*sigh*  I never thought that creating a locationless cache would be 
controversial.  Excuse the rant, but if somebody on this list has some 
constructive input, I'd appreciate it.  I'm frustrated by this, and half need 
to vent and half need to hear that I didn't screw up.

As I reported here, a few days ago I created the "I Love LA..." locationless 
cache (waypoint GC5536).  I spent some time creating the cache description, 
in the hopes that it would be plain what it was I was looking for.  

Since creating the cache, I've gotten a number of E-mails asking if 
such-and-such location was OK.  That's fine, except the vast majority of them 
haven't been.  People have been asking me if everything from an OJ Simpson 
reference to a local McMahan's furniture store would make appropriate logs.  
I've patiently answered these E-mails, and later provided a further 
clarification of what I was looking for in the log area of the cache's page.

This morning, I get a mildly worded flame from someone who had apparently 
spent some time planning a trip somewhere to capture a picture of a theatre 
that bears the same name as a landmark theatre in Los Angeles, and was 
apparently upset because in my clarification I imply that his potential log 
that he spent so much time working on was invalidated by my clarification.

I'm frustrated, because had he just gone out and taken the picture, logged 
it, and written up a good explanation, I would have allowed it.  The theatre 
in question (in LA) is a landmark.. it's even marked on the Thomas Guide map. 
 
Is this the kind of crud others have gone through when creating a 
locationless cache?  Was I too vague in my initial description?  Are people 
just stupid?

Again, criticism (constructive, please) is desired...

-Feedle