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 <mailto:geocaching@deepsouthwest.com>
>> To: listserv@azgeocaching.com <mailto: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
>
>
(text/plain)