[Az-Geocaching] Mo' bettah caches!

[Ed Peach]

Maybe if we don't like the rules of gc.com than we should go post our
caches on that "other" site, Navicache.  All I can say is that it  was
a lot more fun to cache say 3 plus years ago when caches had meaning
and decent location.

EPeach


On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 01:11:24 -0800 (PST), Gale
<sonoralovesmommy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> See now this is what bugs us. We are penalized in this state because of what
> may happen in other states. This is why some think we need to have local
> control rather than one global place with sole control. I realize gc.com is
> looking out for everyone's best interest, by restricting things for us here,
> to avoid offending land managers in other states. 
> 
> Artemis Approver <artemis.approver at gmail.com> wrote: 
> ....it is not the land manager of that park that groundspeak is concerned
> with. It is
> the land managers of other parks who look at cache placements when
> deciding if they should allow any more in there area.
> 
> It is the land manager in Nebraska who has decided after seeing
> certain areas in California that the best way to avoid the same is to
> ban all caches from Nebraska. ... And I quote "Geocaches may not be
> placed in the Pioneers Park Nature Center in the western portion of
> Pioneers Park, the Sunken Gardens, ot the Antelope Park Rose Garden
> due to the sensetive nature of the landscape in these areas."
> 
> So as I explained to graldrich and received a nice 'that was a great
> explaination' email from him. Groundspeak made the guidelines to
> protect its interests in ALL areas that people cache.
> 
> Just as people from Oregon and NY come cache and leave caches here,
> the land managers of other places will check on other states.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 21:53:05 -0700, Bill Tomlinson
> wrote:
> > I don't want to beat a dead horse (or a live one for that matter), but
> > it seems I'm completely lost. I'm reading two objections, but can't
> > understand either. First, you say that it is a matter of saturation,
> > but as I read Graldrich's listing, he noted somewhere between .20 and
> > .33 but when I look at the guidelines posted at geocaching.com, it says
> > that caches must be placed at least .10 apart. If the guidelines have
> > changes, they should be posted. Second, you mention the possibility of
> > land managers getting upset, but graldrich said he would obtain
> > management approval before placement (as we always should). Seems to me
> > they aren't going to get too upset if he does something they approve of.
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv at 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
> 
> 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking 
>   
> Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes
>   On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:
> "Something hidden.  Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --
>   "Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!" 
>  
>   
>  
> Rudyard Kipling ,   The Explorer  1898
> 
>  ________________________________
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
>  Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv at 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
> 
> 
>