[GeoStL] Re: Extreme Geocaching
- From: "RNX" <_rnx_@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:36:29 -0400
-
thanks for the clarification 8^)
------ Original Message ------
Received: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 07:15:49 PM EDT
From: Glenn <GLNash@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Extreme Geocaching
-
That is generally the case. To trespassing signs are generally the kiss
of death but sometimes they are old signs. RGS and I had permission to
place caches on the old Packwood estate. The No Trespassing signs were
old ones and we had permission to ignore them. In this case, the land
now belongs to the DNR and the old signs are no longer valid and the
geocachers have permission to be there.
If you were to place a cache out in the woods someplace that looked like
the back end of a county park and we came across a row of NO
TRESSPASSING signs that no one knew about, you as the cache owner
didn't know about but we still had to pass to get to your cache, I would
say that the cache would be put on hold or archived until the sign
issue could be sorted out.
Glenn
RNX wrote:
> -
> what about the "ignore the no trespassing signs". I thought that was the
kiss
> of death in a cache submission. I know the cache owner states that the no
> trespassing signs are not legit but i seem to remember reading somewhere
that
> Groundspeak does not/will not be part of that debate and issued a blanket
> prohibition on any cache with such a note. But then again, Glenn lives,
> breathes, and drips geocaching so he would know better than I.
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> Received: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:21:00 PM EDT
> From: Glenn <GLNash@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: geocaching@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [GeoStL] Re: Extreme Geocaching
>
> -
> I didn't see a problem with it.
>
> It looks involved, long, tough and possibly dangerous but there are
> plenty of safety warnings. No one will take on this cache for an easy
> afternoon outing.
>
> It is for the hardy soles out there.
>
> glenn
>
>
>
>
> Jack Konecker wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/fjwm4
>>
>> This is a link to a 'Subscriber Only'
>> cache. You will need to be a premium
>> Geocaching.com member in order to
>> see the cache page.
>>
>> Hope to never see one of
>> these in St. Louis. Not sure
>> why someone would go through
>> the trouble or how groundspeak
>> would let one of these get
>> approved.
>>
>>
>> *Psycho Urban Cache #9 - Hot Glowing Tribulations
>> A cache by Vinny & Sue Team
>>
>>
>
<http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=4c01eb97-9ee4-4b48-9674-54cdec26c777&wid=deb1fe4c-1f5f-4529-a986-c332841529da&ds=2>*
>
>> *Hidden:* 2/4/2006
>> *Size: * (Regular)
>> *Difficulty:* ******* *Terrain:* *******
>> This is a subscriber-only cache.
>>
>> DANGER! You MUST read
>> warnings/disclaimer and advisories
>> below! Do NOT attempt this cache
>> if you are not in excellent physical
>> shape, if you're afraid of getting wet,
>> dirty, darkness, or afraid of heights,
>> radiation, toxic chemical waste, asbestos,
>> confined spaces, spiders, snakes, rats,
>> mud, odors, pain or blood. Sophisticated
>> safety gear will be needed.
>>
>>
****************************************
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:
