a firestorm discussion but hey the list has been
> > too quiet lately anyway .
> >
> > I also do NOT understand what is the big deal of keeping WPs which have
> > no intrinsic value other than a GoTO point in a multi to over .10
> > mile.....if a person wanted to place a multi with 5 WPs inside of a small
> > park just to give a tour of that park pr spme other special reason and then
> > place the cache somewhere else that DOES meet all cache guidelines or even
> > within the same park it SHOULD be allowed.....This is just one more example
> > of the powers that be at gc.com showing just how they can OVERLORD their
> > decisions over all the rest of us little peon cachers.
> >
> > You know I have a solution to this ...just have the higher ups declare
> > multi and puzzle caches to be no good like they did with virtuals and
> > locationless then there is no longer a problem. Let's go back to straight
> > traditional ONE stop caches and then there is no problem with getting too
> > close.
> >
> > I have been playing with an idea here in Rolla to introduce new and
> > experienced cachers to different types of Micros and the way they can be
> > hidden.....I was going to create a multicache with micros as the WPs and
> > then a final traditional cache at the end but with these rules I would be
> > taking up most of the park and not allowing anyone else access to this park
> > for the purpose of hiding a cache.....even though this park is one of the
> > largest in Rolla. That would suck so I am abandoning the idea ....it is just
> >
> > not worth the effort and I can get 4 or 5 traditional one stop caches in
> > there .....of course they will not teach anything and they will not
> > highlight anything except the fact that your numbers (which people claim
> > including the bigshots at gc.com don't really count for anything anyway) go
> > up 4 or 5 caches.
> >
> > I apologize to Glen for the ranting as I know he is not making these
> > decisions he is just carrying out the rules set down by others but I get so
> > tired of a wonderful hobby and sport being continuously ruined by these (my
> > opinion) idiotic rules and regulations.
> >
> > Sorry it has been a long day but this is just my humble opinion but I dare
> >
> > say it is shared by a LOT of the common everyday cachers out there who just
> > want to enjoy a fun pasttime without having to put up with a lot of crap.
> >
> > Dan (who probably should have went to bed an hour ago)
> >
> >
> > Glenn <GLNash@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > -
> > Of course not.
> > I could not make available every waypoint of everybody's multi caches.
> > The best thing to do is actually go find the nearby caches if you are
> > interested in placing a cache in a park.
> >
> >
> > glenn
> >
> > Kirk Yates wrote:
> >
> >> -
> >> Reply: Wednesday, August 30, 2006, 3:58:31 PM
> >>
> >> It is possible to get a file that has all the points that we need to
> >> stay .1 mile away from to see if there's an area we can place a cache?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -
> >>> EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT questions. Reading the guidelines for cache
> >>> saturation, it becomes almost clear.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> ****************************************
> >> For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this
> >> list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> >> Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > ****************************************
> > For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this
> > list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> > Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
> >
> >
> >
> > ****************************************
> > For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this
> > list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> > Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ****************************************
> > For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this
> > list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> > Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ****************************************
> For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this
> list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
> Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
****************************************
For List Info or To make _ANY_ changes, including unsubscribing from this
list, click -----> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
Missouri Caches Scheduled to be Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
Other related posts:
