Well said and right on target. Cachers need to exercise a little discretion and common sense, but if the reviewers don't enforce the existing standards the entire hobby will suffer.
----- Original Message ---- From: Randy A. Hefner To: gpsstash@yahoogroup s.com Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 9:27:33 AM Subject: Re: [GPSstash] Suspicious pipe part of online treasure hunt
Groundspeak seems to have an indifference to this type of behavior. I have a personal experience to share.
I live in Newton, NC, USA. A new Groundspeak geocache popped up on my email account. It was within a few miles of my home.
I looked at the map and what I saw concerned me. It looked like it was placed under a bridge on a major highway! It was not an interstate highway, but it was a heavily used STATE highway...Highway 70 in North Carolina.
I confirmed that the cache was hidden under the bridge! I contacted my local reviewer and expressed my concerns that the activity around and under the bridge might draw bad press for Groundspeak. I quoted the rules/guidelines stating that caches should not be placed on or near bridges.
The response from the reviewer surprised me! He seemed angry that I quoted the rules and said he knows it is under the bridge and after talking with the "owner", he felt it was fine as placed.
I found this just unbelievable! Groundspeak seems to be divorcing itself "legally" from the caches to the extent that it will draw the bad press it doesn't want!
Why any geocacher would use any item that may resemble a bomb (i.e. pipes, electronics, packages near structures like bridges) just baffles me. In the state of awareness everyone is in concerning terrorism, it just begs for trouble to place such geocaches.
I used to use ammo cans. I always painted over the "military markings". I have stopped using them. In the deep woods, they would be fine, but I have started using Lock-N-Locks. They don't appear as "dangerous" as an ammo can.
In urban hides, I typically use micros. Anything else might draw unwanted attention.
To sum it up, Groundspeak seems to be suffering from multiple personalities. They, on one hand, want to post rules controlling almost every aspect of geocaching (obviously an attempt to insulate themselves from lawsuits). On the other, they go out of their way to NOT enforce those rules!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]