To ban or not to ban LPC's

[+Team GeoBlast]

Pleeeeeez don't make me dig... What dangers are their with asking for permission to place an LPC?

 

I've got one.

 

Let's say someone approached a high level manager at Walmart and asked for permission to lift up a light pole skirt and hide something under it for others to find. Given that it is clearly spelled out behind the little box you check, isn't it logical to assume that someone has actually done this before?

 

That manager has the foresight to go one step further after telling the person he was nuts. He goes to the GC.com website and punches in the zip code of every Walmart in America. They decide they have a very big problem.

I missed this the first time I read through. So now Wal-Mart managers, who have never played the game before, and get to the website for the first time, are able to easily figure out which caches are Wal-Mart LPCs, but nobody else (except maybe reporters) can do that to avoid them? Seriously, where are these hidden filters?

 

Big enough to file suit against GC.com, shutting down the site completely until they work things out in court.

Why would someone sue the site? The site didn't place them, the site clearly has enough CYA notes on their submission form to keep from being responsible if your cache causes trouble. This is most definitely a straw man unlike any other.

 

Meanwhile, the game dies without a home.

No, one of the other sites would gain popularity IF this happened, but it won't.

 

Far fetched? I'd be interested in hearing why you think so.

Very. Read above.

 

You know.. you act and feel a lot someone else I've encountered in this thread earlier. Hmmm.

 

I'm of the opinion that geocaching doesn't operate in a vacuum that the notion that a Walmart manager a) might have some knowledge of the game or figure out how to search for a cache on the website is completely within reason. Sorry you feel that is so far fetched.

 

I'm also related to several lawyers and I had asked this very question of two of them. They said that is exactly what they would do (name GC.com in a suit) if they were retained by Walmart and that getting an injunction would be very easy if evidence exists that the approval of caches on their property was being granted without due diligence being perform is established as a pattern. Do you think any decent lawyer would have trouble finding the GC.com website and finding evidence that suggests a pattern of not doing due diligence? Taking someone's word that they have obtained permission does not qualify, I already asked that question too.

 

Even if the lawsuit was unsuccessful, shutting down the website (both said this would be easy) for any extended period of time would a serious setback, right? Perhaps something to avoid?

 

As I told the person that acted like you earlier in the thread, please do not attack me for having an opinion because it is only that, an opinion. I think the danger of it occurring is real enough to do more than they are.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+Too Tall John]

I honestly don't think anyone is actually arguing that LPCs should be banned. I don't.

There are some that have said they want them banned. Just read this thread, you'll find them.

True, sorry. Recently. I still don't think they should be, though.

[Mushtang]

You know.. you act and feel a lot someone else I encountered in this thread earlier. Hmmm.

I'm sorry you seem to think that this is a bad thing. If it's who I think it is (and I'm not sure why you're unwilling to say), then I take it as a compliment.

 

Thanks.

 

I'm of the opinion that geocaching doesn't operate in a vacuum that the notion that a Walmart manager could a) not have some knowledge of the game or figure out how to search for a cache on the website is completely within reason. Sorry you feel that is so far fetched.

My intent was not to suggest that it's farfetched to believe someone could find them. I believe the opposite. I was referring to the fact that quite a lot of people that enjoy finding LPCs usually tell people that don't like them to just not hunt them. The anti-LPC crowd almost always comes back with the argument that it's impossible to filter them out so they can avoid them.

 

I'm also related to several lawyers and I had asked this very question of two of them. They said that is exactly what they would do (name GC.com in a suit) if they were retained by Walmart and that getting an injunction would be very easy if evidence exists that the approval of caches on their property without due diligence can be established as a pattern. Do you think any decent lawyer would have trouble finding the GC.com website and finding evidence that suggests a pattern of not doing due diligence.

I'm not related to any lawyers, don't know any, and have never talked to one about this subject. I'm just guessing that the site has done their homework and have hired lawyers of their own to make sure they're not going to be held responsible for anything that a hider sneaks past the review process. That would include a LPC placed without permission of Wal-Mart as well as a cache designed to injure someone.

 

Even if the lawsuit was unsuccessful, shutting down the website for any extended period of time would a serious setback, right?

I don't understand why the web site would have to shut down if they're sued. People sue the Coca-cola company every day for stuff they find in bottles, but they get to keep making Coke during the process.

 

As I told the person that acted like you earlier in the thread, please do not attack my opinion because it is only that. I never said either scenario was going to happen but I think the danger of it occuring is real enough to do more than they are.

I apologize if anything sounded like an attack. I was replying to your opinions with my own.

[+Team GeoBlast]

You know.. you act and feel a lot someone else I encountered in this thread earlier. Hmmm.

I'm sorry you seem to think that this is a bad thing. If it's who I think it is (and I'm not sure why you're unwilling to say), then I take it as a compliment.

 

Thanks.

 

I'm of the opinion that geocaching doesn't operate in a vacuum that the notion that a Walmart manager could a) not have some knowledge of the game or figure out how to search for a cache on the website is completely within reason. Sorry you feel that is so far fetched.

My intent was not to suggest that it's farfetched to believe someone could find them. I believe the opposite. I was referring to the fact that quite a lot of people that enjoy finding LPCs usually tell people that don't like them to just not hunt them. The anti-LPC crowd almost always comes back with the argument that it's impossible to filter them out so they can avoid them.

 

I'm also related to several lawyers and I had asked this very question of two of them. They said that is exactly what they would do (name GC.com in a suit) if they were retained by Walmart and that getting an injunction would be very easy if evidence exists that the approval of caches on their property without due diligence can be established as a pattern. Do you think any decent lawyer would have trouble finding the GC.com website and finding evidence that suggests a pattern of not doing due diligence.

I'm not related to any lawyers, don't know any, and have never talked to one about this subject. I'm just guessing that the site has done their homework and have hired lawyers of their own to make sure they're not going to be held responsible for anything that a hider sneaks past the review process. That would include a LPC placed without permission of Wal-Mart as well as a cache designed to injure someone.

 

Even if the lawsuit was unsuccessful, shutting down the website for any extended period of time would a serious setback, right?

I don't understand why the web site would have to shut down if they're sued. People sue the Coca-cola company every day for stuff they find in bottles, but they get to keep making Coke during the process.

 

As I told the person that acted like you earlier in the thread, please do not attack my opinion because it is only that. I never said either scenario was going to happen but I think the danger of it occuring is real enough to do more than they are.

I apologize if anything sounded like an attack. I was replying to your opinions with my own.

 

Thanks, I appreciate the constructive approach, it feels like more like a conversation now.

 

I don't think we are that far apart on some parts of this. I certainly agree that LPCs and PLCs are here to stay and if you don't have a strategy for dealing with them (finding or avoiding them depending on your preference) you probably would enjoy the game more if you did.

 

Even if I supported banning them, which I don't, I honestly don't see how they could approach that without really messing things up or banning micros all together. I would absolutely hate to see that happen.

 

I don't even think things are -that- far out of control in most dense urban areas currently but by listening to some, it looks like red flags are starting to pop up. My main concern is the current rate of growth of the game and what geocaching is going be like in 5 years if things keep going at this rate. At some point the critical mass makes some of the wild scenarios that I suggested become more probable.

 

I support controlling the growth of LPCs, PLCs, and all urban hides better so things don't reach critical mass sometime in the future. If we can accept the broad stroke of outlawing cache placements in National Parks, we certainly can look at Walmart, K-Mart, Target and places like this before they start looking at us.

[Mushtang]

I support controlling the growth of LPCs, PLCs, and all urban hides better so things don't reach critical mass sometime in the future. If we can accept the broad stroke of outlawing cache placements in National Parks, we certainly can look at Walmart, K-Mart, Target and places like this before they start looking at us.

How would you control the growth of LPCs placed at specific places, without banning them in these places? Why ban something that hasn't been a problem?

 

The national parks came to gc.com and asked them to quit allowing caches there. Has Walmart?

 

People also said similar stuff about the popular Off Your Rocker series that are placed at Cracker Barrel restaurants. The issue made it pretty high in the Cracker Barrel management chain and they gave us an official "knock yourself out" policy. They realized it was good for business.

 

My guess is that if it ever gets that far along, Walmart will do the same.

[+sbell111]

Yes, it is perfectly legal to get out of a car at Wal-Mart. Hiding things on Wal-Mart property, however is illegal without permission.

Please point me to your legal referrence that states this.

2. It is in the guidelines.

No, it isn't.

"By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location." How does this part of the guidelines not say you need permission?

I highlighted the word you keep missing, even though you previously defined it for me.

 

1. LPCs are bad because they encourage finders to take the access plate off of the lamp post and risk serious injury or cause damage to property.

Everyone know you just lift up the skirt, and grab the cache. If the cache isn't under the skirt, look for a magnetic container on the lamp post. (It may be disguised to look like the access plate ) Don't take apart electrical equipment or damage property. Plain and simple.

Generally I agree with what you say here, just a reminder that not everyone's seen a LPC before, so not everyone does know you just lift the skirt; and even if someone has, they may not use common sense. Despite the name, it isn't common.

Unfortunately, we can't protect the world against stupidity. I do believe that it is extremely rare for someone to purposely damage a light pole. Also, finders who do damage are not restricted to LPCs. In fact, I suspect that the most damage is done to in-the-bush hide styles.

 

... As far as liability concerns, the Big Box stores are all concerned about any activity not sponsored by the store taking place on their property, partly for liability, but also because it sets a precedent that may allow unions to hold rallies on their property. Sounds ridiculous, but when I was a manager for Wal-Mart they sent me to enough "Union Awareness" workshops that I know how they'd think about this.

Your right. It does sound ridiculous. I guess that's why Wal-Mart doesn't let you park your camper overnight in their lots. Oops, my mistake. They do allow that activity. They also allow youth groups to sell cookies, decorate pumpkins, wrap Christmas Holiday gifts, etc.

 

I honestly don't think anyone is actually arguing that LPCs should be banned. I don't. ...

This thread is about whether LPCs should be banned. You've been arguing the pro side of the argument for days.

[Clan Riffster]

When the reporter breaks the "story" they're going to write about reporters no longer standing for truth and justice and now only writing stories to sell papers? I'm not sure how that will hurt geocaching.

I think you missed my point. (BTW, I tend to agree with you)

The hypothetical scenario I was referring to was in regard to reporters twisting the truth to suit their own purpose, and I was pointing out that this is not only possible, but is an almost everyday occurrence. Will reporters ever target caching for their mythical ramblings? Probably not. Could they? Most definitely. Consider these two scenarios:

 

1 ) A US political figure addressed Congress, asking that they take a particular course of action. A reporter for the Wall Street Journal took one sentence from that speech, deliberately erased 5 words from that sentence, utterly changing it's context, then posted a headline declaring, "So & So Lied!". The fact that this political leader did not lie instantly became irrelevant, and with enough repetition, some folks, even those who can read above a 3rd grade level, began believing it. That headline has become one of the most popular bumper stickers for that politicians detractors.

In this instance, the reporter acted with malice, for the purpose of influencing political power and for self promotion.

 

2 ) At a local law enforcement agency's correctional facility, an armorer was attempting to repair the firing block & extractor of a department handgun. During this repair attempt, the firearm discharged. The armorer recognized the possibility that the gun would fire, so he aimed it in a safe direction. No one was affected by the spent round. A citizen heard the shot and called in a complaint, and a reporter heard the complaint broadcast. The reporter queried the agency, and they gave him a cold shoulder. This reporter wrote a headline declaring, "Gun fire at the jail! Who were they shooting at?", followed by 5 paragraphs of speculation.

In this instance, the reporter acted with malice because he got his feelings hurt.

 

Neither of these instances is particularly germane to the issue other than to point out that reporters can, and will, deliberately misrepresent the truth just to sell a story. At this point, the issue changes from "Could they?" to "Would they?" Personally, I don't think so.

 

That would have to be one horrifically slow news day.

Amen to that, Brother!

[+AZBuckeye04]

I support controlling the growth of LPCs, PLCs, and all urban hides better so things don't reach critical mass sometime in the future. If we can accept the broad stroke of outlawing cache placements in National Parks, we certainly can look at Walmart, K-Mart, Target and places like this before they start looking at us.

How would you control the growth of LPCs placed at specific places, without banning them in these places? Why ban something that hasn't been a problem?

 

The national parks came to gc.com and asked them to quit allowing caches there. Has Walmart?

 

People also said similar stuff about the popular Off Your Rocker series that are placed at Cracker Barrel restaurants. The issue made it pretty high in the Cracker Barrel management chain and they gave us an official "knock yourself out" policy. They realized it was good for business.

 

My guess is that if it ever gets that far along, Walmart will do the same.

I'm not sure that it ever really was an issue with the Cracker Barrel (CB) management. Obviously it was an issue with some on the forums but it is my understanding that CB found out about the series from a well-minded cacher that was seeking approval prior to placing his/her own OYR cache. I haven't determined exactly who that cacher was (not that it would really matter) but I know my father (also a cacher and owner of a few OYR caches) has spoken with the Head of Advertising at CB a couple of times and he has been very welcoming of these caches as long as they are placed in good taste (i.e. family friendly) and meet the guidelines set in place by gc.com. I've actually contacted a few cachers that own OYR caches to make them aware of this and to hopefully get them to add a note to their cache pages mentioning the level of permission. So far it has been well received and I've even found out that at some locations the CB store manager keeps an eye on the cache for the owner.

 

So you see, it doesn't have to be this big negative thing and I really don't think we need to be trying to keep it secret from big companies such as Wal-Mart (which I highly doubt it is). All it takes is a good representative of geocaching to spark up the right relationship with someone at the WM corporate offices and this could all be settled.

 

Personally, I'm not a fan of caches hidden at Wal-Mart or the like. Will I still attempt some of these caches if I find myself at one? Sometimes, it really depends on how safe I feel hunting for it. Would I miss them if they were gone? No.

 

However, I would rather have Wal-Mart's approval and have twice as many of these caches (which as stated above I'm not a big fan of) than for us to continue placing them without approval and running the risk of causing a big stir.

Along with that I would also rather have Wal-Mart's complete disapproval and have all of them archived than to continue as we are.

 

Jared

[+tozainamboku]

I think it'd occur to some reporter "Boy! Let's see if I can start another 'Boston' incident! That'd get my name on the front page! Oh? This is a nation wide activity! I'll be coast to coast!" All it takes is one rabid reporter. And the article won't be on national security, it'll be simply on the merits of legality.

Great, maybe I can get the reporter to to do an exposé on all the people who leave flyers on my car windshield when I leave it in a parking lot. I didn't give them permission to put thing on my car. I doubt they got permission from the store (BTW, who gave the store the right to leave things on my car just because I used their parking lot). I guess if the flyer was for a union rally, Wal*Mart would send their associates out to take the flyers off my car. I wonder if they would remove my pro-union bumper sticker too?

 

Sure a reporter could write about all the caches placed without permission. You man find there are a lot of caches placed in parking lots with permission. Perhaps a minority get permission. The reporter would be embarassed if he posted an example with first checking if the cache had permission. Or perhaps he'll report on some cache and the corporate office will issue a statement that they are aware of caches being placed at their stores but since geocaching is a fun family game and since they sell batteries, cheap toys, and GPS receivers to geocachers, they are not too concerned about it - although geocachers should check with the store manager before placing the cache. Even if the reporter did his work and only gave examples of cache placed without permission where the company wants to have these caches removed, the public will mostly see geocaching as a harmless game (perhaps even know someone who is a geocacher) and wonder why anyone would get so uptight about a film can hidden in a lamp post.

 

I all see here are a bunch of Chicken Littles who see a few places where caches have caused incidents and imagine that the geocaching world is crashing around them. And then they call for a ban certain kinds of caches that are not even the most likely to cause the problems. Again, if the problems are real, changes could be made in the guidelines. Reviewers could ask for the name and phone of the person who gave explicit permission when they see a parking lot cache. If Wal*Mart sends Geocaching.com a letter demanding that all caches be removed from Wal*Mart property, you can bet that they will all be archived within a few days. The very few incidents we see and the way they have been resolved to date doesn't require a change yet.

[+sbell111]

[+TrailGators]

Funny cartoon.

[+Moose Mob]

That was the most interesting thing I have seen in the past several pages.

[+TrailGators]

That one kind of reminds me of this one.....

 

Edit: Don't look if you are a Democrat.....(It's just a joke!)

Edited February 22, 2007 by TrailGators

[+sbell111]

<snip>

 

That one kind of reminds me of this one.....

 

Edit: BTW I'm not implying that anybody in this thread is a whiner by posting this. I just thought it was funny...

Of course, you just insulted half the players of this game.

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

That one kind of reminds me of this one.....

 

Edit: BTW I'm not implying that anybody in this thread is a whiner by posting this. I just thought it was funny...

Of course, you just insulted half the players of this game.

It's was a joke just like yours..... I guess I can edit it out if it is too over the top..... Edited February 22, 2007 by TrailGators

[+tozainamboku]

<snip>

 

That one kind of reminds me of this one.....

 

Edit: BTW I'm not implying that anybody in this thread is a whiner by posting this. I just thought it was funny...

Of course, you just insulted half the players of this game.

Not entirely. That picture is obviously prior to the last election. At least it doesn't say "Democrat Party"

[+sbell111]

[+TrailGators]

OK, I made it into a link instead so it is less overt.

[+TrailGators]

<snip>

 

That one kind of reminds me of this one.....

 

Edit: BTW I'm not implying that anybody in this thread is a whiner by posting this. I just thought it was funny...

Of course, you just insulted half the players of this game.

I am hoping that it is a lot less than half!

