[GeoStL] Re: Additional Waypoints on Cache pages---Comments (probably controversial)
- From: Glenn <GLNash@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2006 18:07:49 -0500
-
There has not been a policy change with multi caches in years. What have
you heard in the way of new guidelines? Seems like I should know this
stuff before people actually placing caches.
I dont really do out of town multi aches for the same reason. We usually
want to get it fast and get going.
LGenn
Eric East wrote:
> -
> I love "local" multi caches, but seldom do them on the road because they
> take up too much time.
>
> With the new guide lines I can see potential problems. Not only may one
> entire park be locked up, but it's possible that mulitple parks could be
> shutdown because someone has a multi cache that is utilizing more than one
> park.
>
> Eric
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mike Lusicic" <lusicic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 9:29 AM
> Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Additional Waypoints on Cache pages---Comments
> (probably controversial)
>
>
>
>> -
>> I think you misunderstood Dan's "problem". He was worried about the fact
>> that if he DID place the proposed cache in the park, that his waypoints
>> wouldeffectively lock out the park to anyone else placing a cache. It was
>> notabout how close the waypoints were to each other, but rather that his
>> one
>> cache would lock out the largest park in Rolla to any other caches.
>> One of the other points you made about not encroaching on intermediate
>> waypoints was that the first guy in would get upset if the second guy
>> grabbedhis neat location. I am sorry, but if that is a factor, then the
>> rule
>> makers are as petty as those people. I might not want to run up and down
>> 20
>> miles of hills to do the original caches, but if the second guy in give me
>> a
>> mile caches, I may do that. So why should I be deprived of the great
>> waypointlocation because I choose not to do the original? Why should the
>> first guy in have exclusive rights to a view? If we advertise as one of
>> GC's
>> great points getting to places we would not normally go, then this defeats
>> that goal. If they are worried about someone stealing their spot, they
>> need
>> to get a life.
>>
>> If there are people that want to short cut a multi, so what? Let them log
>> it.There are plenty of ways to cheat the system. Look for a cache that
>> went
>> missing. Log it just before it went missing. No log. No proof you were or
>> were not there. It is an honor system, and some people have no honor.
>> Don't
>> handicap the people who do have honor with schemes that are not going to
>> stopthe cheaters.
>>
>> If we are getting saturated with caches, then it seems like multis are not
>> the best use of the available space. Locking out an entire park because of
>> one caches just doesn't seem right. One log and you are done. New cachers
>> don't get an opportunity to hide because the space is saturated, and that
>> discourages them because they cannot find a suitable location.
>>
>> I dunno...... Just doesn't "feel" right.
>>
>> Glenn wrote: - See, all fixed up. Another happy customer. :-) Tim and Pam
>> wrote: - First off I misunderstood the guide lines also. The way I
>> understoodit was all waypoints had to be at least .01 miles apart not
>> matter
>> if it was a multi or regular cache; sorry I didn't read it correctly.
>> Secondly what I was referring to where the series of caches that led you
>> to
>> afinal cache at the end. We have had a couple of those in St.Louis and I
>> think they are a good idea. Yes some of those caches took you to the back
>> of
>> a sign. Not much interest in that but the whole idea was to get you to the
>> final cache. Tim -----Original Message----- From:
>> geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx[1]
>> [mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx[2]] On Behalf Of Glenn Sent:
>> Friday,
>> September 01, 2006 8:05 AM To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx[3] Subject:
>> [GeoStL]
>> Re: Additional Waypoints on Cache pages---Comments (probably
>> controversial)
>> -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
>> inthe 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[4]
>> [mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx[5]] On Behalf Of Mike Griffin
>> Sent:
>> Friday, September 01, 2006 7:32 AM To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx[6]
>> 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[7] -----
>> Original Message ----- From: "Dan Henke" <thunder_monk@xxxxxxxxx>[8] To:
>> <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>[9] 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
>> tostraight 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
>> cachesin 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
>> longday 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>[10]
>> wrote: -
>> Of course not. I could not make available every waypoint of everybody's
>> multicaches. 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[11] Missouri Caches Scheduled to
>> be
>> Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw[12]
>> **************************************** For List Info or To make _ANY_
>> changes, including unsubscribing from this list, click ----->
>> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching[13] Missouri Caches Scheduled to
>> be
>> Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw[14] --------------------------------- 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[15] Missouri Caches Scheduled to
>> be
>> Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw[16]
>> **************************************** For List Info or To make _ANY_
>> changes, including unsubscribing from this list, click ----->
>> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching[17] Missouri Caches Scheduled to
>> be
>> Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw[18]
>> **************************************** For List Info or To make _ANY_
>> changes, including unsubscribing from this list, click ----->
>> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching[19] Missouri Caches Scheduled to
>> be
>> Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw[20]
>> **************************************** For List Info or To make _ANY_
>> changes, including unsubscribing from this list, click ----->
>> //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching[21] Missouri Caches Scheduled to
>> be
>> Archived http://tinyurl.com/87cqw[22]
>>
>> --- Links ---
>> 1 mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 2 mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 3 mailto:geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 4 mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 5 mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 6 mailto:geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 7 http://www.spamarrest.com/affl?4001050
>> 8 mailto:thunder_monk@xxxxxxxxx
>> 9 mailto:geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 10 mailto:GLNash@xxxxxxxxxx
>> 11 //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
>> 12 http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
>> 13 //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
>> 14 http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
>> 15 //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
>> 16 http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
>> 17 //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
>> 18 http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
>> 19 //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
>> 20 http://tinyurl.com/87cqw
>> 21 //www.freelists.org/list/geocaching
>> 22 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:
