Within the past few minutes finished a review of the cache placing
information provided by Ground speak. First, the information seems
straight forward and well presented. The discussion of virtual and
the reluctance of approvers to grant them tweaked my interest. I
found nothing there indicating a reluctance toward virtual,
nevertheless find the trend of postings mentioning virtual somewhat
alarming and it leaves me wondering.
As sometimes tourists, quite often we find ourselves in surroundings
where the only thing familiar is the map. That's how we got into
this game to begin with. We've learned that a check of virtual
listed in the area is perhaps the most rapid way to become familiar
with our surroundings. Plus, it adds a whole new dimension to
tourism, without mentioning the economical advantages. A good
example is the area surrounding Acadia NP in Maine where there is
hardly a single overlook or historical point not represented by a
visual- great stuff! Similarly, we have the Superstitions in the
east Valley rift with legends, overlooks, hikes and sites of
geological and photographic interests that can only be exploited by
virtual.
Side issue: Over a wonderful lifetime have become wary of special
interest groups who tend to create needs for regulations and
organizations to establish boundaries. This same wariness is
multiplied once regulators assert themselves. Yet, it's unfortunate
that even a brief conversation with a park ranger, or public lands
administrator out here reveals an incredible level of hostility
toward geocaching in general. Why? Are we unwittingly creating
our own suicide by getting too obvious or aggressive? After all,
the whole activity is based upon stealth or is that the problem to
begin with?
Cord Harris: Team Doublebogie6
Rant terminated, Low Batteries!
(text/plain)