Ya I see a lot of places that say privet property ad i will be willing to bet the permission was not obtained. There is a lot of places we will not go to now days . because of the placing and or lack of safe parking. -- Patrick Brown PANDA77 N7FHB Check out http://forsale.wickenburg.net/ http://www.geocaching.com/ http://www.azgeocaching.com/ http://users.w3az.net/panda77/ http://www.robsonsminingworld.com/ AZcachemeister wrote: > Actually the original gist was about caches hidden on private > property, whether micro, large or in between. > In Arizona, the tendency seems to be for the caches hidden in > questionable area to be micros. > Many cachers seem to have the idea that areas with public access are > perfectly fine for caching, without permission from the property owner. > I'm sure the lack of time or effort invested (at both ends!) is what > makes the parking-lot lamp-skirt micro so popular. > The secondary issue is how to tactfully let the placers of these > caches know that these types of caches are really not so wonderful, > and that if permission was not sought and received, they are dangerous > to the seekers, and the activity in general. > > Tim Gunderson wrote: > >> I disagree. Number of finds doesn't necessarily indicate popularity. >> It probably indicates accessability and ease of finding. It is much >> easier to run out at 7 pm and nab a few micros hidden around town >> (especially in a large city) than to venture out of town and hike >> 0.25 miles or more to a cache. >> >> By the same token, it is much easier to place a few mindless micros >> which require little gear, little investment, and little thought, >> than hiding a box of swag off the beaten path. I have found and >> hidden both types. >> >> Remember that the original idea in this thread, as I interpret it, >> was about micros that are not thought out or hidden well. A well >> thought out and well hidden micro can be challenging. I do think you >> miss the point of "popular". If cachers were asked to list their top >> 5 caches I doubt if many urban micros would show up on the list. >> tgundy >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: noshdoo tsoh >> To: listserv@azgeocaching.com >> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 10:33 PM >> Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Only an altoids tin!! >> >> "Trust me, just because there are more micros than rural caches, >> doesn't mean they're more POPULAR." >> >> >> >> It's not the number of caches that makes them popular, but the >> number of finds on each cache. The fact that they are found at a >> rate exponentially higher than other caches does indicate >> popularity. Or am I missing the definition of 'popular'? Back it >> up with numbers? ;-) >> >> >> >> "We're trying to encourage good micros and urban caches and >> discourage the placement of bad ones." >> >> >> >> A noble cause, indeed. Can I see you're scientific study on what >> is good and what is bad? You are the decider? Oh, that's right, >> trust you. >> >> >> >> Back to you're regularly scheduled rant... >> >> >> >> >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com >>To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit: >>http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching >> >>Arizona's Geocaching Resource >>http://www.azgeocaching.com >> >> >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >____________________________________________________________ >Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com >To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit: >http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching > >Arizona's Geocaching Resource >http://www.azgeocaching.com > >