[+sbell111]

<snip>

 

That one kind of reminds me of this one.....

 

Edit: BTW I'm not implying that anybody in this thread is a whiner by posting this. I just thought it was funny...

Of course, you just insulted half the players of this game.

I am hoping that it is a lot less than half!

According to the last election, it's somewhat more than half.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I all see here are a bunch of Chicken Littles who see a few places where caches have caused incidents and imagine that the geocaching world is crashing around them. And then they call for a ban certain kinds of caches that are not even the most likely to cause the problems. Again, if the problems are real, changes could be made in the guidelines. Reviewers could ask for the name and phone of the person who gave explicit permission when they see a parking lot cache. If Wal*Mart sends Geocaching.com a letter demanding that all caches be removed from Wal*Mart property, you can bet that they will all be archived within a few days. The very few incidents we see and the way they have been resolved to date doesn't require a change yet.

 

I suppose that doing nothing is an option. Mostly because, well, that is what is being done currently and nothing horrible has happened yet. Well, maybe, a few things that were kinda horrible have gone down but nothing truly catastrophic. So we're fine right? I am willing to accept the stated reality that -today- we are in fact fine. I also accept that geocaching is like any other activity enjoyed by the masses, anyone who thinks ahead of today runs the risk of earning themselves a Chicken Little badge pinned on them by those focused on the current state of affairs. As for me personally, I will wear that badge proudly as it is how I treat things that I care about. Only time will tell if it was wasted energy or not.

 

From where I sit, I see a game that got really popular, really fast. There's no blueprint for what is happening right now and it's obvious that the current GC.com model supports exponential uncontrolled growth. This suggests to me to that looking closely at some of the current trends of today (proliferation of urban hides in this case) and where they are leading us is a prudent thing to do. I do not think GC.com is doing this and I think there's some people in this forum that don't care to look past their own little caching circle and tend to get a little irritated when someone attempts to. I'm truly sorry for that. (making chicken noises)

 

The combination of this narrow thinking and the GC.com folks focusing all available resources on more pressing problems such as rewriting the hobby code that their website is running on suggests that there is a lot of balls up in the air and we don't have our eye on all of them. (Polishing my CL badge) It's my opinion that the long term ramifications of where things are headed are not getting enough attention because we are in fact, okay today. The focus remains narrow from players and TPTB. I just hope the game doesn't get away from them, or us.

[+Moose Mob]

Can we bring this back to talking about political affiliations? It was a lot more fun.

[+Team GeoBlast]

I support controlling the growth of LPCs, PLCs, and all urban hides better so things don't reach critical mass sometime in the future. If we can accept the broad stroke of outlawing cache placements in National Parks, we certainly can look at Walmart, K-Mart, Target and places like this before they start looking at us.

How would you control the growth of LPCs placed at specific places, without banning them in these places? Why ban something that hasn't been a problem?

 

The national parks came to gc.com and asked them to quit allowing caches there. Has Walmart?

 

People also said similar stuff about the popular Off Your Rocker series that are placed at Cracker Barrel restaurants. The issue made it pretty high in the Cracker Barrel management chain and they gave us an official "knock yourself out" policy. They realized it was good for business.

 

My guess is that if it ever gets that far along, Walmart will do the same.

 

I'd support forcing urban hiders to think outside of The Box before they ask us to get out.

 

By not allowing caches to be placed in National Parks, they have controlled the growth in wilderness areas and it would do the same for urban areas if this was mandated. If you took away the option of hiding a cache in a Walmart, Home Depot, K-Mart parking lot ect, that is going to slow things down, but not stop the hides in urban environments. To make it simple, they could even grandfather the millions of caches already hidden in these places.

 

Yes, it's another rule to follow and goodness knows we have enough of those. But do you think anyone is -really- going to miss seeing another Big Box hide pop up?

[+tozainamboku]

Can we bring this back to talking about political affiliations? It was a lot more fun.

I can't believe a moderator said this.

[+tozainamboku]

I'd support forcing urban hiders to think outside of The Box before they ask us to get out.

 

By not allowing caches to be placed in National Parks, they have controlled the growth in wilderness areas and it would do the same for urban areas if this was mandated. If you took away the option of hiding a cache in a Walmart, Home Depot, K-Mart parking lot ect, that is going to slow things down, but not stop the hides in urban environments. To make it simple, they could even grandfather the millions of caches already hidden in these places.

 

Yes, it's another rule to follow and goodness knows we have enough of those. But do you think anyone is -really- going to miss seeing another Big Box hide pop up?

You can bet that plenty of people would miss seeing another big box hide. These are very popular for a reason. They are easy to hide, easy to find, and give an opportunity to find a cache when going out on an otherwise mundane shopping trip. Or for the numbers cachers these provide a way to plan a trip through town to find 100 caches in one day. Maybe I should take back the Chicken Little comment. What we have here is a Blind Man and the Elephant. The elephant is geocaching. The blind man sees geocaching as whatever kinds of cache he likes to find. Caches that someone else likes to find are threatening his geocaching experience. Especially since he is blind. With all those caches at the wrong end of the elephant, he finds he accidently grabs the wrong part from time to time. And so he wants to ban that part of the elephant. Just accept that there are some people who like to find LPCs.

[Mushtang]

I support controlling the growth of LPCs, PLCs, and all urban hides better so things don't reach critical mass sometime in the future. If we can accept the broad stroke of outlawing cache placements in National Parks, we certainly can look at Walmart, K-Mart, Target and places like this before they start looking at us.

How would you control the growth of LPCs placed at specific places, without banning them in these places? Why ban something that hasn't been a problem?

 

The national parks came to gc.com and asked them to quit allowing caches there. Has Walmart?

 

People also said similar stuff about the popular Off Your Rocker series that are placed at Cracker Barrel restaurants. The issue made it pretty high in the Cracker Barrel management chain and they gave us an official "knock yourself out" policy. They realized it was good for business.

 

My guess is that if it ever gets that far along, Walmart will do the same.

 

I'd support forcing urban hiders to think outside of The Box before they ask us to get out.

It's been hashed out in this thread, and many others like it. You can't force people to only hide creative caches. It's a subjective term. A cache that you read about and roll your eyes may really excite someone else. All you can do is enforce the listing guidelines and publish all the caches that meet them (which is what they're doing now).

 

By not allowing caches to be placed in National Parks, they have controlled the growth in wilderness areas and it would do the same for urban areas if this was mandated.

The growth of caches in placed in woods outside of national parks has been reduced because of the ban in national parks? Can you provide data for this? I find it hard to believe. if anything the growth in wilderness areas has gone up due to the increased popularity of the game.

 

If you took away the option of hiding a cache in a Walmart, Home Depot, K-Mart parking lot ect, that is going to slow things down, but not stop the hides in urban environments.

It will only slow the growth of caches in those parking lots, but seriously increase the caches in other parking lots.

 

To make it simple, they could even grandfather the millions of caches already hidden in these places.

I'm starting to doubt your research. There are NOT millions of caches total, much less millions of caches in parking lots.

 

Yes, it's another rule to follow and goodness knows we have enough of those. But do you think anyone is -really- going to miss seeing another Big Box hide pop up?

I will! And I do think that a lot of other people will too. I like them. I don't think they're the best kinds of caches, nor do I think that they're very far from the bottom as far as entertainment value, but they're definitely above zero.

 

When I travel, I always try and find caches near wherever I'm staying. A lot of the time I'll walk a few miles to get to the only one available, the next closest may be much farther than I can safely walk to (especially if I'm going at night after my work is finished). I'm VERY grateful when I find a cache on one of these walks, even if it's just a LPC or PLC.

 

If I got to choose I'd definitely prefer a different kind of cache to find, but if the choice is LPC or no cache at all, I'll happily take the LPC.

 

This isn't the way everyone sees it, I know that. It's certainly not the way you see it since you're calling for LPCs to be banned. But I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way.

[Mushtang]

I'd support forcing urban hiders to think outside of The Box before they ask us to get out.

 

By not allowing caches to be placed in National Parks, they have controlled the growth in wilderness areas and it would do the same for urban areas if this was mandated. If you took away the option of hiding a cache in a Walmart, Home Depot, K-Mart parking lot ect, that is going to slow things down, but not stop the hides in urban environments. To make it simple, they could even grandfather the millions of caches already hidden in these places.

 

Yes, it's another rule to follow and goodness knows we have enough of those. But do you think anyone is -really- going to miss seeing another Big Box hide pop up?

You can bet that plenty of people would miss seeing another big box hide. These are very popular for a reason. They are easy to hide, easy to find, and give an opportunity to find a cache when going out on an otherwise mundane shopping trip. Or for the numbers cachers these provide a way to plan a trip through town to find 100 caches in one day. Maybe I should take back the Chicken Little comment. What we have here is a Blind Man and the Elephant. The elephant is geocaching. The blind man sees geocaching as whatever kinds of cache he likes to find. Caches that someone else likes to find are threatening his geocaching experience. Especially since he is blind. With all those caches at the wrong end of the elephant, he finds he accidently grabs the wrong part from time to time. And so he wants to ban that part of the elephant. Just accept that there are some people who like to find LPCs.

I agree with Mr. T!!!

 

I pity the fool that grabs the wrong part of an elephant.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Mushtang

[+baloo&bd]

<snip>

 

That one kind of reminds me of this one.....

 

Edit: BTW I'm not implying that anybody in this thread is a whiner by posting this. I just thought it was funny...

Of course, you just insulted half the players of this game.

I am hoping that it is a lot less than half!

According to the last election, it's somewhat more than half.

 

Actually, the last 4 but then again, who's counting.

[+TrailGators]

<snip>That one kind of reminds me of this one..... Edit: BTW I'm not implying that anybody in this thread is a whiner by posting this. I just thought it was funny...

Of course, you just insulted half the players of this game.

I am hoping that it is a lot less than half!

According to the last election, it's somewhat more than half.

Actually, the last 4 but then again, who's counting.

It doesn't matter because whoever is in office gets ripped to shreds. It's the American way. It's really too bad because the smartest people are smart enough not to run because what smart person would volunteer to get ripped to shreds? It really seems like we have an instinct to be divided unless something horrible happens and then we unite. We are a bipolar society. Why is that? Why can't we be united all the time? I blame the media!

[+AZBuckeye04]

It doesn't matter because whoever is in office gets ripped to shreds. It's the American way. It's really too bad because the smartest people are smart enough not to run because what smart person would volunteer to get ripped to shreds? It really seems like we have an instinct to be divided unless something horrible happens and then we unite. We are a bipolar society. Why is that? Why can't we be united all the time? I blame the media!

 

Yeah, Canada doesn't have that problem! Wait, does Canada still exist? *Opens the attic of the United States and peers inside* Ahh yes, there they are. Such a quiet nation, you wouldn't even know they were there if you didn't go up every now and then. Why can't we be quiet?

[+TrailGators]

Can we bring this back to talking about political affiliations? It was a lot more fun.

I can't believe a moderator said this.

Why? Moderators are people with opinions too!

[+sbell111]

<snip>That one kind of reminds me of this one..... Edit: BTW I'm not implying that anybody in this thread is a whiner by posting this. I just thought it was funny...

Of course, you just insulted half the players of this game.

I am hoping that it is a lot less than half!

According to the last election, it's somewhat more than half.

Actually, the last 4 but then again, who's counting.

It doesn't matter because whoever is in office gets ripped to shreds. It's the American way. It's really too bad because the smartest people are smart enough not to run because what smart person would volunteer to get ripped to shreds? It really seems like we have an instinct to be divided unless something horrible happens and then we unite. We are a bipolar society. Why is that? Why can't we be united all the time? I blame the media!

I disagree. People will sell their soul to the devil in order to wield the power of the Presidency. It is only right that we take a hard look at whether they are worthy.

 

As far as the inherent division that we face, one has to remember the size of this country. There are so many differences among us that there is no way we will all agree on most issues. Whenever the government turns it's back on any of these segments, it is the duty of that group to let the government know.

[+sbell111]

Can we bring this back to talking about political affiliations? It was a lot more fun.

I can't believe a moderator said this.

Why? Moderators are people with opinions too!

... because normally the mods steer us back toward the thread's stated topic. This is just one of those rare examples where politics is less devisive than the thread.

[+TrailGators]

It doesn't matter because whoever is in office gets ripped to shreds. It's the American way. It's really too bad because the smartest people are smart enough not to run because what smart person would volunteer to get ripped to shreds? It really seems like we have an instinct to be divided unless something horrible happens and then we unite. We are a bipolar society. Why is that? Why can't we be united all the time? I blame the media!

Yeah, Canada doesn't have that problem! Wait, does Canada still exist? *Opens the attic of the United States and peers inside* Ahh yes, there they are. Such a quiet nation, you wouldn't even know they were there if you didn't go up every now and then. Why can't we be quiet?

I really wish we could be, but there is a cancer that wants us all dead. The problem is that if we ignore it and do nothing, the cancer will spread and become more deadly than it is now. Just like real cancer. Honestly, if someone can come up with a really good alternative "solution" for stopping this cancer, then I'm all ears!

[+sbell111]

I really wish we could be, but there is a cancer that wants us all dead. The problem is that if we ignore it and do nothing, the cancer will spread and become more deadly than it is now. Just like real cancer. Honestly, if someone can come up with a really good alternative "solution" for stopping this cancer, then I'm all ears!

Stop being so dramatic. They're just film cans. Edited February 22, 2007 by sbell111

[+TrailGators]

Can we bring this back to talking about political affiliations? It was a lot more fun.

I can't believe a moderator said this.

Why? Moderators are people with opinions too!

... because normally the mods steer us back toward the thread's stated topic. This is just one of those rare examples where politics is less devisive than the thread.

I don't think it's a problem to talk about other things with the group of people we have as long as we remain civil. What's the big deal? The original topic is never going to happen anyhow.

[+TrailGators]

I really wish we could be, but there is a cancer that wants us all dead. The problem is that if we ignore it and do nothing, the cancer will spread and become more deadly than it is now. Just like real cancer. Honestly, if someone can come up with a really good alternative "solution" for stopping this cancer, then I'm all ears!

Stop being so dramatic. They're just film cans.

Very funny.... Have you been taking lessons from the media? Edited February 22, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Team GeoBlast]

I'd support forcing urban hiders to think outside of The Box before they ask us to get out.

 

By not allowing caches to be placed in National Parks, they have controlled the growth in wilderness areas and it would do the same for urban areas if this was mandated. If you took away the option of hiding a cache in a Walmart, Home Depot, K-Mart parking lot ect, that is going to slow things down, but not stop the hides in urban environments. To make it simple, they could even grandfather the millions of caches already hidden in these places.

 

Yes, it's another rule to follow and goodness knows we have enough of those. But do you think anyone is -really- going to miss seeing another Big Box hide pop up?

You can bet that plenty of people would miss seeing another big box hide. These are very popular for a reason. They are easy to hide, easy to find, and give an opportunity to find a cache when going out on an otherwise mundane shopping trip. Or for the numbers cachers these provide a way to plan a trip through town to find 100 caches in one day. Maybe I should take back the Chicken Little comment. What we have here is a Blind Man and the Elephant. The elephant is geocaching. The blind man sees geocaching as whatever kinds of cache he likes to find. Caches that someone else likes to find are threatening his geocaching experience. Especially since he is blind. With all those caches at the wrong end of the elephant, he finds he accidently grabs the wrong part from time to time. And so he wants to ban that part of the elephant. Just accept that there are some people who like to find LPCs.

 

Man.. I've moved from a chicken to a blind man. Is this a promotion?

 

Let me clear something up first about my perspective. I too find LPCs and PLCs a welcome alternative to the others things I could be doing (TV or bars) when I am in a strange city. I never suggested nor do I support an outright ban of them. I do think, at some point, they are going to become a problem because right now they are being placed at a pretty good clip. I think the time consider this is now, instead of when we have reached a point of saturation that is unacceptable to property owners or a ban is forced upon us.

 

I've personally never entered a parking lot of a Big Box store wishing that there was LPC in it and I think you might be overestimating the amount of people who do. Again, there is no way of knowing unless you have stats, I know I don't. Since we are only relying on the facts on hand (which are few) what is your take on the percentage of geocachers that exclusively hunt LPCs and PLCs is? I'm guessing less than 2%. I think people will adapt to some kind of controlled growth and that even the 2% will elect to venture out of the parking lot once they have found the million or so existing LPCs that already exist in Big Box store parking lots.

[Clan Riffster]

Maybe I should take back the Chicken Little comment. What we have here is a Blind Man and the Elephant.

Perhaps a more accurate representation would be a butt-nekkid emporer? The proponents of LPC's could be the masses who pretend to admire the emporer's "invisible" wardrobe, whilst the aforementioned chicken littles could be the lone child amongst the masses who points out the obvious?

 

Can we bring this back to talking about political affiliations? It was a lot more fun.

I can't believe a moderator said this.

It's gotta be less painful than this thread

[+TrailGators]

I'd support forcing urban hiders to think outside of The Box before they ask us to get out.

 

By not allowing caches to be placed in National Parks, they have controlled the growth in wilderness areas and it would do the same for urban areas if this was mandated. If you took away the option of hiding a cache in a Walmart, Home Depot, K-Mart parking lot ect, that is going to slow things down, but not stop the hides in urban environments. To make it simple, they could even grandfather the millions of caches already hidden in these places.

 

Yes, it's another rule to follow and goodness knows we have enough of those. But do you think anyone is -really- going to miss seeing another Big Box hide pop up?

You can bet that plenty of people would miss seeing another big box hide. These are very popular for a reason. They are easy to hide, easy to find, and give an opportunity to find a cache when going out on an otherwise mundane shopping trip. Or for the numbers cachers these provide a way to plan a trip through town to find 100 caches in one day. Maybe I should take back the Chicken Little comment. What we have here is a Blind Man and the Elephant. The elephant is geocaching. The blind man sees geocaching as whatever kinds of cache he likes to find. Caches that someone else likes to find are threatening his geocaching experience. Especially since he is blind. With all those caches at the wrong end of the elephant, he finds he accidently grabs the wrong part from time to time. And so he wants to ban that part of the elephant. Just accept that there are some people who like to find LPCs.

 

Man.. I've moved from a chicken to a blind man. Is this a promotion?

 

Let me clear something up first about my perspective. I too find LPCs and PLCs a welcome alternative to the others things I could be doing (TV or bars) when I am in a strange city. I never suggested nor do I support an outright ban of them. I do think, at some point, they are going to become a problem because right now they are being placed at a pretty good clip. I think the time consider this is now, instead of when we have reached a point of saturation that is unacceptable to property owners or a ban is forced upon us.

 

I've personally never entered a parking lot of a Big Box store wishing that there was LPC in it and I think you might be overestimating the amount of people who do. Again, there is no way of knowing unless you have stats, I know I don't. Since we are only relying on the facts on hand (which are few) what is your take on the percentage of geocachers that exclusively hunt LPCs and PLCs is? I'm guessing less than 2%. I think people will adapt to some kind of controlled growth and that even the 2% will elect to venture out of the parking lot once they have found the million or so existing LPCs that already exist in Big Box store parking lots.

At least we can agree which end of the elephant the blind dude will find the LPC....

[Mushtang]

Perhaps a more accurate representation would be a butt-nekkid emporer? The proponents of LPC's could be the masses who pretend to admire the emporer's "invisible" wardrobe, whilst the aforementioned chicken littles could be the lone child amongst the masses who points out the obvious?

Nope, that would be less accurate. I'm not pretending that I enjoy LPCs when that's all there is to find.

[+Team GeoBlast]

The national parks came to gc.com and asked them to quit allowing caches there. Has Walmart?

 

People also said similar stuff about the popular Off Your Rocker series that are placed at Cracker Barrel restaurants. The issue made it pretty high in the Cracker Barrel management chain and they gave us an official "knock yourself out" policy. They realized it was good for business.

 

My guess is that if it ever gets that far along, Walmart will do the same.

 

I suppose this is for Walmart to decide. If they did allow them, we would probably be talking about something else.

 

I'd support forcing urban hiders to think outside of The Box before they ask us to get out.It's been hashed out in this thread, and many others like it. You can't force people to only hide creative caches. It's a subjective term. A cache that you read about and roll your eyes may really excite someone else. All you can do is enforce the listing guidelines and publish all the caches that meet them (which is what they're doing now).

 

I think missed what I was saying out of the box meant out of the Walmart Parking lot. Agreed, you cannot ask people to be creative when they do not have the motivation or talent. Another discussion entirely

 

By not allowing caches to be placed in National Parks, they have controlled the growth in wilderness areas and it would do the same for urban areas if this was mandated.

The growth of caches in placed in woods outside of national parks has been reduced because of the ban in national parks? Can you provide data for this? I find it hard to believe. if anything the growth in wilderness areas has gone up due to the increased popularity of the game.

 

There's millions of acres of National Park that would have tones of caches in them if they allowed it. I'd say that slowed the growth in those areas pretty well. That's a good chunk of real estate. If they did the same with Big Box Store parking lots, it would slow things down too. For me, this is welcome. For you and T it is not. This is okay that we disagree on this issue.

 

If you took away the option of hiding a cache in a Walmart, Home Depot, K-Mart parking lot ect, that is going to slow things down, but not stop the hides in urban environments.

It will only slow the growth of caches in those parking lots, but seriously increase the caches in other parking lots.

 

To make it simple, they could even grandfather the millions of caches already hidden in these places.

I'm starting to doubt your research. There are NOT millions of caches total, much less millions of caches in parking lots.

 

Please don't do this, it's very argumentative. I'm not doing research and never said my numbers were accurate. They are merely for conversations sake and not meant to mislead you or anyone else into thinking I actually counted them. I obviously don't have numbers and neither do you. Can we agree that there is a lot?

 

Yes, it's another rule to follow and goodness knows we have enough of those. But do you think anyone is -really- going to miss seeing another Big Box hide pop up?

I will! And I do think that a lot of other people will too. I like them. I don't think they're the best kinds of caches, nor do I think that they're very far from the bottom as far as entertainment value, but they're definitely above zero.

 

When I travel, I always try and find caches near wherever I'm staying. A lot of the time I'll walk a few miles to get to the only one available, the next closest may be much farther than I can safely walk to (especially if I'm going at night after my work is finished). I'm VERY grateful when I find a cache on one of these walks, even if it's just a LPC or PLC.

 

If I got to choose I'd definitely prefer a different kind of cache to find, but if the choice is LPC or no cache at all, I'll happily take the LPC.

 

This isn't the way everyone sees it, I know that. It's certainly not the way you see it since you're calling for LPCs to be banned. But I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels this way.

 

Again I am not calling for a ban. I think that someone is going to have to figure out a way to slow the proliferation of these types of caches and that unchecked growth is going to cause problems in the future. It's a big difference. And yes, thanks in the most for the lively and productive conversation.

Edited February 22, 2007 by Team GeoBlast

[+sbell111]

Team GeoBlast-

 

I'm sorry, but I can't figure out your last post. Can you clean up the quotes so it's clear?

 

Thanks.

[+Team GeoBlast]

Team GeoBlast-

 

I'm sorry, but I can't figure out your last post. Can you clean up the quotes so it's clear?

 

Thanks.

 

Are you viewing this in html? I used colors. It looks okay over here.

[Mushtang]

By not allowing caches to be placed in National Parks, they have controlled the growth in wilderness areas and it would do the same for urban areas if this was mandated.

