[GeoStL] Re: Additional Waypoints on Cache pages---Comments (probably controversial)
- From: Glenn <GLNash@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 08:32:44 -0500
-
See, all fixed up. Another happy customer. :-)
Tim and Pam wrote:
> -
> First off I misunderstood the guide lines also. The way I understood it 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 a final 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
> [mailto:geocaching-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Glenn
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 8:05 AM
> To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 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 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:
