Is it coming to this?

[tat]

May I ask, how will this make geocaching stronger?

I think the caches were archived because the hiders incorrectly assumed they had permission.

Removing caches that do not have landowner permission shows everyone that Geocaching.com (and Geocachers) are responsible and will react positively when problems arise. I'm sure cachers in this area will be more careful about getting permission, and that will make geocaching stronger. I also hope the local government will realize they can work with us.

[Trezurs*-R-*Fun]

I think the caches were archived because the hiders incorrectly assumed they had permission.

Removing caches that do not have landowner permission shows everyone that Geocaching.com (and Geocachers) are responsible and will react positively when problems arise. I'm sure cachers in this area will be more careful about getting permission, and that will make geocaching stronger. I also hope the local government will realize they can work with us.

I sure hope you're correct. Like you, I believe it will be in our best interest as geocachers to work together to improve the sport. To bad this incident had to be a 'reactive' approach versus a 'proactive'. I understand that sometimes you can't avoid being reactive as its hard to predict what may happen but in the case of getting permission there really are few excuses.

I hope, as you have stated, that it proves that we as a geocaching community do care and maybe it will lead to some more proactive and insightful ideas to preserve geocaching as a whole.


Cache On!!!

[Zoltarus]

LOL! I don't know you, but you probably LOOK suspicious! (You're not Black, are you? ) (New profiling method: caching while Black! LOL!)

I'm not quite sure how to read this statement or what the intent is. . . .

I am suspicious. . . how can I be sure I can trust you?

[WhereRWe?]

I'm not quite sure how to read this statement or what the intent is. . . .

Read the part I quoted - where it says "color=black" LOL!

[firefighterjake]

Read the part I quoted - where it says "color=black" LOL!

At first read I thought it was a semi-racist comment . . . which confused me since I'm pretty sure you're a good and decent person. I understand the intent of the comment now.

[WhereRWe?]

At first read I thought it was a semi-racist comment . . . which confused me since I'm pretty sure you're a good and decent person.

Sheesh! A nice, harmless, loveable little fuzzball like me?

[WhereRWe?]

I think the caches were archived because the hiders incorrectly assumed they had permission.

Removing caches that do not have landowner permission shows everyone that Geocaching.com (and Geocachers) are responsible and will react positively when problems arise. I'm sure cachers in this area will be more careful about getting permission, and that will make geocaching stronger. I also hope the local government will realize they can work with us.

I remember the "old days", when you were out caching in the woods, along a nice trail, and the most obvious question from a passer-by would be "Are you lost?" or "did you lose something"? LOL!

Now the question in "urban caching" seems to be (when observed lurking around guard rails, parking lot light posts, and stop signs) : "What area you doing there?"

Sheesh!

[AnglzOfMyHrt]

I believe that the caches with the toys are the funnest because of the intrigue of what might be in it. I don't like looking for micros. The kids remain interested longer when we go for the buckets to trade. It makes it more of a family experience, and gets them away from the tv. That is why I am in it and not for the numbers. I really hope that our future brightens this sport not darkens it. I don't mind the cemetary ones either as long as it shows respect, and there is something to learn or it is dedicated to someone there. I have learned about unknown confederate soldier in the next town over from me because of a cache. So if done correctly it is ok. These are just my thoughts.

[ArthurMorrissey]

This is such an important topic - thanks for all the thoughtfulness in the various responses. As one who owns no caches but who has visited about 130+ I see this sport as mostly about quality of place: I like to be surprised, astonished and delighted by the places I visit while caching. I like to see wildlife, I like interesting and creative hides, I like the sense of connection with an unknown fellow traveler that comes from finding a cache.

True there are times when I have nabbed a micro in a guardrail simply to be able to log a find in a new state or when I have been en route somewhere else, but that's not why I do it (hence, I suppose, my relatively low number of finds over the years).

My opinion is that micros work well when they are part of a grand scheme - say the wonderful Snow White and the Seven Dwarves series in Falmouth -- and there are times when they make sense, but so many of the urban micros seem to be more or less pointless.

I also share the opinions of several posters who indicate how they feel uncomfortable in some circumstances slinking around and looking suspicious. I have no desire to get acquainted with the cops doing this sport.


So here's a vote for quality over quantity! Thanks for the posts!

[Haffy]

Glad my thread was brought up again as it brings up the subject once again of getting permission. Just recently I emailed the owner of a cache who put one out where in the past they weren't allowed by the Fish and Wildlife department. I realize sometimes we have all put out caches at one time or another where we thought just because it is public domain it is Ok to put one out. In this particular instance a previous cache had been put out and the FWD found out about it and had it archived by the reviewer. Not too long after that cache was archived another cacher put one out and I emailed that owner and informed them that another cache at that spot had been archived and they removed it before it even had one find. This being the 3rd cache and the new owner not knowing that 2 previous caches had been archived I emailed them and told them about the rules regarding this particular spot being off limits to caching. They in turn disabled the cache. I wasn't trying to be the cache police but we have to remember that we are supposed to be respresenting geocaching at it's best and to make sure that we are following our own mission statement here at GM.org. The owner understood and now they will think twice and make sure it is ok before placing another cache.