Groundspeak Forums: South Carolina Legislation Meeting - Groundspeak Forums

Jump to content

  • (28 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked

South Carolina Legislation Meeting

#51 User is offline   magellan315 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1712
  • Joined: 20-August 01

Posted 11 April 2005 - 04:16 PM

Has anyone got any additional information about the State Archeologists 1 year attempt to contact GC.com. In the other thread Jeremy has stated that this is the first he has heard of it. If that is true that may give us some leverage if the archeologists attempts at contact either did not happen, were misdirected, or not to the extent he claims.

This post has been edited by magellan315: 11 April 2005 - 04:19 PM


#52 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 04:18 PM

From what I have heard there are people on both ends looking into this.

#53 User is offline   gpsblake 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1075
  • Joined: 01-February 03

Posted 11 April 2005 - 05:42 PM

As a South Carolina geocacher (not currently active though), I enjoyed visiting the history of the cemeteries. Reading the names, and imaging how rough life was 100 years ago when you see gravesite after gravesite of young children dying. You also can learn some history from visiting these gravesites.

I also do not think there needs to be another law about geocaching. However.....

But I agree about banning geocaching from cemeteries as a geocaching.com rule. I've seen damage done to the cemeteries by people walking all over them and seeing footprints everywhere and bushes distrubed and even destroyed. While the hider might think they are putting a micro in a good, safe spot, the problem is, to us finders, we have no idea where they put that micro more than likely. Since either their coordinates can be off by as much as 50 feet or ours can be off as much as 50 feet, that means a large search area. That can mean searching several dozen grave sites. One of the ones I found in a cemetery was located inside of a small brush. Only problem was that there were 20 or 30 small brushes that I had to search before I found it. Which means countless people sticking their hands inside bushes, picking up small bricks to see if they are hidden there etc.

It seems that geocaching.com has archived all the cemetery caches in South Carolina. I agree with that action and I hope with that, this issue will come to a close and all parties will be satisfied.


Cheers

#54 User is offline   gpsblake 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1075
  • Joined: 01-February 03

Posted 11 April 2005 - 05:46 PM

arkansas stickerdude, on Apr 11 2005, 07:33 AM, said:

You know I think cemetary caches are great. I live in Oklahoma and 15 min west of here is a little town called Sallisaw and in Sallisaw there is a small cemetary in the back woods that has a very famous GANGSTER laid to rest there. Had it not been for geocaching I would have never known the Pretty Boy Floyd was buried there. When I found the virtual

I have no problem with virtuals being in cemeteries. People don't have to search all over the area over turning stones and putting hands in every bush. You know you are looking for a certain gravesite and almost everyone would be respectful in those cases.

Cheers,

#55 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 11 April 2005 - 05:47 PM

gpsblake, on Apr 11 2005, 05:42 PM, said:

It seems that geocaching.com has archived all the cemetery caches in South Carolina. I agree with that action and I hope with that, this issue will come to a close and all parties will be satisfied.


Actually that was not on the part of geocaching.com

The reviewer did it on a vol. bases just to show we are willing to take steps to solve the problem quicker

#56 User is offline   Renegade Knight 

  • Illegitimi Non Carborundum
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 24762
  • Joined: 16-January 02

Posted 11 April 2005 - 06:10 PM

The message is. Geoaching is harmless. People posing by gravestones is more harmless than people taking impressions, and people taking impressions are harmless.

It's good clean fun, and yes it's an adventure.

The state archeologist needs to realize that caches are near archeological sites for three reasons. 1) There are so many of them. 2) They are kept secret. 3) People liked to live in the past where we like to live in the present. Any one cache has about the same odds of being near a archaeological site as does the representatives office. The only difference is you can remove the cache easily.

If the law passes we will need to track these locations. Sensitive is relative. The potholing using digging equipment that define the boundaries of an archaeological site are absolutely destructive. Tupperware on the ground is harmless. Not everyone can afford newer ground penetrating radar, but they can afford to dig a hole (how do you think these sites were defined to begin with? Especially in the days before ground penetrating radar? If you need to defend yourself against this law you will need to hire an archaeologist who having a shovel will help you define the boundary better. That's not a joke. The state archeologist should really, be on the side of keeping these locations secret, and that a container is not as invasive as defining the boundary of a site was to begin with. Nor as bad as tracking the sites and making that list public so we as citizens can comply with the proposed law. Worse a public list will let treasure hunters (know where the sites are). Yes there are sensitive locations, but being secret nobody knows about them, and itís enough that a land manager can ask a single cacher to discretely remove a cache, and protect the secret.

Now that the representative has done their homework, now you know the types of questions that will come up for geocaching. They can be anticipated, they can be dealt with.

Exaggerating a log is common practice. We are all swashbuckling heroes, before we go back to our day jobs. We had more fun, bled more blood, faced more danger, and lived more on the edge than our jobs as IT professionals, engineers, teachers, students and as the working and middle class the pay the representative salary.

I sent a lot of this to CR. Round one looks like it went to the representative. However now that you can anticipate questions, you can prepare answers for them, and get the message out that Geocaching is harmless. Do you really think a bunch of goofs taking a photo is harmful? Itís the ones not taking a photo, and the ones who are not there because the goofs are making all that noise that are the problem. The police do like geocachers being out in the world. We are the honest citizens visiting places that sometimes have been tarnished by vandals and other miscreants.

This post has been edited by Renegade Knight: 11 April 2005 - 06:12 PM


#57 User is offline   Renegade Knight 

  • Illegitimi Non Carborundum
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 24762
  • Joined: 16-January 02

Posted 11 April 2005 - 06:19 PM

gpsblake, on Apr 11 2005, 06:42 PM, said:

...But I agree about banning geocaching from cemeteries as a geocaching.com rule. I've seen damage done to the cemeteries by people walking all over them and seeing footprints everywhere and bushes distrubed and even destroyed. ......

I don't agree at all. The fact of the matter is you can't know who all was doing what in a graveyard shot of a camera and then you would probably be suprized. Kids get wasted and visit them for s***s and giggles. It would not suprise me to learn that a few are now Pickle parks, or meeting places for drug dealers, or a sleeping grounds for the homeless. I would not suprise me because since becomign a geocacher I have seen more of the world and am more aware of all the things going on in it than I ever was before. I have seen what the represenative has long since moved beyond when she acended to her lofty perch.

Having said that you do have to factor in your caches location and that people will be looking for it. A micro does mean more looking. Banning micros would do a lot to lessen the search time for a cache. It might mean more go missing as everone else who frequents graveyards find them. It's worth discussing. So is the right of a geocacher to have a cache built into his tombstone which has also been discussed in these forums.

#58 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 12 April 2005 - 05:51 AM

Quote

The potholing using digging equipment that define the boundaries of an archaeological site are absolutely destructive. Tupperware on the ground is harmless. Not everyone can afford newer ground penetrating radar, but they can afford to dig a hole (how do you think these sites were defined to begin with? Especially in the days before ground penetrating radar? If you need to defend yourself against this law you will need to hire an archaeologist who having a shovel will help you define the boundary better. That's not a joke. The state archeologist should really, be on the side of keeping these locations secret, and that a container is not as invasive as defining the boundary of a site was to begin with


I'm not sure what you are referring to. Its not common practice to dig a hole to define the boundry of an archaeological site.

That being said, the majority of archaeological sites are already protected by the deposits that cover them. We regularly walk over archeological sites every day. Some of these are known and many more are yet to be discovered. The act of a person (or dozens of people) walking over a site should have little effect on it thanks to the many protective layers of soil deposited through the years. Its basically a non issue - unless someone starts digging. Since geocaches aren't buried they do not threaten most sites.

This post has been edited by briansnat: 12 April 2005 - 06:29 AM


#59 User is offline   Hoomdorm 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 12 April 2005 - 04:07 PM

briansnat, on Apr 11 2005, 03:06 AM, said:

Quote

Considering the idea that geocachers destroy cemetaries by all of the traffic caused by a geocache...


Let's reject that idea because its not true. Admitting that we cause damage, but pointing out something that causes more damage is not the way to deal with this.

Um, that's why I said the IDEA. It's their idea that we do that. They have their evidence so to them that's what happens.

#60 User is offline   Hoomdorm 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 101
  • Joined: 04-February 03

Posted 12 April 2005 - 04:09 PM

geoholic28, on Apr 11 2005, 05:10 AM, said:

Hoomdorm, on Apr 10 2005, 11:36 PM, said:

Considering the idea that geocachers destroy cemetaries by all of the traffic caused by a geocache, has anyone thought to argue the point of the grave of Alice Flagg?



4- Alice Flagg's grave is a virtual, and the reason for the bare ground path is because of the local legend that deals with her grave.


Your passion is great, but slow down and get the facts before you take up a personal crusaide on this

Did you even read my post? Your #4 is entirely what my post was about. And I am one of the locals by the way.

I'm now reminded of why I quit coming to these boards a long time ago. I'm not interested in getting involved in the mess here again. If I'm needed as a SC geocacher voice for this issue I can be reached by email thru my profile.

This post has been edited by Hoomdorm: 12 April 2005 - 04:21 PM


#61 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 12 April 2005 - 04:14 PM

I want to wish everyone luck tomorrow who is attending the meeting.

#62 User is offline   Swamp Thing 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 23-February 02

Posted 12 April 2005 - 06:04 PM

I contacted the SC Archaeologist's office yesterday and requested a complete list of the archaeological sites in the state. I knew they wouldn't give it to me, but I wanted to bring to their attention what they should expect if H.3777 becomes law. A state cannot create a law prohibiting an activity in specific areas without providing its citizens the information they need to abide by the law.

As a history major and environmentalist, I don't want to see sensitive sites damaged. However, H.3777 is too broadly written and will unnecessarily eliminate portions of our state to geocaching. Tourist A can walk through a site, learn its historical significance, spend some money and he/she will be thanked for their visit. However, Geocacher A can do the exact same thing plus look for a cache and will be subject to a fine and arrest. There are already laws on record to protect sites against looting or vandalism. H.3777 won't add any additional protection, but will severely restrict geocaching. I am all for the proper placement of caches to protect historic and natural areas, but I think issues with caches are better handled on a case-by-case basis with the interested parties versus a broad, overly-restrictive law.

I don't agree with the "just accept that cemeteries are off limits" argument. What niche will be next? Again, caches should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. There is some question under H.3777 as to the legality of caching through a cemetery. If not already covered, it will only take a slight revision to ensure no geocachers enter a cemetery. My Rest In Ps cache has geocachers collecting data on veterans of the Civil War, the Spanish-Amerian War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War from various tombstones in several cemeteries. The cache container is far from a cemetery. However, some of the graves the geocacher must visit are veterans and deceased friends of mine. I am certain that "T", former Navy and quite sociable in life, enjoys the visits from strangers. He probably derives as much pleasure from trying to figure out his guests as I do trying to figure out the lives of those whose tombstones I read. You see, I've been visiting graveyards for as long as I have memories. My father always enjoyed stopping at small graveyards and reading the tombstones. Let's review, my father, even if he disrespectfully acted like a jackass, would not be subject to any criminal proceedings, but if I were geocaching at the time, I could be arrested. Therefore, whether you agree or disagree with caches in cemeteries, H.3777 would be a poor law because it is redundant with regards to the protection of the cemetery property and it punishes one group of individuals while allowing a myriad of other groups unfettered access to the same site.

I return now to my discussion with the state archaeologist's office. They do not provide a list of archaeological sites because to do so would expose certain sites to looting. I think that is a smart policy. In fact, they have federal protection from the Freedom of Information Act. South Carolina currently has 24,000 known archaeological sites. It is estimated that there are 50 sites per square mile or over 1.5 million in the state when factoring in the possible unknown sites. Add in the numerous historic sites and DISTRICTS and, to answer a previous entry in this thread, "Yes, much of the state would be off-limits." Again, the bill is too broadly written. There are instances where caches are inappropriate but they should be dealt with individually.

The gentleman I spoke with at the state archaeologist's office stated that nobody in the office had ever heard of geocaching before last week's subcommittee meeting on the issue. How big of a problem was geocaching if nobody had EVER heard of it? He stated that he understood the main motivation behind the bill was to eliminate digging in cemeteries and its interference with African American cultural practices in which items are buried in or placed on graves. A secondary motivation was to prevent digging at known archaeological sites. Once again, there are laws against those practices already and burying caches is against the guidelines of geocaching.com. If there are instances where geocachers are not following the guidelines of geocaching.com, then they need to be dealt with on an individual basis.

Let's make the debate simple. Is H.3777 a well-written and fair bill? If "no", then let's kill the bill. Afterwards, we can debate individual caches or individual placement sites instead of having it legislated for us. Head Llama has clearly demonstrated that the caching community is responsive to community concerns and nothing less should be expected in the future. For those keeping score at home, that is at least 8 months faster than the community's elected representative and bill H.3777's sponsor.

#63 User is offline   Renegade Knight 

  • Illegitimi Non Carborundum
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 24762
  • Joined: 16-January 02

Posted 12 April 2005 - 06:17 PM

briansnat, on Apr 12 2005, 06:51 AM, said:

...I'm not sure what you are referring to. Its not common practice to dig a hole to define the boundry of an archaeological site.

That being said, the majority of archaeological sites are already protected by the deposits that cover them. We regularly walk over archeological sites every day. Some of these are known and many more are yet to be discovered. The act of a person (or dozens of people) walking over a site should have little effect on it thanks to the many protective layers of soil deposited through the years. Its basically a non issue - unless someone starts digging. Since geocaches aren't buried they do not threaten most sites.

Shovel probes and auger holes are common methods. My wording was off. Regardless you have to get into the ground or see into the ground to find the artifacts that would help delineate the boundary. You have to define a boundary to know what area to protect. More to the point, to prove that a cache is or isn't on an archaeological site. The point I was making is that a geocacher may not be able to afford the ground penetrating radar or magnetometer (I have no idea what these things cost or rent for) it would take to define a boundary more clearly and might have to resort to the more invasive methods to help prove their innocence thereby causing more harm due to the bill than if the bill didn't exit.

The reason our experience may differ is that we work with archeological sites in different capacities. At least that's my guess. Where our experience doesnít differ is on the nature of most sites.

#64 User is offline   Renegade Knight 

  • Illegitimi Non Carborundum
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 24762
  • Joined: 16-January 02

Posted 12 April 2005 - 06:18 PM

Hoomdorm, on Apr 12 2005, 05:07 PM, said:

briansnat, on Apr 11 2005, 03:06 AM, said:

Quote

Considering the idea that geocachers destroy cemetaries by all of the traffic caused by a geocache...


Let's reject that idea because its not true. Admitting that we cause damage, but pointing out something that causes more damage is not the way to deal with this.

Um, that's why I said the IDEA. It's their idea that we do that. They have their evidence so to them that's what happens.

Perception is reality. You hit the nail on the head.

#65 User is offline   southdeltan 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1328
  • Joined: 01-February 03

Posted 12 April 2005 - 06:21 PM

Swamp Thing, I don't know if you are going to the meeting tomorrow, but I hope you are able to attend. You make several valid points.

sd

#66 User is offline   Mvillian 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 137
  • Joined: 09-February 04

  Posted 12 April 2005 - 06:22 PM

if the legislature listens to what Swamp Thing has said we surely should have no fear of this bill passing THANKS

This post has been edited by Mvillian: 12 April 2005 - 06:24 PM


#67 User is offline   Renegade Knight 

  • Illegitimi Non Carborundum
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 24762
  • Joined: 16-January 02

Posted 12 April 2005 - 06:37 PM

southdeltan, on Apr 12 2005, 07:21 PM, said:

Swamp Thing, I don't know if you are going to the meeting tomorrow, but I hope you are able to attend. You make several valid points.

sd

They have credentials to boot. If Swamp Thing can answer the displays and photos used you have a champion that will be as good as it gets.

#68 User is offline   BigWhiteTruck 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 444
  • Joined: 26-June 04

Posted 12 April 2005 - 07:39 PM

JimmyEv, on Apr 11 2005, 10:02 AM, said:

You have to keep in mind that people with an agenda are not above using 'misleading' evidence, and this definately includes politicians. Are the photographs they are presenting genuine? If so, seems like the only source for them would be the logs. Do all the logs they're using, and the pictures, come from caches in South Carolina, or are they presenting evidence mined through geocaching.com, from cemetery caches located around the country, as representative of South Carolina cachers? If the evidence isn't specific to the South Carolina caches they claim are causing the problem, then this fallacy needs to be pointed out during the next meeting. And this doesn't even address the ultimate unenforceablity of the provision if cemeteries are used as virtual legs for multi-caches. which is how most cemetery caches around here are done.

Your post go me thinking: The OP said they had poster boards with photos on them? How big are these photos? Anything that came from a GC.com log entry wouldn't print out very well at all any bigger than 4x6 or so, due to the low resolution of the images. If they came with large clear photos on the poster boards, they are definately staged.

#69 User is offline   TinSparrow 

  • GPS Killer
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: 29-August 02

Posted 12 April 2005 - 08:00 PM

The Long Awaited Content of the Posterboards.

It took about a week for my schedule to get in sync with that of the Representative's Assistant, and today I was able to spend some time in front of the aforementioned Poster Boards to study the source for each log and each picture found there on. My thanks goes out to Mr. Bates for staying late and providing me access to these materials.

Most of the material falls into one of four categories:

1. People pictured night caching in cemeteries.
2. People who are posed for pictures leaning against tombstones or other markers.
2. GPS units posed for a picture lying on or supported by cemetery fixtures.
3. Logs judged to be inappropriate or not showing respect for a cemetery.

At this point in time, since the subcommittee meeting last Wednesday, virtually all cemetery related caches within South Carolina have been archived. These caches will likely remain in this status until this issue can be resolved. To locate the caches from which these logs and pictures were taken, you'll have to do a little extra searching.

My intention on providing this material is just to make clear what is being used to incite emotion and rally public support for this legislative initiative. I am identifying individual caches and individual cachers in the logs below, since this is the exact information that was presented to the subcommittee.

Due to a restriction on the number of images allowed in a forum post, these images will be spread across two messages.

From this point on my own added comments will be in [square brackets].

===================

Where's Yo Momma (GCHZ1K)

[Compared with the general theme of pictures listed below, I'm not sure why these pictures of a neglected cemetery were included.]

Posted Image
Posted Image

Logs:

Waterbaron 02-25-2005

I really enjoy historic boneyard caches and this was one of the better ones I've done. I wonder why the site doesn't have a commemorative plaque?

RLJ 11-10-2004

Found stages 1 & 2 fast, stage 3 took 10 minutes due to lots of recently fallen "cover". Took Geo-Hiking Travel Bug out of 1st container and will move it north of here very soon. TNLNSL

===================

Kick the Bucket X (GCKGRH)

[In addition to any offending logs and pictures, the sponsors of this legislation also took offense to the name of this series of cemetery in and around the Columbia area.]

Posted Image

Logs
Baruba Juba 10-15-2004

Great to be doing the cemetery caching at night so close to Halloween.

===================

Generals at Rest (GC5DEB)

11-25-2004 Mvillian
Posted Image

===================

Kick the Bucket XIV (GCKM7N)

-NigGHTHAWK- 3-25-2005
Posted Image
[Picture is labeled daytime view of the cache.]

Baruba Juba 10-15-2004
Posted Image

===================

Rembrance of Unknown Soldiers (GC569D)

[Locationless cache, this log w/ picture occurs outside of South Carolina.]

Guitar Nutz & Jamz 12-09-2003

Posted Image

===================

#70 User is offline   TinSparrow 

  • GPS Killer
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: 29-August 02

Posted 12 April 2005 - 08:01 PM

Poster Boards, part 2. Please see my prefatory comments in the previous post.

Below this point, my comments are in [square brackets].

===================

When Johnny comes Marching Home (GCKYCN)

lyor1 1-4-2005

Posted Image
[Micro cache has been posed on top of marker for picture. The actual cache placement was not this obvious.]

The Ski Bum 12-17-2004
Posted Image

===================

Oh What a Beautiful Mourning V (GCJH9A)

From the description:

I placed this cache at night, so dont be a scare-d-cat. Try your luck at night.

Logs
medic208 7-9-2004

I found this one at 9:30 tonight after being "stuck" on Hwy 151! Nice easy find. Thanks ~Doug

[It might not have been dark at 9:30pm in a mid summer night, but if not for the possibility of hunting a cache at night I'm not sure what's wrong here.]

===================

[Several logs from different caches were grouped under the next section. Most of these pictures are not in South Carolina.]

Respecting our Veterans?

Mr. O 7-4-2004

Posted Image

[Prominent attention was drawn to the fact that this photo was labelled The Money Shot]

Mattalbman 3-1-2005

Posted Image

TeamTigerz 7-9-2004

Posted Image

Ghosthunter 7-19-2002

Posted Image

EssPea 1-10-2003
Posted Image

===================

[Finally, here is one section of the Poster which had been converted to a BMP and sent to me. It's now been converted to a JPG by GC.com, but it still seems readable.]

Posted Image

===================

#71 User is offline   Swamp Thing 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: 23-February 02

Posted 13 April 2005 - 03:55 AM

Wow! That's it? What would be left if we eliminate the images and logs for caches not in SC? What a glorious waste of taxpayer money! I cannot believe I invested my time, energy, and emotion for that overly-hyped drivel! Well, now I'm invested. If bill H.3777 lives beyond today's subcommittee meeting, it will eventually end in an embarrassing death.

#72 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 04:02 AM

Just to make sure I read everything right, most of those pictures are of caches not in SC? or just the people not being from SC?

Once again, many many many thanks to TinSparrow for doing all he is doing for us.

#73 User is offline   Clan X-Man 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 429
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 13 April 2005 - 04:05 AM

There are only three of those pics that even bother me a little. One that is down right disrespectful to me ! But to each his own. I really don't see the big deal. As has been said this is a waste of the states time.

X

Alright that particular pic bothers me but it was taken in Gettysburg. WTF! (What the frog!) This shouldn't even be up there as evidence for a SC comittee meeting.

This post has been edited by Clan X-Man: 13 April 2005 - 04:09 AM


#74 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 04:07 AM

Yeah there is only one picture that is really bad and bothers me. The fact that one guy named his picture "the money shot" was not too good either.

#75 User is offline   Clan X-Man 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 429
  • Joined: 14-August 03

Posted 13 April 2005 - 04:12 AM

Theres another from Tenessee.

The pic I think entitled the money shot isn't even in the guys gallery. I wonder where it was taken. The cacher hasn't been online since 11-13-04.

X

This post has been edited by Clan X-Man: 13 April 2005 - 04:15 AM


#76 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 04:18 AM

If it is not in his gallery it might be posted on the cache page?

I wish I could attend today and just sit in the back and listen, but I sadly do not have a coat and tie here with me right now.

#77 User is offline   wimseyguy 

  • plays well with others.........food
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 6376
  • Joined: 07-August 02

Posted 13 April 2005 - 04:24 AM

Tin Sparrow said:

[Prominent attention was drawn to the fact that this photo was labelled The Money Shot]
After seeing the so-called offending pics, I also agree that this is being blown way out of proportion. I suspect you could stakeout a popular cemetery for a day and snap dozens of pictures of visitors behaving in a similar fashion, without GPS's.
Leaning on or touching a gravestone while posing for a pic isn't disrespectful or vandalism.
Smiling for a pic is pretty natural human behavior.
And lastly-using the term "Money Shot" is very common practice for logging Locationless Caches all over the place, not just in graveyards. I'll bet that I have done this on most if not all of my 70+ LC finds. Perhaps someone should ask Rep. Ceipes if she understands where the this phrase comes from, and if so how does she know this? ;)

I hope that the SC cachers can remain positive and professional in this debate. It certainly sounds like much is being made of very little. Swamp Thing has made some great points; I hope our outraged elected officials listen. What geocachers are doing in cemeteries is really not that different than what a non-caching visitor would do.

#78 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 04:49 AM

Ok lets not ask anyone about the true meaning behind the title to the picture....lol we got enough going against our image as it is ;)

#79 User is offline   Paulcet 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 29-August 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 04:59 AM

I agree with Swamp Thing 100%. I just wonder who's panties got bunched up, and why.

As for the logs, I think the bill supporters were trying to show disrespect. And they did a very poor job of it. Disrespect is a VERY HARD thing to define. Looks like Waterbaron likes to call cemetaries "boneyards". I'm sure that if anyone met Waterbaron, and heard him call a cemetary a "boneyard", they would never think anything disrespectful.

As for the "money shot". I would guess a large percentage of us would use that term for a virtual, because that's what gets you credit for the find. I would also guess that 90%+ of us knew that is exactly what the geocacher meant when he posted his find.

<edit>Hope things go well today!

This post has been edited by Paulcet: 13 April 2005 - 05:00 AM


#80 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 13 April 2005 - 05:08 AM

That's the worst they have? I think the SC legislature should have better things to worry about.

#81 User is offline   Renegade Knight 

  • Illegitimi Non Carborundum
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 24762
  • Joined: 16-January 02

Posted 13 April 2005 - 05:25 AM

Whoah, a bunch of goofs caught on camera!


I didn't read a single act of vandalism, defacing, intentional disrespect or other harm caused. Just goofs who wrote goofy logs.

If the law wanted to prove a point, if the area has restrictions on hours, then issue a ticket or two for whatever fine that is, and the word will spread and that will move good citizens out of our community at night and allow those with base intentions to move and act more freely.

#82 User is offline   magellan315 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1712
  • Joined: 20-August 01

Posted 13 April 2005 - 05:30 AM

Thats all they have, from the sounds of I expected the pictures to be a lot worse than that. These are hardly disrespectful or showing Geocachers damaging gravesites.

The other thing that bothered me was the comment made by the State Archeology office when Swamp Thing called:

Quote

The gentleman I spoke with at the state archaeologist's office stated that nobody in the office had ever heard of geocaching before last week's subcommittee meeting on the issue.
If the State Archelogist had been trying to contact GC.com for a year wouldn't everyone in the office been aware of it. Surely it would have been discussed at staff meetings if caches were in areas that were of concern.

Please update everyone as soon as the meeting is over. I'm drafting my e-mail to the SCGA today.

#83 User is offline   Paulcet 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 29-August 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 06:59 AM

A little late, maybe, but it would be good to get an archaeologist/geocacher's opinion:
http://www.archaeolo...outthissite.htm

The webmaster at archaeologyfieldwork.com is a geocacher.

#84 User is offline   TinSparrow 

  • GPS Killer
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 105
  • Joined: 29-August 02

Posted 13 April 2005 - 07:04 AM

magellan315, on Apr 13 2005, 05:30 AM, said:

The other thing that bothered me was the comment made by the State Archeology office when Swamp Thing called:

Quote

The gentleman I spoke with at the state archaeologist's office stated that nobody in the office had ever heard of geocaching before last week's subcommittee meeting on the issue.
If the State Archelogist had been trying to contact GC.com for a year wouldn't everyone in the office been aware of it. Surely it would have been discussed at staff meetings if caches were in areas that were of concern.

I'm not sure where the archeologists confusion is coming from, or how many people work in the state archaeologists office. I do know that the recognized archaeologist for South Carolina (Dr. Jonathon Leader) is not the gentleman that Swamp Thing spoke with (I have the other name in an email from Swamp Thing).

The second subcommittee meeting has been held and has now let out. I will post my court report like observations on this meeting later today, after I get caught up on some tasks pertaining to my paying job.

As always, thanks to everyone for your interest and support in this matter.

#85 User is offline   StarBrand 

  • StarBrand - WNAG.NET
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 18633
  • Joined: 30-January 02

Posted 13 April 2005 - 07:12 AM

Those Pictures are "evidence" of disrespect !!?????!!

Seems like you can take anything and twist it to your own interpretation. Somewhere I think I have a shot or 2 of me smiling and leaning againist a semi-historic grave marker........

As noted before....Teens regularly go out to graveyards to goof around. Ghost stories, hide and Seek etc. Where is the law to ban teens from cemetaries??

Again - let me encourage you to put together your own posterboards - say at about a 2 to 1 ratio. Also use thier poster boards and put a different "spin" on things. They certainly were effective in using "spin" at the first meeting.

#86 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 08:51 AM

So, what is the lastest news from the meeting today? Has anyone heard anything?

#87 User is offline   Paulcet 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 29-August 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 08:57 AM

Just waiting for TS to get his paying job taken care of before giving his report!

#88 User is offline   Greymane 

  • Geocacher
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 563
  • Joined: 14-September 03

Posted 13 April 2005 - 09:51 AM

Well, maybe this would be of interest to you all.

This is NOT the work of cachers!

I don't think there is any reason to hide on/under/behind tomb stones, but beyond that, I see no problem with this.

#89 User is offline   jamrasc 

  • Their Coming To Take Me Away....
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 462
  • Joined: 02-August 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 10:07 AM

OMG...those first 2 pics from Where's Yo Momma are mine. The first one is the remnants of the old church that used to be there and the second one is the monument that was erected at the site. WTH, there is nothing wrong with those picutures. We didn't disturb anything. We walked around looking at all the history and reading what was available to read. It was actually really sad because there isn't any type of historical marker there and it isn't taking care of at all.

My mom was even there with us and she is not a cacher and she took a lot of pictures that day. I don't get it, now I am ticked off bad, I need my prozac. :rolleyes:

#90 User is offline   Deliveryguy428 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 1457
  • Joined: 02-May 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 10:07 AM

I know that TS will provide a full in-depth account of what happened today. I am VERY curious to see what led to one of the bill supporters asking to be removed from the bill

#91 User is offline   Prairie Dog 

  • Cynomys ludovicianus
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 288
  • Joined: 08-January 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 10:17 AM

jamrasc, on Apr 13 2005, 01:07 PM, said:

OMG...those first 2 pics from Where's Yo Momma are mine.

Don't worry about it. Two of my caches (logs and photos) were mentioned.

#92 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20515
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 13 April 2005 - 10:27 AM

What a bunch of benign pics. It looks like a bunch of people having good clean fun.

The pic of people leaning on the markers didn't bug me too much. The markers looked solid. I doubt that the shoulder of a teenaged girl is going to bring it down.

This post has been edited by sbell111: 13 April 2005 - 10:31 AM


#93 User is offline   Jennifer&Dean 

  • Mostly Harmless...
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 868
  • Joined: 31-July 01

Posted 13 April 2005 - 10:28 AM

Greymane, on Apr 13 2005, 09:51 AM, said:

Well, maybe this would be of interest to you all.

This is NOT the work of cachers!

I don't think there is any reason to hide on/under/behind tomb stones, but beyond that, I see no problem with this.

What a great link Greymane! I think that the preservation group has some good ideas about how to help preserve graveyards.
Actions we can all take to help
As a child I often wandered the woods near our home. My uncle and grandfather had instilled in me a love of geneology and graveyards. During my wanders I found a small abandoned cemetery, the graves were of slaves who lived on the plantation before it was subdivided. About 10 years ago a developer removed the stones and built a house nearby as part of a large new subdivision. It happened during my first year of college, I came home to find the site gone.
Someone has to watch these places and make certain that they are noticed and kept available to the public. Geocachers are just as good as other folks at watching for signs of upcoming construction. Why not partner with a group like this as additional watchers and location users for endangered cemeteries? Just a thought.
I have been watching this as it reminds me of my years in Virginia where we would play in the cemetery and make up stories about the slaves and their lives. Now noone will ever know about them and their history. Don't let these old cemeteries disappear! If geocachers visiting these cemeteries make enough additional traffic that folks notice that people use the cemetery, then they will be less inclined to ignore the area and let developers remove them or counties declare them abandoned.
-J

#94 User is offline   briansnat 

  • Eight time US Geocacher of the Year
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 38087
  • Joined: 14-September 01

Posted 13 April 2005 - 10:34 AM

Quote

Someone has to watch these places and make certain that they are noticed and kept available to the public. Geocachers are just as good as other folks at watching for signs of upcoming construction. Why not partner with a group like this as additional watchers and location users for endangered cemeteries? Just a thought.
I have been watching this as it reminds me of my years in Virginia where we would play in the cemetery and make up stories about the slaves and their lives. Now noone will ever know about them and their history. Don't let these old cemeteries disappear! If geocachers visiting these cemeteries make enough additional traffic that folks notice that people use the cemetery, then they will be less inclined to ignore the area and let developers remove them or counties declare them abandoned.


This is a key point. Many of these cemeteries will be lost because there is nobody to give a rat's patootie. Geocaching is one way to make people aware of them and create a new generation of advocates for these sites.

#95 User is offline   Renegade Knight 

  • Illegitimi Non Carborundum
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 24762
  • Joined: 16-January 02

Posted 13 April 2005 - 10:37 AM

Greymane, on Apr 13 2005, 10:51 AM, said:

Well, maybe this would be of interest to you all.

This is NOT the work of cachers!

I don't think there is any reason to hide on/under/behind tomb stones, but beyond that, I see no problem with this.


Another ally in this fight.

#96 User is offline   NetWatcher 

  • Tadpole
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3
  • Joined: 26-July 02

Posted 13 April 2005 - 10:42 AM

Let's look at the new item (2) in the bill:

"'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache."

That tends to make me think that if you get any coordinates off the internet (say from map quest or somewhere of the like), and go out using you GPS, you could be prosecuted.

I wonder how many hikers / bikers / explorers / climbers will be wrongfully prosecuted under this section of the bill?

I wonder if the representatives that support this bill (who undoubtedly have a GPS in their nice new cars) realize that they could be turning themselves into criminals? This is quite dangerous language.

It's really quite a shame.

I also like section (E):

"The provisions of this section do not preclude a person from being charged with a violation of Section 16-17-600 in addition to a violation of this section."

Not only are they agreeing that certain Geocaching practices (namely those they've taken issue with) constitute tresspassing, they're saying that not only will you be charged with the crime of Geocaching, you'll be charged with the crime of tresspassing TOO!!!

I do hope all Geocachers in SC rally at the polls this year, and take those responsible for this bill out of office.

This post has been edited by NetWatcher: 13 April 2005 - 01:29 PM


#97 User is offline   Baruba Juba 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 12-November 03

Posted 13 April 2005 - 02:17 PM

Kick the Bucket X (GCKGRH)

[In addition to any offending logs and pictures, the sponsors of this legislation also took offense to the name of this series of cemetery in and around the Columbia area.]

Photo in question: We arrived at this cache RIGHT at sunset. It was just getting dark. We noticed the sign that said "cemetery closes at sunset". The groundskeeper left the gate open for us and let us hunt. He was busy talking with someone...a passerby perhaps, so he didn't mind our hunt. He watched everything we did. If we were being offensive we had no idea. We certainly wouldn't have posed with the OH SO STURDY and original tombstone if we knew we were dishonoring anyone....ESPECIALLY NOT in the sight of the groundskeeper. We ended our hunt and he locked the gate behind us. AND WHAT OF THE HOMELESS GUY THAT WAS SLEEPING ON THE GRAVESTONE IN THE CEMETERY!!!!!!? I would deduce that his crimes were FAR MORE OFFENSIVE THAN OUR mere tribute to a beautiful work of mortuary art.

Also, I must note, there were busted beer bottles along the side of the cemetery that faces the street. I would assume that they were from passing motorists or other homeless folks that dwell in the area. But, I suppose my point is moot. We had a GPS so that must have made US the violators.

And I just thought I was taking some teenagers from our church group out for an interesting evening of fellowship and history. I guess this makes me a terrible person in someone's eyes.

My utmost and sincere appologies.

#98 User is offline   Baruba Juba 

  • Premium Member
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 12-November 03

Posted 13 April 2005 - 02:26 PM

Photo in question of 4 people holding flashlights to their faces - That photo was taken at our home AFTER we got back from an evening of geocaching downtown and dining at Keg of Nails. That photo wasn't EVEN taken in a cemetery. I don't understand problem with this. I feel like I am being condemned for posting an innocent photo on a geocache page. It seems that people are jumping to conclusions without even getting the facts.

Baruba Juba

#99 User is offline   sTeamTraen 

  • Geocachers in Alsace, France
  • Group: +Premium Members
  • Posts: 4013
  • Joined: 15-February 04

Posted 13 April 2005 - 02:33 PM

I think the fact that objections are being made to the name of the "Kick the Bucket" series, may be a clue as to where "they" are coming from. It might well look to some people as if the sport is encouraging yahoos. Imagine a Beavis and Butt-Head style "dialogue"... "huh-huh, yeah dude, he like, totally, kicked the bucket" / "yeah-yeah, snigger, he bought the farm". You could probably work "money shot" in there too.

One possible line of counter-attack that occurs to me is to find out exactly why they are suggesting that geocachers - who for the most part, if we're honest, know at least one or two people who think we are total nerds, if only for our hobby - are more likely than anyone else to damage a graveyard to which there is a right of public access. Because if all they want us (*) to do is to stop behaving like dorks, doesn't the First Amendment have something to say about that ? My guess is that if they can't show that material damage (vandalism, but possibly also erosion of paths, trampled floral tributes) is "probable", that anything more tenuous is likely to get thrown out by the courts. (Note: I am not a lawyer. And I never abbreviate that in a family-friendly forum.)



(*) Please excuse this use of the word "us", I'm in Europe lecturing you guys about your constitution, I'm just trying to speak as a sympathetic fellow cacher. :rolleyes:

#100 User is offline   sbell111 

  • Charter Member
  • Group: +Charter Members
  • Posts: 20515
  • Joined: 04-June 01

Posted 13 April 2005 - 02:34 PM

NetWatcher, on Apr 13 2005, 10:42 AM, said:

Let's look at the new item (2) in the bill:

"'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache."

That tends to make me think that if you get any coordinates off the internet (say from map quest or somewhere of the like), and go out using you GPS, you could be prosecuted....

Reread the verbiage. It clearly defines geocaching as the hiding of the container, not the act of looking for or finding the container. Searching for a geocache would not be illegal as this bill is currently written.

Share this topic:


  • (28 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • This topic is locked