Sorry, wrong answer.
Regan Smith wrote:
>
> GC3807
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* az-geocaching-bounces@listserv.azgeocaching.com
> [mailto:az-geocaching-bounces@listserv.azgeocaching.com] *On Behalf Of
> *AZcachemeister
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:04 PM
> *To:* listserv@azgeocaching.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Az-Geocaching] Cache database
>
>
>
> HA!
> Here ya go George, all you have to do is fill the container, hide it,
> and submit the page.
>
> *The cache is not at the listed co-ordinates.
> The cache is at the same location as the 384th cache hidden in
> Arizona, which is now archived.
> That cache was archived on 5/27/2004.
> Good luck!*
>
> If you don't do it.....
>
>
>
> George Harris wrote:
>
> The comical part is that GC lets the cachers do all the work,
> including populating the online database, and then holds that
> information proprietary, and sells the output of a search script back
> to the cachers who did all the work. Well, that and the untrimmed
> full text of the user agreement shot to everyone's inbox.
>
>
>
> Personally, I would use a list of 2000+ names to create a devious
> puzzle cache and put some expensive electronic gear in it to make
> people beat their brains out trying to solve it. But that's me.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* ShadowAce <mailto:shadowace.az@gmail.com>
>
> *To:* listserv@azgeocaching.com <mailto:listserv@azgeocaching.com>
>
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 12, 2007 9:22 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Az-Geocaching] Cache database
>
>
>
> I cannot answer that question, nor would I attempt to make a
> guess. I am interested on how a list of 2000+ names would be of
> any use, as the Names are not searchable for archived caches.
> Which means your then asking for the 2000+ GC numbers (without the
> names? or with? Cause now your getting to the information in a
> .LOC file which you also are not supposed to share.)
>
> I would be real interested to see who, mostly new cachers, goes
> through the entire list of 2000+ archived caches in Arizona to
> read the 'history' when they have no information about the
> location of the cache to begin with.
>
> You do what you have to do, I was simply stating I thought
> someone should let the new cachers know that sharing that dataset
> is a violation of the usage agreement and anything done beyond
> that is up to whomever.
>
> Discussing it (ways to get around the terms of service agreement)
> on a multi state forum is the comical part of all this. :-)
>
> -Dirk
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com <mailto: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
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/897 - Release Date:
> 7/11/2007 9:57 PM
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.4/897 - Release Date:
> 7/11/2007 9:57 PM
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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)