The growth of caches in placed in woods outside of national parks has been reduced because of the ban in national parks? Can you provide data for this? I find it hard to believe. if anything the growth in wilderness areas has gone up due to the increased popularity of the game.

 

There's millions of acres of National Park that would have tones of caches in them if they allowed it. I'd say that slowed the growth in those areas pretty well. That's a good chunk of real estate. If they did the same with Big Box Store parking lots, it would slow things down too. For me, this is welcome. For you and T it is not. This is okay that we disagree on this issue.

What you said in blue may be true, not allowing caches in national parks slowed down the growth in national parks. However, this is not at all what you said first.

 

You said that the national park ban slowed down growth in wilderness areas. This is clearly not true, as there are lots of wilderness areas that are not in national parks.

 

You also claimed that removing LPCs from the site (or maybe just those specific businesses you mentioned - I'm not sure) would slow the growth in urban areas.

 

If you'd like to backpedal and re-word it, that's cool, but that's not what you said.

[+sbell111]

Let me clear something up first about my perspective. I too find LPCs and PLCs a welcome alternative to the others things I could be doing (TV or bars) when I am in a strange city. I never suggested nor do I support an outright ban of them. I do think, at some point, they are going to become a problem because right now they are being placed at a pretty good clip.

Objection. Facts not in evidence.

 

What is 'a good clip'? Are they being hidden at a faster rate than other urban micros? Than other caches in general? What is an acceptable rate? Why?

I think the time consider this is now, instead of when we have reached a point of saturation that is unacceptable to property owners or a ban is forced upon us.

I'm not sure that I agree. Even if we accept your premise that teh rate that LPCs are hidden must be slowed, wouldn't Wal-Mart saying 'no' to caches slow this growth? LPCs would still be placed at Target, K-Mart, malls, Meiers, Krogers, etc, just not at Wal-Mart.

I've personally never entered a parking lot of a Big Box store wishing that there was LPC in it and I think you might be overestimating the amount of people who do. Again, there is no way of knowing unless you have stats, I know I don't.

Just the other day, I wished for a LPC. I was out of state to go to a casino with my wife. I was in a state that I had never found a cache in and it was night-time. A quickie that was actually on my route was my only option.

Since we are only relying on the facts on hand (which are few) what is your take on the percentage of geocachers that exclusively hunt LPCs and PLCs is? I'm guessing less than 2%. I think people will adapt to some kind of controlled growth and that even the 2% will elect to venture out of the parking lot once they have found the million or so existing LPCs that already exist in Big Box store parking lots.

This is an unrealistic argument. It is similar to the poll that found that more people's favorite cache type is a box in the woods than a LPC. Just because someone likes LPCs does not mean that that's the only kind of cache that they enjoy. Just because other caches are not in your sights does not mean that LPCs should be banninated.

[+sbell111]

Team GeoBlast-

 

I'm sorry, but I can't figure out your last post. Can you clean up the quotes so it's clear?

 

Thanks.

Are you viewing this in html? I used colors. It looks okay over here.

The problem is, with the broken quotes, it isn't clear what you posted v what other people posted. Are you saying that only the colored parts are your words?

[Mushtang]

To make it simple, they could even grandfather the millions of caches already hidden in these places.

I'm starting to doubt your research. There are NOT millions of caches total, much less millions of caches in parking lots.

 

Please don't do this, it's very argumentative. I'm not doing research and never said my numbers were accurate. They are merely for conversations sake and not meant to mislead you or anyone else into thinking I actually counted them. I obviously don't have numbers and neither do you. Can we agree that there is a lot?

To call you on your straw man argument of exaggerating your statement and saying that there are millions is not being argumentative. You blew something out of proportion to make a point, and I'm suggesting that the point isn't as valid when you look at the actual numbers instead of "millions".

 

It wasn't meant to be personal, just keeping the discussion honest.

[Mushtang]

Again I am not calling for a ban. I think that someone is going to have to figure out a way to slow the proliferation of these types of caches and that unchecked growth is going to cause problems in the future. It's a big difference. And yes, thanks in the most for the lively and productive conversation.

You've mentioned these problems before, and I'm still curious what they are. Can you speculate on what problems a bunch of LPCs could cause?

 

The reporters breaking open a story and the lawsuit that shuts down the web site have been brought up. Are there other problems?

[+Team GeoBlast]

By not allowing caches to be placed in National Parks, they have controlled the growth in wilderness areas and it would do the same for urban areas if this was mandated.

The growth of caches in placed in woods outside of national parks has been reduced because of the ban in national parks? Can you provide data for this? I find it hard to believe. if anything the growth in wilderness areas has gone up due to the increased popularity of the game.

 

There's millions of acres of National Park that would have tones of caches in them if they allowed it. I'd say that slowed the growth in those areas pretty well. That's a good chunk of real estate. If they did the same with Big Box Store parking lots, it would slow things down too. For me, this is welcome. For you and T it is not. This is okay that we disagree on this issue.

What you said in blue may be true, not allowing caches in national parks slowed down the growth in national parks. However, this is not at all what you said first.

 

You said that the national park ban slowed down growth in wilderness areas. This is clearly not true, as there are lots of wilderness areas that are not in national parks.

 

You also claimed that removing LPCs from the site (or maybe just those specific businesses you mentioned - I'm not sure) would slow the growth in urban areas.

 

If you'd like to backpedal and re-word it, that's cool, but that's not what you said.

 

LOL.. you just can't help yourself can you? Sorry, I don't want to beef with you and I am not taking this bait that you keep throwing out.

 

I was clarifying what I was saying so it made more sense, not backpedaling. Try to limit your inflammatory words or they are going to take your torch away.

 

By using the word -wilderness- I was just splitting caches in two categories urban and wilderness, that is all. Since the discussion is about urban hides, I thought this was reasonable and a good example. This is a geographical thing, wilderness to us is just out in the bush, on further thought, I know it means different things in different places.

 

I am going to ask you to find where I suggested removing caches. I think I said that it would be okay to grandfather all existing caches in Big Box stores but to put a kibosh on anymore.